Atheism

[Sabi]

Steve

Is it something along the lines of sufism?

No. Basically Sabi`een are not Sufi, but we do consider Sufi to be Sabi`een. But then Sabis are very tollerant in that respect to all religions and non religions alike. People are either in some level of Sabi`ah Hunafa like me or some level of Sabi`ah Mushrikoon, like the Yezidis for example.

I don't get it, Isn't Allah much more?

What can be more than infinity?

It seems uncalled for to define him as an ether.

Subahanallah, high exaulted be the Lah beyond all they attribute to IT. The Indefineable.

Because by any ability, charesteristic that you asign to Allah you deny Allah the oppposite of IT. (well not physicly deny him, but deny the image you form.)

:rollseyes I am sorry, I have never come accross this rule before. All I can respond is that it is impossible for me to ascribe to IT a physical image. Nothing is comparable to IT, and do do so would possibly lead me away from pure Tawheed. I believe Al-Lah is all encompassing all seing all hearing etc. but I do not pretend to understand how.

Let me try to give an example of what I meant. If one would say Allah has eyes that see, then they would imply that Allah only sees as humans do, and not IR, UV, and so on.

:? Allah (SWT) is The All Seeing.

So even if it seems good to atribute a certain charesteristic to Allah, we always need to be carefull because by doing so we might not do him justice.

Indeed! Nothing is comparable to IT, far removed be AlLah beyond all they attribute to IT.

I hope that explains why I said this could be considered blasphemy

I thought I was the first one to bring up that concern :?

:brother:

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Steve
No. Basically Sabi`een are not Sufi, but we do consider Sufi to be Sabi`een. But then Sabis are very tollerant in that respect to all religions and non religions alike. People are either in some level of Sabi`ah Hunafa like me or some level of Sabi`ah Mushrikoon, like the Yezidis for example.

Ok that explains some of it.

What can be more than infinity?

Well look at an x/y-graph where x has infinite values but y is always 0. NOw out of a whole plane in which the graph is, the infinite values of x only give a single line. Infinite is the highest amount, but when you confine infinite to something specific (like masseless space, an ether) you also limitate.

:rollseyes I am sorry, I have never come accross this rule before. All I can respond is that it is impossible for me to ascribe to IT a physical image. Nothing is comparable to IT, and do do so would possibly lead me away from pure Tawheed. I believe Al-Lah is all encompassing all seing all hearing etc. but I do not pretend to understand how.

Well it's not a rule, more like a general thought, in fact you described it yourself what I wanted to explain: Nothing is comparable to IT, and do do so would possibly lead me away from pure Tawheed.

We don't know if Allah is masseless space, so to call him as such ..?
(correction, I don't know; perhaps you are basing this view on something, in which case I ask that my ignorance may be forgiven )

:? Allah (SWT) is The All Seeing.

Yes I know, I merely brought it up as an example to show how apointing a charesteristic, even though it looks ok to some people, limitates at the same time.

Indeed! Nothing is comparable to IT, far removed be AlLah beyond all they attribute to IT.

It seems our views aren't that far away from each other after all.

thought I was the first one to bring up that concern :?

:brother:

I guess we're talking next to one another. But perhaps we should continue this discusion in another thread before moderaters point out we're getting of topic?

 

[Sabi]

We don't know if Allah is masseless space, so to call him as such ..?
(correction, I don't know; perhaps you are basing this view on something, in which case I ask that my ignorance may be forgiven )

No appologies necessary brother. We are all each of us on a continual learning curve.

So it seems that you, me and root all agree on something. Yet that thing still eludes definition. I think that is is just beautiful. As long as we can all get along.

Still curious to know what other Atheists think about this? I heard someone once say that Atheists are half-way in Shahadah, but for two words because they say "There is no god".

:brother:

 

[root]

Actually It doesn't matter which one was slowed down or which one speed up. The point is that they had a difrent amount of time relative to one another. See teh thing with "relativity" is that time is "relative". So it al depends on which way you look at it. So words as "slow" and "fast" have little meaning, since they require a standard referance point, which you don't have in relativity. What does matters is that the clock who traveled advanced lesser units in time then the stationary one.

I am not up for a debate on "Time" since this thread I don't think is the place. I would just urge caution when we speak about what time actually is and represents. In the universe we observe time as a motion, there is no other evidence of time. With clocks we measure duration of motion. On the base we measure it time can be defined as time = motion. The process of experiencing of motion (physical time) is following:

motion......perception(eyes)......elaboration(mind -time frame)......experience(observer)

We experience motion (physical time) into "mind-time frame" that is psychological time. We have to distinguish between A, B and C:

A- motion (physical time)
B- mind-time frame (psychological time)
C- space-time (mathematical model that describes motion into space)

I also looked into wether the clocks speeded up or slowed down, I could not find it. However, I did find that orbiting sattelites routinely have to have their clock adjusted with Earth time as they do speed up whilst maintaining orbit.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Still curious to know what other Atheists think about this? I heard someone once say that Atheists are half-way in Shahadah, but for two words because they say "There is no god".

