Abu Hanifa and Some Atheists - Debate Thread.

[Pygoscelis]

What you think is good and evil may not be correct. Only Allah, who is free from bias, can tell us.

A guy may see a lost child with a wallet in their hands and think of nothing except helping him.

Another guy may only focus on the wallet.

If you think the second guy is bad.... who the hek are you to tell us what good or bad is? It is all relative. The second is being more good to himself than the child. Vice versa for the first.

Social custom and empathy are the bases of "morality". While it is true that the former varies widely from place to place (especially once you throw religion into the mix), the latter is pretty consistent.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Social custom and empathy are the bases of "morality". While it is true that the former varies widely from place to place (especially once you throw religion into the mix), the latter is pretty consistent.

Where is your evidence to back up this high claim of universal empathy. Everytime someone says somethign like this, I feel as if you think we are machines.

As if we are involuntarily supposed to be empathetic. It's really strange coming from atheists who pride themselves on "freethinking." I have seen plenty of people who have "thought" and have decided that being selfish is the way to go. Many of them have prospered too.

So please. I can think. I can choose. I may or may not choose to be empathetic/sympathetic/a jerk. And you ppl saying "oh but it is evolved as a safety for our species/naturally empathetic/whatever is as convincing as the guy you atheists hate who espouses blind faith.

 

[Pygoscelis]

As if we are involuntarily supposed to be empathetic.

Look up "mirror neurons" and you can view some research for yourself. We are hard wired to feel the pain of others who are like ourselves. You can also look up the psych experiments showing this effect of self-identifying with others.

Empathy is seeing yourself in others and relating to them. It is shown in many animals and in humans as well. Its isn't all good. It contributes immensely to tribalism, ingroup/outgroup bias, hate of the "other", racism, etc. But it is also what leads to compassion for our fellow man (and moreso towards our family or ingroup). There is a lot of research on this and a quick google should turn up a bunch of it for you.

I have seen plenty of people who have "thought" and have decided that being selfish is the way to go. Many of them have prospered too.

And have you noticed that they tend to isolate themselves from their victims? Have you noticed them depersonalizing things and demonizing their victims, and empasizing the differences between their victims and themselves? Be it via race, culture, religion, or any other ingroup/outgroup attachments?

Of course you WILL find those who suffer from the disorder of feeling no empathy at all, we call them sociopaths. They are very much the exception to the rule.

Empathy doesn't take you over like a robot, no. But it is there. And it is why we inherently feel some things are right and wrong (aside from our cultural influences). Cultural, religious, and other social programming can bury one's sense of empathy but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I have sometimes run into religious people who wonder why atheists do not go raping and murdering when nobody is watching them. They seem to think that the reward/punishment dynamic their religion sets up is the ONLY thing that keeps them from being horrible people. Such people have burried their sense of empathy so deep that they don't recognize its there anymore. But it is usually indeed there, as can be seen with apostates who once losing faith still lead pretty moral lives. We know the basics of "right" and "wrong" inherently. We don't need religion or any other ideology to teach it to us.

And you ppl saying "oh but it is evolved as a safety for our species/naturally empathetic/whatever is as convincing as the guy you atheists hate who espouses blind faith.

I agree that this quote of yours is not a proven fact (I am not an evolutionist), but the development of mirror neurons and empathetic sense WOULD have given us an advantage over other pack animals and rival groups of our own species. It does make sense and is an interesting theory. We also do find more empathy in pack animals such as wolves and monkeys than in those who are solitary.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Pygo you did it again. You made us look like machines. Sure we have the capacity to feel empathy, but what about our response? That is certainly not hardwired into us.

Again, I feel like discussions about morality devolve into "oh but we're biologically like that" garbage. God forbid, then, that someone actually tries to find a real reason behind acting "good" and finds nothing except for empty evolutionist trash and appeals to emotion (which I personally find are the two most common atheistic responses).

 

[Pygoscelis]

Pygo you did it again. You made us look like machines. Sure we have the capacity to feel empathy, but what about our response? That is certainly not hardwired into us.

Again, I feel like discussions about morality devolve into "oh but we're biologically like that" garbage. God forbid, then, that someone actually tries to find a real reason behind acting "good" and finds nothing except for empty evolutionist trash and appeals to emotion (which I personally find are the two most common atheistic responses).

We have an inate sense of empathy. We choose how we act on it as you say. But it is there and has been demonstrated scientifically. And its a major component of what we call "moral sense" or "morality".

