Atheists are polytheists in disguise

[Joe98]

…..also they worship money, materialism e.t.c even when they know it is not "the God."

Atheists by definition worship nothing.

Nobody worships money. Some of the wealthiest people on earth worship at their temple church or mosque.

Only people matter. Its what you do with the money that counts.

 

[Skillganon]

There is no “evidence” that conclusively supports or rejects the existence of god. However, to completely deny the existence of God makes you just as close minded as someone who refuses believe there could be no God. How can someone who refuses to acknowledge the possibility there could be a God see the world from the point of view of a religious person, and vice versa?

Hmmmm How?

Now, what is the next logical step is establishing the truth, and most importantly the concept of God

 

[iLL_LeaT]

There is no god.

Now, what is the next logical step is establishing the truth, and most importantly the concept of God

There is something interesting going on here. To Joe98, the truth is “there is no god.” And to Skillganon God is truth.

How do you determine who’s true is true? To think “I’m right because that is what I think” is to be close minded. To be open-minded, one needs to have room to grow, thus acknowledge the fact that he or she may be wrong about something.

Joe, you will never convert everyone to atheism because some people will never be able to feel in there heart that atheism is “true.”

The best anyone can do is become as well educated on the world as he or she can and make a logical decision on what he or she thinks is true, yet still realizing that he or she can be wrong to leave room for growth.

 

[HeiGou]

Just to give you some insight to overcome your confusion...

Oh I am not confused. Except by what you write. I understand the Muslim position perfectly well.

The gist of the article is not that atheists are hindus (well unless you are a atheist living in India...) but you share the same polytheistic notion of God.

Even though atheists tend not to believe in any God much less a million of them? This is a logical fallacy whose name I cannot remember. Let's call it the Excluded Middle. You have reduced the world to two binary positions: monotheism and polytheism. And thus anyone who does not fall into your first category (i.e. Muslims) must fall into your second. It is a type of extreme reductionism.

For example, a monotheist scientist would say the Sun, the Moon and this world came into existence by the Will of God where as a polytheistic scientist would say the Sun came into existence by its own will, the Moon came into existence by its own will and this world came into existence by its own will. This is shirk (polytheism) pure and simple. They are just created objects and could not have bought themselves into existence. No creation could have come into existence had it not been by the Will of the Creator and Sustainer, the Lord of all that exists.

Again you have this problem with your binary approach. A monotheist might say that the Moon came into existence through God's will. Or he might say that God created the Universe through the Big Bang without any particular interest in how things turned out from that point on - He may have just wound up His toy and let it play. Or a monotheist might even say that the Universe is not the work of God but of the Devil. God created our spritual parts, the Devil our physical bodies and the rest of the physical world. Or any number of other valid theological positions that are still monotheistic.

In the same way a scientist might take no position on how, ultimately, the Sun came into existence. He might decide that this is not a question for science. An atheist might decide it is unknowable (as might a monotheist).

What you have done is taken a position in Islamic law - an extreme version of predestination so that knives don't cut except through the Will of God - and defined that position as the only monotheistic position. Hence all else must be polytheism. Suppose you take a more reasonable definition of monotheism - call it a belief that only One God exists - and then that is reconcilable with a vast number of theological positions concerning the reason why the Sun and Moon exist.

All this is about a battle between two contradictory ideas.

1) One idea is monotheism where we truly worship our Creator alone and do not associate any creations as partners with Him.

Which is fine, but then you clumsily weld together two positions: that you all worship the Creator alone and that Creator alone is responsible for everything all the time. It does not follow that the former requires the latter.

2+) The other idea which you seem to ascribe to is where you setup rivals with God. You state that the creations does things out of its own accord without the need of a Creator and Sustainer. This is in essense polytheism. This is the reason why I feel atheists are in reality polytheists.

Only if you define polytheism in that way. If you have a more reasonable definition of polytheism, that it is the belief in many Gods for instance, it does not necessarily follow that all non-Muslims are polytheists as you are claiming.

