How do Atheists view the Prophets (messengers of Allah)?

[Qingu]

Practicing is Ranma, Isambard and others here.
They beleive there is no God, and they learn about theology on this premise. They take a interest in their theology and evangelise it. they seek the truths and deeper understanding of the universe and our place in it.
I call these Atheists and Agnostics, practicing.

Regards

This term doesn't sound right to me. I mean, I agree that there are atheists who are preachy about their beliefs and actively try to convince people that their religion is wrong. But this activity isn't practicing atheism, it's preaching rationalism or enlightenment morality/philosophy.

Atheism is the lack of a belief, it is not a positive belief or the basis of a worldview, nor is it something to actively "practice."

Also, you can be a "practicing Muslim" or a "practicing Christian" without trying to convert people.

 

[barney]

Must-stay-on-topic.

Zelda is nothing compared to Zero Wing!
All your base are belong to us!
http://allyourbase.planettribes.gamespy.com/video1_view.shtml

 

[truemuslim]

Must-stay-on-topic.

Zelda is nothing compared to Zero Wing!
All your base are belong to us!
http://allyourbase.planettribes.gamespy.com/video1_view.shtml

lol im cracking up!... oh and those graphics are HORRIBLE compared to halo3.... sorry again

 

[barney]

This term doesn't sound right to me. I mean, I agree that there are atheists who are preachy about their beliefs and actively try to convince people that their religion is wrong. But this activity isn't practicing atheism, it's preaching rationalism or enlightenment morality/philosophy.

Atheism is the lack of a belief, it is not a positive belief or the basis of a worldview, nor is it something to actively "practice."

Also, you can be a "practicing Muslim" or a "practicing Christian" without trying to convert people.

Quin, you are dissing my sect of Agnosticism here.

 

[Isambard]

Practicing is Ranma, Isambard and others here.
They beleive there is no God, and they learn about theology on this premise. They take a interest in their theology and evangelise it. they seek the truths and deeper understanding of the universe and our place in it.
I call these Atheists and Agnostics, practicing.

Regards

What theology? What evangelization?

I dont believe being an atheist is any objective sense better than being a theist, even compared to a fundie theist.

 

[ranma1/2]

This term doesn't sound right to me. I mean, I agree that there are atheists who are preachy about their beliefs and actively try to convince people that their religion is wrong. But this activity isn't practicing atheism, it's preaching rationalism or enlightenment morality/philosophy.

Atheism is the lack of a belief, it is not a positive belief or the basis of a worldview, nor is it something to actively "practice."

Also, you can be a "practicing Muslim" or a "practicing Christian" without trying to convert people.

i agree.

where is this certification test im supposed to take though?

 

[Resigned]

This term doesn't sound right to me. I mean, I agree that there are atheists who are preachy about their beliefs and actively try to convince people that their religion is wrong. But this activity isn't practicing atheism, it's preaching rationalism or enlightenment morality/philosophy.

Atheism is the lack of a belief, it is not a positive belief or the basis of a worldview, nor is it something to actively "practice."

Also, you can be a "practicing Muslim" or a "practicing Christian" without trying to convert people.

That was a darn good post. I would add further that Atheism is not a belief in the sense that there are no practices, customs or rituals. For instance, someone could not have ever heard of a theistic model. They are atheist by definition but have no active belief.

There are two worldviews: the one that establishes reality as all encompassing and has no need for the supernatural realm. This is the "rational" (within the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.

The other view, the theistic view, asserts that reality requires a supernatural causation; thus, the supernatural --and less diplomatic sounding-- "irrational" (outside the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.

And please note these conventions have nothing to do with the common ideas that a rational person is a well thought out person and an irrational one is a chaotic maniac. These are philosophical conventions, nothing more.

Both the theist and the materialist require some level or faith or trust (respectively) in order to believe their worldviews are reality. The theist's theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of a divine being who via supernatural means establishes all of reality including the laws of nature and logic which allow for the existence of knowledge. The materialist relies on a priori logic that states that reality is self-caused, and empirical events allow for the existence of knowledge. For myself, I don't conceive of my atheism as a belief as much as I conceive it as a conclusion based on the asserted models out there and the lack of evidence to support those assertions. As an example, one can't really consider oneself as having the "belief that Santa doesn't exist". It's just a fact-- Santa doesn't exist, and only those who would assert he does are required to support the claim with evidence.