I'd like to offer an opinion, but there seem to be several discussions going on here. What exactly is it you'd like to invite comments on?

Peace

 

[Woodrow]

Greetings,


I'd like to offer an opinion, but there seem to be several discussions going on here. What exactly is it you'd like to invite comments on?

Peace

Asalaamu alaikum czgibson,

I have to agree with your observation. I have lost track of how many seperate conversations that are taking place. Also it is interesting to notice how many different disciplines are trying to be integrated into one thread.

Science:
Biology
Physics
Astronomy

Philosophy:
Theology
Ethics
Belief systems

Linguistics:
Languages
Definitions
Critical Analysis


I think I am getting confused.

 

[catmando]

I have long ago ceased debating with believers the existence of the god or gods they believe in. When the god or gods being discussed come down to Earth and show themselves I will be convinced. Until then, though...

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I am not up for a debate on "Time" since this thread I don't think is the place. I would just urge caution when we speak about what time actually is and represents. In the universe we observe time as a motion, there is no other evidence of time. With clocks we measure duration of motion. On the base we measure it time can be defined as time = motion. The process of experiencing of motion (physical time) is following:

motion......perception(eyes)......elaboration(mind -time frame)......experience(observer)

We experience motion (physical time) into "mind-time frame" that is psychological time. We have to distinguish between A, B and C:

A- motion (physical time)
B- mind-time frame (psychological time)
C- space-time (mathematical model that describes motion into space)

There needs to be made a distinction indeed. But only between measurable time (that the clocks indicate) and percievable time (dependant on the speed of your brain, the speed of your neurotransmitting, etc... ). percievable time is very measurable in measurable time, but not the oher way around. In your 3 points, A-motion, and C-space-time are refering to the same thing. Motion of objects, there speed is "distance traveled" over time. So is dependant on Space time. So that "A-motion(physical time)" is enwoven within C-space-time(mathematical model that describes motion into space)

I also looked into wether the clocks speeded up or slowed down, I could not find it. However, I did find that orbiting sattelites routinely have to have their clock adjusted with Earth time as they do speed up whilst maintaining orbit.

Well the traveling clock will advance in time relativly to the stationary clock. Think of the apes were a rocket travels in time by going lightspeed-fast. The rocket only passes a small amount of time (the astraunouts aged, but only a lil' bit) whereas the earth passed a whole lot more time (and eventually even got inhabited by apes). However this is of course relative. Its like if I would ask, when I walk teh street, do I move forewards along the surface of the earth or does teh earth move backwards underneath my feet? In relative terms, both are possible. Same could be said about time. So did the earth speed up by being stationary, or did teh rocket speed down by being in movement? or did teh fabric of time get compressed by the movement of teh rocket? We' don't know. If CERN would be able to detect a graviton, that might answer some questions.

 

[Skillganon]

Here's is a quote from Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist.

Theist might find this interesting:

"Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Here's is a quote from Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist.

Theist might find this interesting:

"Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."

I think that's quite narowminded. Our minds are so used to the dependancy of time that it seems crazy to suggest that whatever cause of our universe (and the time dimension that was created along with itwith it) would be by itself independant of any time. So crazy that Hugh Ross suggests the existance of a deeper time dimension. We are so used of thinking in terms of present, past and future that it seems imposible for anything to act independant of such (apearently universal) concepts. For anything to occur in a timeless frame.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I have long ago ceased debating with believers the existence of the god or gods they believe in. When the god or gods being discussed come down to Earth and show themselves I will be convinced. Until then, though...

In otherwords you claim to be unable to believe. (believe by defenition, is accepting without proof)

Yet in the same time you label yourself as atheist. So that means you accept there is no god without having any proof of that! Unless you are actually an agnostiast rather then an atheist.

An atheist once told me: Atheism isn't a form of believe. We start from nothing. And we look around, and religion fails to convine us, so in the end we have no faith. Not out of convintion, but out of lack of a good alternative.

See what he failed to realise is, that his starting point was biased. How can you expect to end up with something, when you start from nothing? And when everywhere along teh road that something comes up, you go back to that place of nothingness? And I was a convinced atheists for years (with convinced I mean, I wasn't atheistic out of lazyness or lack of an alternative but out of convintion, out of argument, out of believe). So I've seen your side of the argument. And I can tell you in all honesty, neither paradigm has any argument or proof to their advantage. There's to much unexplored terrain for both sides of the argument to run circles in. At the end of teh day, it all coems down to willingness and personal expieriance. So yes, atheism is a form of believe. And you believe there is no God because you activly refuse to accept God without any proof of it.

 

[Joe98]

And you believe there is no God because you activly refuseto accept God without any proof of it.

And you believe in god without proof.

Ultimately I don't care what you believe except when that belief leads to hurt against me. Then I take notice.

"hurt" can be defined in many ways.