If I did state that things did things on their own accord, human beings for instance, I could still hold to a monotheistic position. Free will requires Humans to do things of their own volition. Admittedly you do not believe that humans have free will, you merely claim you do, but even so that position is entirely reconcilable with monotheism.

 

[HeiGou]

There is no “evidence” that conclusively supports or rejects the existence of god. However, to completely deny the existence of God makes you just as close minded as someone who refuses believe there could be no God. How can someone who refuses to acknowledge the possibility there could be a God see the world from the point of view of a religious person, and vice versa?

Hmmmm How?

Well not really. An atheist might study the evidence and come to the firm conclusion that God does not exist, without shutting the door to the possibility that He may do so. I do not think that Dark Matter or the Higgs Boson exist. But I will accept it is possible that they do. In fact I think that a person who refuses to acknowledge the possibility there could be a God, or vice versa, is an ideal person to see the world from the point of view of a religious person. They both share a refusal to accept an alternative to their point of view. It is the wooly-minded person who believes little for sure who is unable to understand either dogmatism.

 

[muslim dude]

Greetings Muslim Dude,

And greetings to you.

People witnessing the corruption of the Church throughout its history may well have been turned off established religion for that reason, but the roots of philosophical atheism go much deeper than that.

I agree that roots of philosophical atheism go much further back in history... even perhaps beyond the time of the ancient Greeks...

The idea that Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and Hume might have adopted atheism because they felt that the Christian clergy had strayed too far away from Jesus' message to humanity is quite bizarre, to say the least.

My point was present-day atheism was initially a reaction against the authority of the church (such as when the church were upset by people like Galileo who had strange ideas like the earth revolved around the sun and not the otherway round...) rather than because of monotheism, initially at least. I think people felt that by believing in God, they had to obey what the priests have to say regardless of the contents of the revealed scriptures.

Quote:
The rise of atheism (polytheism) in present day has nothing to do with the so called technological advances, but rather is political in origin and it all begun when believers compromised on worshipping God.

What do you mean by compromised?

What do I mean by compromise?

You might want to review the following verses again as they will answer your question...

bismillahir-rahmanir-rahim


(Qur'an, Chapter 43 (Az-Zukhruf - The Gold Adornments): 65)
But the sects from among themselves differed. So woe to those who do wrong (by ascribing things to 'Iesa (Jesus) that are not true) from the torment of a painful Day (i.e. the Day of Resurrection)!

(Qur'an, Chapter 2 (Al-Baqarah: The Cow): 79)
"Then woe to these who write the book with their own hands and then say 'This is from Allah', to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they will earn thereby"


[Bible: Jeremiah chapter 8 verse 8]
"How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"


(Qur'an, Chapter 9 (Al-Taubah: The Repentance): 31)
"They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah, and Messiah, son of Maryam, while they were commanded to worship none but One God. None is worthy of worship but He. Glorified is He from having the partners they associate"

Quote:
LOL you want the muslims to give up quoting from the Qur'an?

No. When did I ever say that?

Well to be fair, this what you seemed to have implied - sorry if that's not the case.

My point was simple. If you quote from one text, you've got one point of view. If you can back that up with arguments and ideas from other texts, your position will be much stronger. Why not quote from a few other books as well as the Qur'an?

Sure, I can look at other sources like dictionary.com but to be honest, when it comes to defining God and worshipping God and what constitutes shirk (polytheism) nothing can touch the sheer authority of the Qur'an (and that includes dictionary.com). Tawheed (oneness of God) is indeed the the unique selling point of Islam.

Quote:
Subhanallah, look how Allah's revelation 1400 years ago is totally destroying the modern-day arguments of those who setup rivals to Allah!

Any evidence for this?

Why yes sir! The evidence is how Islam is the fastest growing in the west and most widely followed purely monotheistic religion in the world. And the people who are intent on preserving their secular laws have indentified Islam (with its emphasis on legislation can only be from God) is the biggest threat to modern day secular (a.k.a. polytheistic) way of life.