Until then, Gods, Demons, Jinn, etc., remain an unsupported, untested and unproved assertion that even those who embrace it admit cannot really be explained or defended.

 

[Qurratul Ayn]

Peace

WOW!!! I didn't know many Atheists believed that Muhammad (PBUH) or Jesus existed.

But as long as there's evidence I guess many people will believe even though they are not of the religion despite seeing the other Prophets as myths and such.

Good question Brother NYCmuslim for the Atheists

Peace to all

 

[snakelegs]

i don't think anyone doubts that muhammad existed. the other prophets are less certain.

 

[barney]

Jo Smith, David Koresh,Ron Hubbard.They all existed.

Michael Travesser is alive and well and underwent his bodily transformation on the 17th of October witnessed by his diciples and on TV across america and britain. I could, if i wished to, fly over to new mexico right now and see him.

Right now Today, the 15th of December is the end of dividing of time, times and time.
So as my last post ever before the world end's ..I'll just say, nice chatting with you lot, and have a nice paradise or a happy hell, dependent on your destination.
http://www.answers.com/topic/michael-travesser

 

[Resigned]

Peace

WOW!!! I didn't know many Atheists believed that Muhammad (PBUH) or Jesus existed.

But as long as there's evidence I guess many people will believe even though they are not of the religion despite seeing the other Prophets as myths and such.

Good question Brother NYCmuslim for the Atheists

Peace to all

I think there’s much less debate about whether Mohammed, Jesus or various other historical characters existed versus whether or not these people actually did receive some divine message. That’s the heart of the matter: theism has an extraordinary standard within its own assertions. If we are somehow wrong about a piece of writing penned by a mere mortal, there really isn't any significant impact. A naturally occurring event or the minutiae of events surrounding a person's existence is fairly low yield in outcome if we're completely wrong. But theism makes claims of an eternal nature -- issues that affect our existence during infinity Does that not raise the stakes considerably when it’s claimed that a “prophet” actually had a sit-down with god(s)?

The second aspect of this argumentation follows under the premise that if the only identifiable standard by which we assess the viability of a claim that a man is deemed a “prophet” is the “because it says so in a book”, claim, which, BTW does not even support the contention of an ordinary claim, (i.e., it's not extraordinary that men existed -- since we know men have long existed, and it's not odd that these men might have been charismatic figures since we know people-- including men—have been the recipients of idol worship), then how can lesser standards support a far more extraordinary claim, like there exists a supernatural realm?

 

[barney]

viability of a claim that a man is deemed a “prophet” is the “because it says so in a book”, ?

You are not taking into account here that the book is the word of God, and God himself confirms the prophethood of the prophets.

Ha! Get round THAT!

 

[Resigned]

You are not taking into account here that the book is the word of God, and God himself confirms the prophethood of the prophets.

Ha! Get round THAT!

Ah – I have my head ‘round this, now. I must concede the argument:



Lights up slowly. Music softly, and then building.


Striding to the middle of the room.


Stepping upon the SoapBox of Everlasting Clarity.


loud clear voice:


Yes, you are right. I realize what you say is correct. Thank you for helping me understand. I appreciate it.


Stepping off Soapbox.


Purposeful stride to wings, Exuent.


Music down. Lights down, and out.


Curtain.

 

[Chuck]

viability of a claim that a man is deemed a “prophet” is the “because it says so in a book”, ?

I'll put it this way, if a books says that it is written and signed by shakespeare and somebody inspects that book and comes to believe that it is written. Then a skeptic comes and says you believe that because the book says that. Anyone can see the fault in the skeptics argument here, no?

 

[Qingu]

I'll put it this way, if a books says that it is written and signed by shakespeare and somebody inspects that book and comes to believe that it is written. Then a skeptic comes and says you believe that because the book says that. Anyone can see the fault in the skeptics argument here, no?

