To muslims are atheists worse than other theists?

[Pygoscelis]

BUT i do have a something for you to think about...
Wats d first thing u say wen u have problems/ur loved one is on the verge of death....???or even if u want something soo bad...
Dont u turn to God(without even thinking twice????)??

No. That old line "there are no atheists in foxholes" is simply not true (both literaly (there are atheistic soldier associations) and figuratively). And even if it was true that people turned to God in desperate times, like say in the foxhole example praying to survive, wouldn't that only prove that desperate people will latch onto any kind of hope be it rational or not? Desperate people latch onto irrational things for false hope quite often too.

 

[Pygoscelis]

:salamext:

^^^^^ What is your definition of 'God'?

In this case I refer to the specific God as presented by religions, most specifically the christian one as that was the one I was faced with most when I had difficulty believing anybody could believe it.

I still today have difficulty believing that any Christian could truly believe in the bible as literal truth, all the stories, many of them fantasic, some of them contradictory, most of them tracable to earlier religions

Part of why I've had difficulty accepting that people actually believe the claims is because I can examine the claim and mindset and try to extrapolate how people who believe it would behave and it doesn't match up.

For example most devout christians i know say they believe in inherited sin, and that they are to be punished for Adam's deeds, but then if I ask them in a non-religious context if children should be held responsible for the actions of their parents they tell me no. Or they tell me that I should accept Jesus' sacrifice to whipe clean my sin, but then I ask them in a non-religoius context if they think somebody should be allowed to volunteer to take the punishment for a criminal and the criminal walk off unpunished, and they say no.

 

[------]

:salamext:

But have you looked at God from the Islamic point of view?

 

[boriqee]

Greetings,


This has nothing to do with 'not getting it'; you have given arguments that are philosophically worthless and misrepresented the positions of others. Being patronising does not help your cause much either.

Peace

that worthlessness is only dependent on your "lack of logic" that had already been exposed, thus whether it is worthless or not is dependent on a case by case scenario. by the way, being blunt is not tantamont to patronizing.

Anthropomorphism means endowing God (in this case) with the characteristics of human beings. As a (pre-Islamic) philosopher once said, if triangles had a God it would have three sides.

thats the problem with the philosophers to begin with, They speak about His nature without any basis except the basis of what their specualtive reasoning concocted rather than revealed knowledge.

Obviously we are not talking about physical appearance here, at least in the Islamic tradition, but in my opinion (and I do not expect you to agree with it!) other traits attributed to God are clearly anthropomorphic, such as the requirement to be worshipped,

how in this universe does "the requirement of worship" equals anthropomorphism. If anthropomorphism means as you have explained it (likening the Deity of God to human like attributes) then explain where has any man demanded himself to be worshipped (note, this is different than people wanting to worship such man). Outside of the japenese emperors and certain other emperors who viewed themselves as gods, it is not form the normal characterisitcs of man that they have the attribute of "requiring themsleves to be worshipped" thus on what basis does "requirement of worship" equal anthropomorphism

the need to create something to do the worshipping (in short, an ego),

Firstly, it is from the Attributes of Allah that He is "al-Ghanee" i.e. the self sufficient. That means the attribute of "need" is free from Him and He is free from it. It is not from due right of logic that a diety who has ultimate opower has the attribute of "need".

likewise the idea that 'to be worshipped" is not an attribute of His at all.

Secondly, Allah is mutakabir, or mostly translated as well to my knowledge the best word in english is "arrogant". Arrogance when accompanied with a being that has deficiencies equals an unpalatible attitude and behavior. When such an attribute is applied to a diety of which has no deficiencies at all, then the unpalattibleness is stripped, for The only one who has full right to such an attribute, is one who possess all power and ability by which there is no power and ability except through that deity.

that has nothing to do with "ego" to begin with. There is no attribute of Allah called 'ego" that we know of.

to command (or even have wishes and desires that lead to a need to command), or any idea of 'judgement'

.