Finding neurological and/or sociological explanations for morality is certainly more productive than declaring "God Did it" and refusing to look any further.

Edit to add: Us being machines or not goes into a whole other discussion/argument - about if free will exists or is just an illusion. I don't want to confuse these two very different topics.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

I have sometimes run into religious people who wonder why atheists do not go raping and murdering when nobody is watching them. They seem to think that the reward/punishment dynamic their religion sets up is the ONLY thing that keeps them from being horrible people. Such people have burried their sense of empathy so deep that they don't recognize its there anymore. But it is usually indeed there, as can be seen with apostates who once losing faith still lead pretty moral lives. We know the basics of "right" and "wrong" inherently. We don't need religion or any other ideology to teach it to us.

I understand where they are coming from and you will find one of the reasons in your own response. You rely on these ambiguous sources of morality which can be easily overcome by thought. I know it is grim but face the facts. If a man tries to find a reason beyond his biology, you have nothing to give him. You deny destiny, the soul, ultimate justice, guarantee of good overcoming evil, life after death, and that we are anything more than vibrating atoms.

Personally, if man realized the full implications of atheism, noone would ever want it and you will see much evil done because.... it...doesn't... matter.

This is what religious people are suspicious of. If you guys realized what you were actually pretending to believe. If you realized that it just doesn't matter, none of it, nothing. You are nothing and there is nothing beyond you.

If people realized the ultimate implication of atheism and accepted it, society would burn. But thankfully you guys, for the most part, haven't.

 

[Pygoscelis]

The only thing that religion, especially abrahamic religion, adds to morality to create "religious morality" is obedience to power. In fact quite often this obedience is pushed to override our inate sense of empathy. Stories like Abraham and Isaac in the bible show a direct conflict between obedience and morality and obedience is said to be preferred.

 

[Pygoscelis]

You seem to be moving us towards a discussion about materialism and the meaning of life. Interesting topics but I'll wait to comment further, as I don't think we've exhausted what we've already been discussing and others may wish to give their views on it. I'll just say that I am indeed a materialist and I do still find a lot of meaning to life. The meaning of life is to give life meaning.

 

[Clover]

You seem to be moving us towards a discussion about materialism and the meaning of life. Interesting topics but I'll wait to comment further, as I don't think we've exhausted what we've already been discussing and others may wish to give their views on it. I'll just say that I am indeed a materialist and I do still find a lot of meaning to life. The meaning of life is to give life meaning.

lol, if this gets into the meaning of life, I am afraid I will be forced to jump into this bout, lol.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Meaning doesn't have to be assigned from an external source in order to exist.

 

[جوري]

It was Abraham and Ishmael not Issac, nonetheless.. Abraham had things available and manifest unto him that aren't expected or manifested into regular men..

for instance:

(2:60) Behold! Ibrahim said: "My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead." He said: "Dost thou not then believe?" He said: "Yea! but to satisfy my own understanding." He said: "Take four birds; tame them to turn to thee; put a portion of them on every hill, and call to them; they will come to thee, (flying) with speed. Then know that Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise."

[21:69] We said, "O Fire! be thou cool. and (a means of) safety for Ibrahim!"

In other words, Abraham witnessed, endured and experienced events that aren't by your average joe...

If God asked him to sacrifice his son, it wouldn't be too outlandish given other experiences..

certainly God isn't asking us to sacrifice our sons or daughters.. he meant for us an example of patience, love endurance.. and trust that Allah swt would not make us bear more than one can endure..

That is what a theist takes away from such a story.. it is beyond my personal interest what an atheist takes away from it, but I don't like distortion and for that alone is my reply!

all the best

 

[Trumble]

You rely on these ambiguous sources of morality which can be easily overcome by thought.

What 'thought'? The God hypothesis is no more provable or certain than any other, it just has much less evidence in it's favour. Perhaps you mean 'wishful thinking'? The principle wishful thought being that, throughout history, the displayed 'moral' behaviour of theists has been significantly different from that of atheists? It hasn't.

I know it is grim but face the facts. If a man tries to find a reason beyond his biology, you have nothing to give him. You deny destiny, the soul, ultimate justice, guarantee of good overcoming evil, life after death, and that we are anything more than vibrating atoms.