So you believe the Mahabharata was dictated by the demigod Vyasa and written by the elephant-headed god Ganesha?

Why not?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I'll put it this way, if a books says that it is written and signed by shakespeare and somebody inspects that book and comes to believe that it is written. Then a skeptic comes and says you believe that because the book says that. Anyone can see the fault in the skeptics argument here, no?

No textual scholar would definitively ascribe authorship of an old text on such flimsy evidence. All available contemporary evidence would have to be assessed, and as such evidence is often missing, many texts can only be given probable authorship.

And, incidentally, there is only one known (incomplete) manuscript of one of Shakespeare's plays believed to be in his hand, and even that is uncertain. Six of his signatures survive on unrelated documents.

Peace

 

[barney]

There is also the problem that Shakespeare was real. God is hypothetical.

If there was a ownership lawsuit on the quran, then a jury looking at the evidence would say Mohammed had spoken the words and it was he that had asked them to be enscribed on the wood and the bone.

A Third party that you cant see, hear, touch, smell, or in any way communicate with is not acceptable as a legitimate author in worldly terms. Using the Shakespear arguement is a bit of a loss, as Shakespear was a man you could do all of the above with.

 

[Chuck]

So you believe the Mahabharata was dictated by the demigod Vyasa and written by the elephant-headed god Ganesha?

Nope. But I'm not superficial skeptic either. I don't assume that they believe just because the book says so.

No textual scholar would definitively ascribe authorship of an old text on such flimsy evidence.

And what flimsy evidence that be?

There is also the problem that Shakespeare was real. God is hypothetical.

If there was a ownership lawsuit on the quran, then a jury looking at the evidence would say Mohammed had spoken the words and it was he that had asked them to be enscribed on the wood and the bone.

A Third party that you cant see, hear, touch, smell, or in any way communicate with is not acceptable as a legitimate author in worldly terms. Using the Shakespear arguement is a bit of a loss, as Shakespear was a man you could do all of the above with.

It was an example to show faulty of the argument "because just the book says so". I doubt it most believe in God or prophet just because a book says so. It is a complex process may include life experiences, assessing history, evaluating truthfulness of the message, expected value, etc... a person may not do this methodologically or consider every possible factor, but is not as simple as some people here making it out to be.

If there was a ownership lawsuit on the quran, then a jury looking at the evidence would say Mohammed had spoken the words and it was he that had asked them to be enscribed on the wood and the bone.

I doubt it it would be that simple. There is claim the they come from God and Mohammed is not the actual author, but just a transmitter. Judge or jury will try to assess that and look for the evidence if that is true or not. Depending on the evidence and person judge or jury would come to conclusion what they believe is the correct one. Complex cases doesn't have a straightforward answer and their outcome is difficult to predict.

Using the Shakespear arguement is a bit of a loss, as Shakespear was a man you could do all of the above with.

What difference does that make really? You take out the Shakespeare it still doesn't change a thing, point remains the same. A person will try to judge whether it belongs to the stated author or not. He/she know about attributes or pattern it will try to analyze those pattern (writing sytle if comparison is available, testable factors directly or indirectly, attributes, etc...)

 

[barney]

OK, im not making myself clear.
Shakespeare had a Publisher and a contract. So it's a case of provable historical fact. The court would demand the papers, see them and case closed.

The Quran case would hear the evidence, ask God to attend the court to defend the allagations, he wouldnt turn up and so would be in contempt of court and case dismissed.

There is evidence provided by quran itself and hadith that Mohammed asked the scribes to record it. And in the lack of another author that can be actually seen, heard or exist on this plane...It would be thrown out.

 

[Qingu]

Nope. But I'm not superficial skeptic either. I don't assume that they believe just because the book says so.

I'm not sure what you mean. Wasn't the claim that if the text of a book claims to have been written by a certain author then we shouldn't doubt its authorship?

If not, then why don't you believe the Mahabharata was written by Vyasa and dictated by Ganesha? You apparently have no trouble believing that the Quran was written by Muhammad who was dictating the inner thoughts of Allah. What makes you more certain about the one book?