While I'm here, I'd like to give my thoughts as an atheist on this bizarre notion that I am, in fact, a polytheist. I've been called many things in my life, but this is the first time I've been called a polytheist. Let's look at what the word means:

polu- (Greek) = many
theos (Greek) = god

So, someone who worships many gods.

What is a god? Here we are (from dictionary.com):

Quote:
god
n.
1. God
(1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.)
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Of these definitions, 1 and 2 are literal, 3 is a transferred ostensive definition, and 4,5 and 6 are metaphorical. A polytheist, strictly speaking, is someone who worships many beings of type 1 and 2. I do not believe any such beings exist, so how, then, am I a polytheist?

Ok lets see now. Number 1) is the true definition of God and all the rest are called "God" by polytheist regardless of the level of fakeness of these "Gods". And by definition anything other than 1) would be false God(s).

Basically in Islam, if people ascribe to creations what only God has a right to be ascribed to, then it is as though as people are setting up rivals to God.

You should find this link interesting http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=323 as it does clarify things a bit more.

(p.s. I am not sure what the LI policies are towards posting links - Mods, feel free to remove the link if it's against LI policies)

This is why when muslims say it is God who caused everything to exist and atheist state "no, these material things came into existence by themselves", then it is as though the atheists are setting up these material things as rivals to God. Hope you understand this point?!

(Qur'an, Chapter 27 (An-Naml - The Ants): 60) "Is not He (better than your gods) Who created the heavens and the earth, and sends down for you water (rain) from the sky, whereby We cause to grow wonderful gardens full of beauty and delight? It is not in your ability to cause the growth of their trees. Is there any ilâh (god) with Allâh? Nay, but they are a people who ascribe equals (to Him)!"

 

[muslim dude]

brother muslim dude. may I add that for most atheist money, pleasure, power, e.t.c has replaced God.
The worship material. Man-Made thing, like the polytheist worshiping idols (man-made).

Skillganon

Absolutely, I agree with you that "for most atheist money, pleasure, power, e.t.c has replaced God."

And Allah has indeed given them a warning as well:

(Qur'an, Chapter 45 (Al-Jathiya - The Kneeling): 23)
"Have you seen him who takes his own lust (vain desires) as his ilâh (god), and Allâh knowing (him as such), left him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart, and put a cover on his sight. Who then will guide him after Allâh? Will you not then remember?"

 

[muslim dude]

Sorry to break up your post, but it's worth responding to your points one at a time.

A monotheist might say that the Moon came into existence through God's will.

Yep, this is monotheism.

Or he might say that God created the Universe through the Big Bang

Big Bang would be called a process of creation and still implies God created the universe by His Will.

without any particular interest in how things turned out from that point on - He may have just wound up His toy and let it play.

To say the universe is capable of running of its own will without the need of God sustaining the universe is polytheism as this attributing to the universe that it can sustain itself of its own accord.

Or a monotheist might even say that the Universe is not the work of God but of the Devil. God created our spritual parts, the Devil our physical bodies and the rest of the physical world.

To state that the devil created the universe independent of God is setting up the devil as a rival to God. This is also polytheism. Funny that. I never suspected you to be a devil worshipper...

Or any number of other valid theological positions that are still monotheistic.

The theological positions will have to be analysed by unmodified revealed scriptures in order to ascertain whether its monotheistic or not.

In the same way a scientist might take no position on how, ultimately, the Sun came into existence. He might decide that this is not a question for science. An atheist might decide it is unknowable (as might a monotheist).

Sure the process of creation of some things can be viewed as knowledge of the unseen.

What you have done is taken a position in Islamic law - an extreme version of predestination so that knives don't cut except through the Will of God - and defined that position as the only monotheistic position.

The fact that knives don't cut except through the Will of God is monotheism.

Hence all else must be polytheism. Suppose you take a more reasonable definition of monotheism - call it a belief that only One God exists - and then that is reconcilable with a vast number of theological positions concerning the reason why the Sun and Moon exist.

Well, like I stated before, the theological positions will have to be analysed unmodified revealed scriptures in order to ascertain whether its monotheistic or not.