It is theists who refuse to face the 'facts'! There is no 'reason', nor 'destiny', nor 'soul', nor 'guarantee of good overcoming evil'. As a Buddhist, of course, I might differ with other atheists on 'ultimate justice' and (in one way) 'life after death' - not a plus, in our case - but in both instances it is simply a result of the way the universe works, in the same way as an apple falling to the ground if you drop it is a result of the way the universe works. Most atheists can lead full, happy (and no less selfish-centred or altruistic than anybody else) lives in full acceptance, rather than denial, of what all the evidence suggests are facts.

This is what religious people are suspicious of. If you guys realized what you were actually pretending to believe. If you realized that it just doesn't matter, none of it, nothing. You are nothing and there is nothing beyond you.

Nobody is 'pretending' to believe anything, even if opinions differ between those in the same 'camp', as it were. It is a good debate, and there is no justification in attempting to patronize those participating.

If people realized the ultimate implication of atheism and accepted it, society would burn.

Total nonsense. Society could be totally Buddhist for a start, and 'burn' far less than if constituted by assorted bunches of competing theists... as history clearly shows us.

 

[Pygoscelis]

However you dress it up, it is a clear case of of obedience to god vs morality and it demonstrates that the God is more about obedience than morality. If this God/Story was about morality it would have ended with Abraham saying something like "No God, I will not kill my son, for you have taught me to be more moral than that" and god saying he passed the test of if Abraham was good enough to stand up for good to an evil authority figure. Instead it does exactly the opposite.

 

[جوري]

Well yeah, but with that situation there is at least an easy way of explaining it.
I would agree completely, and it seems to me that we jump the gun a little. The way we tend to do things leads us to ask questions such as "why and for what purpose?" before ones like "is there a reason or purpose?".
Not sure I agree, how can you tell me what life is about or if it is about anything at all?
Obviously the pragmatic side of me has to deal with these things day to day; there's obviously conflict between the rational and emotional especially in adverse situations. When sensations and morality come into play there's no question that one feels they have value, but that's not objectively true. "Good" is essentially "whatever Good feels like", and can't really be defined otherwise and doesn't exist outside your thoughts about it.
Again, misuse is a relative concept, there is no purpose to my existence and therefore no proper use or misuse of my time. Also, free is often not the same as comfortable.

When it comes to comfort at least in my experience it's a big factor. Certainly, more is required of you as a theist but that is fine since, as your rightly pointed out, a desire for answers and purpose pervades human thought. Religion gives people a sense of belonging and direction that to believers is worth a good deal of invested time and effort.
For all history we have been filling the holes in our knowledge, discoveries are stumbled upon such as this one and I'm sure someone will do the science necessary to find out why the old model is flawed and the new one works.
Quite true... Theology is the study of things we can't possibly know about, which to me seems less than useful even for those who are interested.

I can fully respect your views, I only wish to comment on the holes being filled by science bit (and I assume you yourself are a man of science) on just how far behind we are!

just today in the wall street journal another mention of a Genetic engineering company shut down, in spite of fantastic strides they have made manufacturing enzymes for such genetic dz as gaucher's disease, some of these vectors were introduced in the ovaries of mice, which along with the synthesis of such enzymes also gave us some viral mice components.. for a purified cultivate, it spelled major disaster & had to be shut down!

You have so much faith in the good that science can do, as does everyone else, and it is my personal belief (that any such progress is another one of God's gifts that he inspires directly unto men) yet still we are practically in the ice age when it comes to some very basic things for our mere survival, let alone the secrets of the universe....

Inspiration I have always felt, is one of those few gifts we are left with that are some what other worldly.. I don't remember the name of the organic chemist (and God knows it has been a while since O chem) but he dreamt the bonds dancing in the resonance structure an intermediate between single and double bonds... which was in fact later proved the case...being gifted or inspired aren't borne of science though they may contribute to it, they are borne of something quite visceral!

Technical science is but one branch in a wonderous world waiting to be discovered.. but it has no meaning only if you choose not to give it meaning!

all the best

 

[جوري]

However you dress it up, it is a clear case of of obedience to god vs morality and it demonstrates that the God is more about obedience than morality. If this God/Story was about morality it would have ended with Abraham saying something like "No God, I will not kill my son, for you have taught me to be more moral than that" and god saying he passed the test of if Abraham was good enough to stand up for good to an evil authority figure. Instead it does exactly the opposite.