Here is the deficiency in reason that allowed the Islamic theologians to forever blast the philosophers back into the dpeths of inaceptence, at least in the arena of understanding the divine. The idea of anthropomorphism (from here on I will use the word tajseem for anthropomorphism since it is muc shorter), the idea of tajseem is that the Attributes of creation are attributed ot thre divine. ANd then when such people come across such texts of attributes like will, and so forth, then by interpret that that such texts at making tajseem of God. But when such ytexts are from God Himself, or His messengers, it is not that it is attributing tajseem to HIm, rather we udnerstand from it that He granted us those characterisics within the confines of how we are created (with human tissue, blood, size, amount of brain capacity and usage. That is after all, according to logic and reason, we at one point in time, never existed, while He was, and since He was, He always had His attributes, thus it is we who are being likened to Allah in some of these attributes by due right of His granting some of those Attributes to us.

In the earlier traditions it's far more obvious, full of ideas of a wrathful God, jealous God, etc

.

In the earlier traditions of what.

As I said, I do not expect you to agree with me. I believe God to be a wholly human construct rather than a metaphysical reality, which is obviously a position any theist by definition must find totally unacceptable.

ahh, and thats why you formed your opinion of us making tajseem of the Divine, due to an idea of Him being a human construct which lands us back to square one which I elabroated in earlier posts.

on what grounds is the lack of His existance the preponderant view according to the realm of logic and reason.

I appreciate your being open and reply

 

[boriqee]

Part of why I've had difficulty accepting that people actually believe the claims is because I can examine the claim and mindset and try to extrapolate how people who believe it would behave and it doesn't match up.

For example most devout christians i know say they believe in inherited sin, and that they are to be punished for Adam's deeds, but then if I ask them in a non-religious context if children should be held responsible for the actions of their parents they tell me no. Or they tell me that I should accept Jesus' sacrifice to whipe clean my sin, but then I ask them in a non-religoius context if they think somebody should be allowed to volunteer to take the punishment for a criminal and the criminal walk off unpunished, and they say no.

And that right there is the problem and represents the fullest extent of innovation in religion, you are using the bida i.e. innovations, the concoctions of the misguided as a tool to the affirmation of the lack of His existance.

our prophet has revealed to us that the jews have divided their religion into 71 sects, the christians into 72, and the muslims will divide into 73 sects, all of whcih will reside in the fire EXCEPT those who follow my way and the way of my companions.

in other words, whatever idea was not among the school of thought of the prophets, the beleifs that were laid down by the prophets is considered to have no basis, and the route of which such ideas that have no basis and then be attributed to religion of the prophets can only come from the route of bida i.e. innovated concepts and practices of which God and His messengers are free from.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

that worthlessness is only dependent on your "lack of logic" that had already been exposed, thus whether it is worthless or not is dependent on a case by case scenario. by the way, being blunt is not tantamont to patronizing.

Um, ok. Try reading some modern philosophy - you'll see what I mean. The vast majority of philosophers since Hume have rejected the arguments you've given.

When was this 'lack of logic' exposed, by the way?

Peace

 

[Isambard]

Greetings,


Um, ok. Try reading some modern philosophy - you'll see what I mean. The vast majority of philosophers since Hume have rejected the arguments you've given.

When was this 'lack of logic' exposed, by the way?

Peace

I think he's referring to his own arguements kay:

Strange that some people can't imagine someone w/o a belief in a deity. I honestly can't imagine the reverse.

Despite my study of religion and my talking with believers, I still get the feeling they're pulling my leg...:hiding:

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Strange that some people can't imagine someone w/o a belief in a deity. I honestly can't imagine the reverse.

I think I can. I realise that there are many people who claim to believe in god, but don't really. My dad is one of them - he's Church of Scotland, but really he couldn't give two stuffs about religion.

But I'm sure there are people who really do believe in god. My Irish grandmother was definitely one of them. The priest at her funeral described her as 'a faith-filled woman', and he wasn't wrong. She used to pray for at least an hour a day as long as I knew her, whether she went to mass that day or not, and as she drew nearer to the end of her life that increased to around five or six hours a day of solid praying. She believed alright.

She never found out I was an atheist. It would have shocked her deeply. For her, atheists were basically pure evil. She came from a time and a place where it was still OK to think like that.

Despite my study of religion and my talking with believers, I still get the feeling they're pulling my leg...:hiding:

I'm sure in the main they mean well, and mean what they say.

Peace

 

[Whatsthepoint]

the christians into 72

Christians are divided into much much more churches/denominations/sects.

 

[Pygoscelis]

And that right there is the problem and represents the fullest extent of innovation in religion, you are using the bida i.e. innovations, the concoctions of the misguided as a tool to the affirmation of the lack of His existance.

I have less difficulty imagining people truly believing in some abstract concept of "God", a life force (such as chi) or an unseen creator (such as deists beleive). But when you attribute fantastic stories to said God, and those stories are clearly derived from earlier ones, I just have trouble accepting that people actually believe it. I keep suspecting they are pretending, to go along with their culture.

And as I said I've seen this same thought process from the other side, people who cant imagine somebody truly not believing in God. Those are the ones who tell me I'm not really an atheist, that I'm either lying to them or refusing to admit to myself that God exists for some selfish reason such as I wish to sin. They just don't seem able to conceive that I actually don't believe in God at all.

 

[Trumble]

on what grounds is the lack of His existance the preponderant view according to the realm of logic and reason.

It isn't the preponderant view... neither position is. It doesn't even require "modern" philosophy, the same old arguments have been recycled for the best part of two millennia. The trouble is that arguments both ways, beimg perfectly respectable philosophical ones, rely on 'logic' and 'reason'. All, however have certain assumptions as premises the truth of which the other side can never accept. Your theologians don't 'blast' anybody anywhere any more than the philosophers do.

Personally I decided 'logic and reason' was a huge red herring when it comes to religion years ago. Whatever ultimate reality may be it is far too big for such limited concepts to grasp, and like most who follow any Eastern tradition I put far more weight in experiential religion. Revealed religion is no more an a person or persons' attempt to record and interpret such experiences. IMHO, obviously.. you won't agree with that, either!

 

[Pygoscelis]

If there is an all powerfull God and he wishes to be known and understood, then he would be known and understood. There would be no need for holy books, prophets, or preachers. We would simply know what he wished us to know. To claim anything less is to limit God's omnipotence.

So I say the mere existence of the holy books proves either that they are false or that the God they depict does not wish to be clearly known to and understood by us all.

 

[Woodrow]

If there is an all powerfull God and he wishes to be known and understood, then he would be known and understood.

We really do not know that. We have no way of knowing what Allaah(swt) wishes for himself as he is beyond our concepts of needs and desires.

There would be no need for holy books, prophets, or preachers. We would simply know what he wished us to know.

Some things we do know is that Allaah(swt) created us to worship him of our own free will. Free will entails knowing and understanding as many choices and options as possible. To know simply because we do not have a need to know anything else would not be free choice. So we do have to be faced with the task to learn and choose. That is one reason for the need of Prophets(PBUH), preachers(scholars) and Holy Books.

To claim anything less is to limit God's omnipotence.

Or it verifies our free will.

So I say the mere existence of the holy books proves either that they are false or that the God they depict does not wish to be clearly known to and understood by us all.

Free will gives us the ability to choose. Allaah(swt)'s understanding us is not the same as us needing to learn and understanding what We need of Allaah(swt)

 

[Pygoscelis]

Free will entails knowing and understanding as many choices and options as possible.

And God making us know and understand what God wishes us to know does not limit those options or choices. It does not limit free will for God to give us a perfect understanding of what he wishes us to know. We would then still be free to reject him.

That people exist who are not aware of God or who do not believe in God (as opposed to people who do believe but refuse to follow) and that people exist who in all sincerity get the message wrong and follow the wrong religion shows that God wishes this to be the case. If God didn't intend it and yet it happens, that limits Gods power.

I think that may explain why there are so many theists running around (like nevesirth in the thread above) who will not accept that non believers (as opposed to non-followers or rebellers) exist. I think the thought that people could exist who actually do not believe may threaten their world view, so they can't accept it.

 

[Resigned]

We really do not know that. We have no way of knowing what Allaah(swt) wishes for himself as he is beyond our concepts of needs and desires.

Therein lies the problem, that once again where god could maintain an ongoing communication with us, he selects not to, thereby making it more difficult to "choose" him as the "correct god." One could argue that in the Old Testament, for example -- somewhat less frequently in the New -- god's presence in man's domain was far more evident. Conveniently, man was also far more superstitious and less scientifically knowledgeable at the same time. Do we have a chicken and the egg dynamic here? Is it, "as we got more technological, god 'changed his mind' about his level of involvement"? Or, is it "god fades into obscurity as man's technology grants him greater knowledge of his environment"? (I opt for the latter).

I readily acknowledge the entity Theists assert is unknowable and beyond human perception and understanding. Given those three qualifications (among numerous others), I accept that what you assert does not exist (until such time as you offer your case for “its” existence). The attributes of god in terms of perceiving him externally are precisely the same as that of nothingness. And so it is. We both agree completely on these characteristic issues, and the only bone of contention is our conclusions. You conclude that his being indistinguishable from nothingness supports his existence, and I conclude it defines his lack of same.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

If there is an all powerfull God and he wishes to be known and understood.

Whenever there cometh down a Sura, they look at each other, (saying), "Doth anyone see you?" Then they turn aside: Allah hath turned their hearts (from the light); for they are a people that understand not.

[Surah Al-Tawba Verse 127]

tafsir of ibn abbas radhiallahu anhu

(And whenever a surah is revealed) whenever Gabriel brings down a surah exposing the fault of the hypocrites and the Prophet (pbuh) used to recite to them, (they) the hypocrites (look one at another (as who should say): Doth anybody) among the sincere believers (see you? Then they turn away) from the prayer, the sermon, the Truth and guidance. (Allah turns away their hearts) from the Truth and guidance; it is also said: they swerved from the Truth and guidance, and so Allah swerved their hearts from the Truth and guidance (because they are a folk who understand not) nor believe in the command of Allah.

Surely We have revealed it-- an Arabic Quran-- that you may understand.

[Surah Yusuf Verse 2]

​

Allaah has given Quran, prophets, messengers, signs everyday. But you want to see angels divide the skies with a message...

If their spurning is hard on thy mind, yet if thou wert able to seek a tunnel in the ground or a ladder to the skies and bring them a sign,- (what good?). If it were Allah's will, He could gather them together unto true guidance: so be not thou amongst those who are swayed by ignorance (and impatience)!

[Surah Al-Anaam Verse 35]​

 

[------]

:salamext:

You conclude that his being indistinguishable from nothingness supports his existence, and I conclude it defines his lack of same.

Erm if you think about this logically, you wouldn’t come to this conclusion. When in distress, who do u turn to?! When no one listens to you, who do u turn to?! When everyone abandons you, who do u turn to?!

Answer honestly from within your mind, because it looks like to me that your heart is not ready to accept the fact that God ‘exists’, therefore try accepting this FACT with your brain. [Exists is in inverted commas as He always was there, so we cannot assign a verb to Him, e.g. ‘exists’]

Pygoscelis:

We would then still be free to reject him.

As some people do.

… get the message wrong and follow the wrong religion shows that God wishes this to be the case. If God didn't intend it and yet it happens, that limits Gods power.

No really, because the truth is is front of everyone, and whether they choose to accept it or deny it, that is up to them. How is it limiting God's power when people have their own free will?!

 

[Skavau]

Erm if you think about this logically, you wouldn’t come to this conclusion. When in distress, who do u turn to?! When no one listens to you, who do u turn to?! When everyone abandons you, who do u turn to?!

Some might say God. I do not since I do not believe God exists.