Which is fine, but then you clumsily weld together two positions: that you all worship the Creator alone and that Creator alone is responsible for everything all the time. It does not follow that the former requires the latter.

Surely you don't expect the universe to have the power to do anything independent of God? Nothing can happen accept with the permission of God.

(Qur'an, Chapter 3 (Al-Imran - The Family of Imran): 189)
"And to Allâh belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and Allâh has power over all things."

If I did state that things did things on their own accord, human beings for instance, I could still hold to a monotheistic position. Free will requires Humans to do things of their own volition. Admittedly you do not believe that humans have free will, you merely claim you do, but even so that position is entirely reconcilable with monotheism.

Oh ok, I am beginning to understand where you are coming from. You think monotheism vs polytheism is all about free will and predestination? Oh I am really sorry. This is not quite the angle I was aiming for. If you want a discussion on free will and predestination, then you should really talk to a knowledgable Islamic scholar and not a lay person like myself.

Ansar's post on the subject is very enlightening and insha'allah I think you will find it too. It is regarding the position of free will and predestination in Islam. http://www.islamicboard.com/26794-post48.html Enjoy.

 

[iLL_LeaT]

In fact I think that a person who refuses to acknowledge the possibility there could be a God, or vice versa, is an ideal person to see the world from the point of view of a religious person.

How do you refuse to believe something and yet still be ideal about that same thing?

To say, “I refuse to believe that 2+2=4, but I don’t know. It may be 4” is not refusal at all. That is a belief that is not 4, yet still being open to that it may be 4.

My whole point is that there us no 100% this is true on philosophical subjects such as beliefs.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I agree that roots of philosophical atheism go much further back in history... even perhaps beyond the time of the ancient Greeks...

I'm glad we can agree on this.

My point was present-day atheism was initially a reaction against the authority of the church (such as when the church were upset by people like Galileo who had strange ideas like the earth revolved around the sun and not the otherway round...) rather than because of monotheism, initially at least.

Now I'm confused. I thought we'd just agreed that the roots of atheism go back much further than this?

I think people felt that by believing in God, they had to obey what the priests have to say regardless of the contents of the revealed scriptures.

Well, up until the Reformation, perhaps. What point are you making here?

Sure, I can look at other sources like dictionary.com but to be honest, when it comes to defining God and worshipping God and what constitutes shirk (polytheism) nothing can touch the sheer authority of the Qur'an (and that includes dictionary.com). Tawheed (oneness of God) is indeed the the unique selling point of Islam.

OK, but your thread is (apparently) about atheism. How about having some sources that discuss the origins of atheism, since they would doubtless help your argument?

Why yes sir! The evidence is how Islam is the fastest growing in the west and most widely followed purely monotheistic religion in the world.

Firstly, the claim that Islam is the world's fastest growing religion is a highly contentious one. It's been discussed here many times before.

Secondly, Christians describe themselves as monotheists, and there are more Christians than Muslims. However, that's just an argument about a word.

In any case, I don't see how any of this supports your previous claim: "Allah's revelation 1400 years ago is totally destroying the modern-day arguments of those who setup rivals to Allah!"

And the people who are intent on preserving their secular laws have indentified Islam (with its emphasis on legislation can only be from God) is the biggest threat to modern day secular (a.k.a. polytheistic) way of life.

Who are these people? Again, have you got any evidence for these claims you keep producing?

Ok lets see now. Number 1) is the true definition of God and all the rest are called "God" by polytheist regardless of the level of fakeness of these "Gods". And by definition anything other than 1) would be false God(s).

You are claiming that I, as an atheist, am a polytheist. I don't call any of those things god. Therefore I am not a polytheist. Q.E.D.

This is why when muslims say it is God who caused everything to exist and atheist state "no, these material things came into existence by themselves", then it is as though the atheists are setting up these material things as rivals to God. Hope you understand this point?!

Not really, no. I don't know how material things originally came to be. That doesn't amount to me worshipping them as gods, does it? I don't worship anything as a god, so I can't see how I can be described as a polytheist. That's the central point I'm trying to make here.