-

 

[Skillganon]

Well, I thought he was saying what ever is the cause of the universe (god) must be independent or must be seperate from the time dimension of the universe.
For time dimension must be relative to the beginning of the universe (hence from it's beginning time existed for us) for an entity to exist, time is not the same the way it is to us, as the way it is to this entity. The entity must exist outside this time-dimension and hence outside this universe.

quote "It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."

 

[Abdul Fattah]

And you believe in god without proof.

Ye of course, like I said, neither side of the debate has any proof or argument in favour. In the end it all comes down to preferance, willpower, personal expierance...

Ultimately I don't care what you believe except when that belief leads to hurt against me. Then I take notice.

"hurt" can be defined in many ways.

Then I guess that is the only difrence between us. You are discussing faith here to prevent us from hurting yourself, whereas we are discussing faith here to prevent you from hurting yourself.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Well, I thought he was saying what ever is the cause of the universe (god) must be independent or must be seperate from the time dimension of the universe.
For time dimension must be relative to the beginning of the universe (hence from it's beginning time existed for us) for an entity to exist, time is not the same the way it is to us, as the way it is to this entity. The entity must exist outside this time-dimension and hence outside this universe.

quote "It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."

Yes I completely agree with that. The part where I object to, is that he also suggested there is a difrent time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. There is absolutely no indication that such a thing exists, let alone a reason to assume it does. So by ockhams razor, it does not exist.

 

[Skillganon]

Yes I completely agree with that. The part where I object to, is that he also suggested there is a difrent time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. There is absolutely no indication that such a thing exists, let alone a reason to assume it does. So by ockhams razor, it does not exist.

True, for a different time-dimension to exist outside the time-dimension relative to this universe, must suggest also a biggining and an end, or atleast a biggining. as you suggest their is no evidence for that.

But you must note that the quote
"It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."

is what we as a muslim know, and this is in evidence from the our scriptures, god is not the creation e.g. universe i.e. has no biggining or end, that God is outside the heaven (universe).

 

[Joe98]

Then I guess that is the only difrence between us. You are discussing faith here to prevent us from hurting your, whereas we are discussing faith here to prevent you from hurting yourself.

-

 

[HeiGou]

Ye of course, like I said, neither side of the debate has any proof or argument in favour. In the end it all comes down to preferance, willpower, personal expierance...

And Occam's Razor. There is no proof that Santa Claus exists. There is no proof that he does not. In the end it does not come down to preference, will power and personal experience. Do you accept that argument as it applies to Santa Claus?

Then I guess that is the only difrence between us. You are discussing faith here to prevent us from hurting yourself, whereas we are discussing faith here to prevent you from hurting yourself.

Very generous of you. I think it is more important to prevent you all from hurting us than preventing us from hurting ourselves.

 

[Sabi]

So it seems the discussion may be back on track if it is about Faith. Anti-Deism and Atheism are faiths and deism (belief in god without revelation) and theism (belief in God and revelation) are all faiths and the only thing that is faith in what is percieveable is agnosticism where in Islam we say Allahualim. True agnostics would say "who knows?" to every question beyond the present sphere of knowledge (including even Santa Claus perhaps).

It might be of interest that the Arabic word Haneef comes from the Sabi usage in Sabi`ah Hunafa` which ultimately comes from the Aramaic word hanifo meaning Agnostic. hence the sabi belief that one can not truely find God (nor true faith for that matter) without first being an agnostic. Hence true Sabi`ah Hunafa` should be 100% opposed to Gnosticism as was The Beloved (SAW).

Concerning time, if there were no motion in the creations there would be no measurement for time. Time = motion, hence all time is relative.

Concerning massless space, I believe in it. But since I can not see it nor measure it (we can magnify between the particles of an atom to infinity and it it will still be there) it amazes me that I know it is there. In fact I only know it is there because of the particles of the creations. Hence it would have remained unknown were it not for creation. It surrounds all the particles of the creations and yet is infinitely beyond the creations and is not a part of them. I think it is the most amazing fact.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

And Occam's Razor. There is no proof that Santa Claus exists. There is no proof that he does not. In the end it does not come down to preference, will power and personal experience. Do you accept that argument as it applies to Santa Claus?

Yes of course, ockhams razor is a very good way to proof that santa isn't real, because the accurate explenation (parents buy gifts for kid and say it's someone else) is a lot easyer then the alternative, some guy with a magicly flying sledge has a workshop with enslaved elves working 24/7 to provide the world with toys. leaving out to mention just how this single person can deliver all those toys to million of people and why the poor kids are always forgotten. I'd say ockhams razor works perfect here.

Very generous of you. I think it is more important to prevent you all from hurting us than preventing us from hurting ourselves.

Well that's very narrowminded again. There's a few guys driven by anger and war doing outrageous acts and therefor you think the chance that we (muslims in general) will hurt you is more likely then you will hurt yourself. Are you aware of suicide rate's in the west? Of how many people die due to substance abuse such as drugs, alcohol and cigarettes? Trust me the chance that you'll end up hurting yourself in this life is a lot higher then us hurting you, and that's not even mentioning the afterlife.