There is no dressing, there is only how you choose to interpret it and there is nothing anyone can do to help that..
fact of the matter is he didn't kill his son, and the moral amongst others is having faith that if you live an upstanding life, that you'll be rewarded.. as it turns in the story, even Ishmael was contended with the demand of God!
He didn't drag him against his will!

"Verily! I am going to my Lord. He will guide me! My Lord! Grant me (offspring) from the righteous." SO We gave him the glad tidings of a forbearing boy. And when he (his son) was old enough to walk with him, he said: "O my son! I have seen in a dream that I am slaughtering you (offer you in sacrifice to Allah), so look what do you think!ý" "O my father! Do that which you are commanded InshAllah (if Allah wills), you shall find me of the patient."​

http://www.angelfire.com/on/ummiby1/ishmael.html



Then when they had both submitted themselves to the Will of Allah and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (or on the side of his forehead for slaughtering); and We called out to him: "O Abraham! You have fulfilled the dream (vision!" Verily! Thus do Wereward those who perform good deeds, totally for Allah's sake only. Verily, that indeed was a manifest trial and We ransomed him with a great sacrifice (a ram and We left for him ( a goodly remembrance) among generations (to come) in later times. "Salamun (peace) be upon Abraham!" Thus indeed do We reward the Muhsineen (good doers). Verily, he was one of Our believing slaves. (Ch 37:99-111 Quran)




Indeed you are free to your feelings -- but this is where we part ways on your personal understanding of morality.

Self-measured and appraised morality isn't the standard by which the rest measure theirs .. let alone your explanation of what endowed you with that sense to begin with --empathy is a feeling.. and feelings run the gamut..
It doesn't mean much to simply profess I empathize.. it is meaningless without definition..

all the best

 

[aamirsaab]

The father is always away on business trips while the kid raises himself. The brother keeps telling the kid the father exists, but the kid doesn't believe it. The brother tells him he should believe that the father is going to come back one day or when the father does he will lock the kid up in that basement mentioned above and whip him silly.

You are missing several dynamics; namely that the brother would be telling the other kid to do XYZ (good) and to avoid ABC (bad) - since this was what his final message was to him from their Dad. In which case, the kid would only be told you're gonna get slapped/whipped/put in a basement if you continue performing ABC (bad) and not XYZ (good).

He'd also be told that had done XYZ, when he nexts sees his father, he'll take him to toys 'r' us (It's an example. I'm allowed to spruce it up a bit! ).

But how far does it go?

In terms of length; until you die. Just like how a son would continue loving his parents until he dies.

In terms of action; the concept of Jihad is really what answers this. That is: struggling for the sake of Allah - doesn't have to be physical either; can be mental too. Heck, even living is a jihad.

Practically speaking, this can be further narrowed down to the core 5 pillars of Islam:

Tawheed (belief in the oneness of Allah)
Salat (prayer)
Zakat (charity)
Sawm (fasting)
Hajj (pilgrimage)

The hardest one is probably hajj (mainly due to the costs involved - but you only have to do it once in your lifetime.) or fasting (depends on experience). The other 3 are relatively easy.

What do you muslims think of the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac where God gets Abraham ready and willing to kill his son?

First off; Abraham was a Prophet (the messengers of Allah are always tested in considerably harsher and more unusual ways, to other followers).

Secondly; we as followers of those teachings do NOT have to perform that specific action - all we need to do is understand the concepts; in this case Trust in Allah, Making sacrifices (and you can read as deep into that all you want, entirely up to you) and Belief in His words. And act upon that.

 

[Azy]

I only wish to comment on the holes being filled by science bit on just how far behind we are! ...we are practically in the ice age when it comes to some very basic things for our mere survival, let alone the secrets of the universe....

Technical science is but one branch in a wonderous world waiting to be discovered.. but it has no meaning only if you choose not to give it meaning!

Don't get me wrong, I would totally agree that we're not nearly as accomplished as we'd like to think. A little over 10,000 years since the birth of agriculture and 200 years since the invention of the tin can. Things are progressing at a decent pace though and I can't imagine what will have been achieved or discovered in another 200 years, let alone 10,000.

Science is descriptive and for me technical science is just a means to provide a more accurate description of the things around us.

To Azy
Hi;

Well, I'd have to disagree with you there. To take your example of the cats. According to the theist's point of view, these cats <as many other species> have obviously been designed with the function to reproduce. So their ability to reproduce does not negate that everything complex must come from a design. The design just goes further back, to the first specie in their tree of descent (I believe in evolution of different species, but not in common descent of all existing species). So, although of course this is "from the theist's p.o.v." it still refutes your argument as it shows that your argument is circular.

Hi Steve
The word 'obviously' crops up a little too often in theistic reasoning and generally means a few assumptions have been made. After all, if it was so obvious we wouldn't be having this discussion.

All I'm asking is for you to take a step back and look at the world without assumptions about creation. You see species recreating in numerous different ways, changing slightly with each generation. You see snapshots of previous organisms in the rocks, from simple organisms -> complex organisms. That modern organisms were designed the way they are by some other-worldly power would not be the first thing that came to my mind.

Out of curiosity, how do you mesh the two statements 'cats <as many other species> have obviously been designed' and 'I believe in evolution of different species'?

Just because we have never witnessed it, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened in the past.

No it doesn't, but that wasn't really my point. There are many other explanations that I have no evidence for or experience of, but I'm not just going to pick one out of a hat.

Secondly, as far as I know there is no perfectly reasonable alternative that answers the anthropic principle. The parts of the theory of evolution that are scientific, is only half the answer. It still doesn't account for existence.

I'm not surprised the anthropic principle is popular with theists as any conclusions one might attain from it are impossible to prove or disprove (at present).

That question is un-reasonable. As I explained to Thinker in this post, If our universe is indeed created by a creator, obviously that creator is not part of said universe and is not inside the dimension of time. Thus asking us "at which time" did the creator do this or that makes no sense.

That was exactly my point, and it seems equally unreasonable when applied to the universe.
Causation and creation are essentially temporal; outside of time they don't really have any meaning. Saying that he exists and manipulates events from outside space-time or before time is just wordplay.

I would rather say: "things exist against all odds, therefore something with intent and intelligence must have created them"

Oh... what are the odds?

I don't think so. That is not a scientific explanation. So If any scientists says something like that, he is just expressing his personal believes, and not representing science....
This is all highly speculative, and just one of the thousands of different "semi-scientific" explanations.

It's perfectly scientific and far from being the opinion of one or two people.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Do atheists believe something like reality or the universe (or contents/ laws that govern the Big Bang) exist without a creator? I am sure you are aware of the infinite regression that follows without Allah, the uncreated beginning.

If you ask "where did Allah come from" Id argue that since Allah is metaphysical, things like origin don't apply in that realm. But they sure do in this physical realm.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Do atheists believe something like reality or the universe (or contents/ laws that govern the Big Bang) exist without a creator? I am sure you are aware of the infinite regression that follows without Allah, the uncreated beginning.

Most atheists I personally know, including myself, are simply honest enough to admit that they don't know how or if the universe had a start. I feel no discomfort in not knowing and I feel no need to latch onto or create a story to explain it. Creation myths are just another case of God-of-the-gaps.

If you ask "where did Allah come from" Id argue that since Allah is metaphysical, things like origin don't apply in that realm. But they sure do in this physical realm.

Well sure, you can turn Allah into magic to avoid the application of logic to him, but any non-believer is going to see that as a cop-out.

 

[nocturne]

I have sometimes run into religious people who wonder why atheists do not go raping and murdering when nobody is watching them. They seem to think that the reward/punishment dynamic their religion sets up is the ONLY thing that keeps them from being horrible people. Such people have burried their sense of empathy so deep that they don't recognize its there anymore. But it is usually indeed there, as can be seen with apostates who once losing faith still lead pretty moral lives. We know the basics of "right" and "wrong" inherently. We don't need religion or any other ideology to teach it to us.

This i do not agree with. Morality these days do not originate from our "moral compass". Morality these days are shaped by what is perceived as right by the society. most people do not bad things and do good things because they do not want to looked down by the society.

Just look out how different we are, when we know no one is watching us (of cuz, religious ppl would think, god is watching us all the time), people act differently and do things that they would not normally do in public.

I have only one wish, to be remembered. If I had the assurance that I'd be remembered internationally before I die, I'd die a very happy man. I think I'll die happy either way, if I die in war then at least I was doing something, and if I die old, at least I can say I did my best.

Why should I contemplate it? I think it would be a waste of time. What happens, happens. Who would punish me? My ancestors?

Your point comes across as something interesting, you are not bothered what happens after death but you want to leave behind ur memory in this kind, when you won't be here. How is that beneficial to you?

You are more interested in leaving behind a legacy than taking responsibilities of your actions.