Peace

 

[HeiGou]

A monotheist might say that the Moon came into existence through God's will.

Yep, this is monotheism.

Well this is one form of monotheism.

Or he might say that God created the Universe through the Big Bang without any particular interest in how things turned out from that point on - He may have just wound up His toy and let it play.

Big Bang would be called a process of creation and still implies God created the universe by His Will.

To say the universe is capable of running of its own will without the need of God sustaining the universe is polytheism as this attributing to the universe that it can sustain itself of its own accord.

A little bit of re-arranging of your reply.

No it isn't. Again you can imagine a situation where God creates the Universe in the Big Bang or something like it, and then chooses ignorance of what happens next - like wind-up toy. God may be able to know if He wants to know, but He may also choose not to think about it so that He might be surprised or amused or whatever. Your version of monotheism might insist that God has to be involved in each and every decision in the Universe, no matter how small, and I take it that is the Muslim theological position?, but you can still be a monotheist in the sense of not believing in any other Gods, without taking that extreme position. As I said, the logical problem with your argument is that it is too simplistic. It may be theologically correct but it fails as a logical argument.

Or a monotheist might even say that the Universe is not the work of God but of the Devil. God created our spritual parts, the Devil our physical bodies and the rest of the physical world.

To state that the devil created the universe independent of God is setting up the devil as a rival to God. This is also polytheism. Funny that. I never suspected you to be a devil worshipper...

I expressed no opinion so you shouldn't suspect me of much. I did not say that the Devil did it independently of God. I said that a monotheist might think that the Devil created the physical part of the Universe. As some monotheists used to believe. The Devil is not a rival of God because he is not a God, but the Devil has the power to defy God as we see every day. It is not polytheism as no one in their right mind worships the Devil.

Or any number of other valid theological positions that are still monotheistic.

The theological positions will have to be analysed by unmodified revealed scriptures in order to ascertain whether its monotheistic or not.

Which is to say your definition of "Monotheism" is "Islam" and nothing else. In which case you ought to come out with it and say so. But the rest of us think that monotheists are people who believe in only one God.

What you have done is taken a position in Islamic law - an extreme version of predestination so that knives don't cut except through the Will of God - and defined that position as the only monotheistic position.

The fact that knives don't cut except through the Will of God is monotheism.

No it is not. It is one extreme form of monotheism.

Hence all else must be polytheism. Suppose you take a more reasonable definition of monotheism - call it a belief that only One God exists - and then that is reconcilable with a vast number of theological positions concerning the reason why the Sun and Moon exist.

Well, like I stated before, the theological positions will have to be analysed unmodified revealed scriptures in order to ascertain whether its monotheistic or not.

Which is to say you are operating with a simple definition - Monotheism is monotheistic only if it agrees with Islam. You have rejected that more reasonable definition of monotheism. Now it is your right to take this position, but it is an extreme one and not very convincing.

Which is fine, but then you clumsily weld together two positions: that you all worship the Creator alone and that Creator alone is responsible for everything all the time. It does not follow that the former requires the latter.

Surely you don't expect the universe to have the power to do anything independent of God? Nothing can happen accept with the permission of God.

Why not? If I have free will I must be able to make a decision on my own independent of God. God may be able to know what I am going to do, but if Free Will has any meaning He has to let me make my own choice. Now Muslims do not believe that is the case, but it does not follow that all monotheists do. Besides, what do you mean independent of God? God might have created the Universe and given matter some specific properties of their own (sharpness for instance) which do not requite nano-second by nano-second intervention by God to make sure knives cut.

If I did state that things did things on their own accord, human beings for instance, I could still hold to a monotheistic position. Free will requires Humans to do things of their own volition. Admittedly you do not believe that humans have free will, you merely claim you do, but even so that position is entirely reconcilable with monotheism.

Oh ok, I am beginning to understand where you are coming from. You think monotheism vs polytheism is all about free will and predestination? Oh I am really sorry. This is not quite the angle I was aiming for. If you want a discussion on free will and predestination, then you should really talk to a knowledgable Islamic scholar and not a lay person like myself.