Even if I did try to turn to God in the above circumstances - it would not provide evidence for God's existence.

 

[Resigned]

:salamext:
Erm if you think about this logically, you wouldn’t come to this conclusion. When in distress, who do u turn to?! When no one listens to you, who do u turn to?! When everyone abandons you, who do u turn to?!

Answer honestly from within your mind, because it looks like to me that your heart is not ready to accept the fact that God ‘exists’, therefore try accepting this FACT with your brain. [Exists is in inverted commas as He always was there, so we cannot assign a verb to Him, e.g. ‘exists’]

I can only respond to this by saying, and this is my opinion – that it is not logic that is suggesting the illogical to you, but emotion that is suggesting the illogical to you. It would be nice if the god paradigm were true. That would make things easier (though also depressingly unexplainable) – human knowledge would be hopeless in a god-model because that ultimate answer is forever beyond us). I’d like to live in paradise too, and see my dead loved ones, and so on. It’s just like the deep desire makes me careful about accepting models and paradigms without adequate support. That’s how we discern truth from falsehood – not what we feel about something, but what are the realities of it. Postulating a supernatural being as the cause of the natural doesn't solve anything-- it simply adds an unsolvable aspect to what might be a solvable question. As sentient beings, we are forced by our nature to adhere to some standard of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing why their model is true, and show cause, and display testable evidence then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.


How logical is it to postulate gods?

Let's look at this from another perspective. When people say they believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies one as having abdicated a logical conclusion.

 

[kay106]

This is not meant to start bickering... so please ignore any trolls that try to take it that way (there's really only one I'd expect to do so).

What I want to know is how muslims in general feel about atheists. Are we seen merely as lost souls, ignorant of the truth, or are we seen as agents of Shaytan (sp?) and more of a threat to the true faith than any false religion could be?

I ask because I have noticed that here as well as elsewhere on the internet the muslims and christians and jews will argue with each other, even bicker from time to time but when dealing with the atheist it seems to be a whole other level of it. Are the atheists just more provocative or is there something about them not believing that itself troubles folks?

I've also met some devout christians who appear to be threatened or offended simply by learning I'm an atheist, without me saying anything more than that (or them finding out I'm an atheist from a third person). One of them refused to talk to me for weeks after learning I'm a heathen... which was just very strange because she was quite a nice and sweet lady otherwise. The fangs only came out after learning this.

I have not met many muslims in my real life (they simply aren't as prevalent here) so I'm wondering if the same phenomenon exists with them. Given that I say nothing against their faith, only that I'm atheist, would they regard me same as a christian or jew or would they have a special concern about me beyond that?

Fellow atheists and agnostics are welcome to opine on this as well (as well as all others here) but again I ask that this not be turned into a war zone as too often threads re atheism seem to.

The atheists I have met, claim they are rationalists thats why they are atheists, that they are reasoned everything out. But the arguments I have heard from them are the most irrational arguments, out there in the nonsense market!

Examples,

They claim that there was a big bang then everything came into perfect order by chance! I ask them that if you have 10 marbles > number them 1-10 > put them in a bag > blind fold yourself > then pick them out > whats the chance that they will be in their order from 1-10? almost 0. Now what about the bigger picture, this whole universe in perfect order by chance? what about dropping a glass, does it turn into fewer small glass, or is there a disastor? chaoes? can order come out of chaoes?

They say that we evolved from monkeys, i ask them if we evolved from monkeys should the monkeys still be evolving? shouldn't they have figured out how we put them in the zoo, then put some of us in the zoo? shouldn't they by now have oxford school for monkeys?

what about fossil evidence, if we have evolved shouldn't the fossil records which date back to 300-400 millions years have intermediate forms, why are the creatures on the fossil record exactly the same as now?

Did you ever ask for proof? Isn't this part of being a rationalist? That you need evidence to believe in something?

Common use your reason, God is commanding us to do it!

Sorry to my fellow atheist brothers and sisters reading this, dont mean to hurt your feelings, hope our creator guides you.