It is one aspect of what you are saying.

 

[KAding]

Skillganon

Absolutely, I agree with you that "for most atheist money, pleasure, power, e.t.c has replaced God."

And Allah has indeed given them a warning as well:

(Qur'an, Chapter 45 (Al-Jathiya - The Kneeling): 23)
"Have you seen him who takes his own lust (vain desires) as his ilâh (god), and Allâh knowing (him as such), left him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart, and put a cover on his sight. Who then will guide him after Allâh? Will you not then remember?"

Hmm, but in this case you are using a pretty odd definition of worshipping or God. Surely when you worship something, that something must be above you somehow, and you must realize that. How can it be said I "worship" money, I only use it for my own purposes, the money has no value for me unless I can spend it. At best you could claim there are some in Western society that worship celebrities. But worshipping pleasure or money just does not make sense.

Perhaps it makes more sense to say we worship life and the individual? But even in this case worshipping is really not the proper phrase, since these are based on principles, perhaps 'value' makes more sense.

 

[Vishnu]

Who are any of you to call a Hindu an atheist?

Hindu's have different beliefs so Hindu's are just thrown into your 'worthless' pile....
:uhwhat

 

[queen_nadia]

Who are any of you to call a Hindu an atheist?

Hindu's have different beliefs so Hindu's are just thrown into your 'worthless' pile....
:uhwhat

hi can you explain hinduism to me because i have had many different explanations
sorry but can you keep it short because i kinda get bored if people babble on _ not saying dat you would!

 

[KAding]

sorry but can you keep it short because i kinda get bored if people babble on _ not saying dat you would!

LOL! :giggling:

 

[catmando]

Well muslim dude if you typed all that out by hand you have WAAAAY too much time on your hands.:rollseyes In any case, you display a lack of understanding what an Atheist is. When the word 'atheist' is broken down into its two parts, all confusion is swept away(hopefully).

So we have two components of the word Atheist; 'a' and 'theist'. The prefix 'a' in Latin and in English means 'without'. As an example, the word 'amoral' means 'without morals'. The other component, 'theist' means a believer in theism, or god-belief.

Putting the two together, 'atheist' simply means without god-belief. Notice that the word Atheist says nothing about an Atheist's other beliefs, such as moral or political beliefs; it merely identifies that the person is without god-belief, nothing more.

I have known Atheists who were both Liberal, Conservative and all politicals hades in between. I have known Atheists who were racist(very few, however, and I did not socialize with them very often). As for morality, most Atheists take the view of that famous English writer Alistair Crowley who famously said, "if it harm none do what thou wilt".

I hope this clears up any misconceptions on your part about Atheists, for I rather doubt you have met many.

 

[queen_nadia]

can't help it people in this forum like to submit long qoutes an stuff it m8ks me 4get what der point was in da 1st place

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

hi can you explain hinduism to me because i have had many different explanations

There are many different strands to Hinduism, which would explain the differences in what you've heard. The best way to find out about it would be to do some research yourself. You could do worse than start here.

sorry but can you keep it short because i kinda get bored if people babble on _ not saying dat you would!

:lol:

Peace

 

[queen_nadia]

thnx. i knew alot of hindus but they all told me somthing different all i know really is that the beleive in many gods and that they used to have a god for evey family or town then it progress resulting in what we have today many gods thats not even hindus can count.
note: im not mocking hinduism this is paraphrase of what one hindu told me!

 

[afriend2]

Well muslim dude if you typed all that out by hand you have WAAAAY too much time on your hands.:rollseyes In any case, you display a lack of understanding what an Atheist is. When the word 'atheist' is broken down into its two parts, all confusion is swept away(hopefully).

salaam,

lol unfortunately my brother muslim_dude (blood-relation) doesnt have much time at all, and therefore only comes on LI like hardly never. and his intention of posting this was to get his message clear, regardless of how long it took him and how large the post would be.

and reading the article posted, i think it pretty much explains it there.

wassalam eace: