Atheists are polytheists in disguise

[catmando]

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:

Hi nazia,

Yes your brother's post is very interesting, but as I said, Atheists have nothing to do with Polytheism. We do not believe in any gods whatsoever. So basically it was much ado about nothing.

For instance, you will never see me posting anything about Islam, because I know next to nothing about that religion. That's what surprised me most, that your brother would misrepresent Atheism as being Polytheistic. It shows a lack of knowledge about his subject matter. Polytheism means believing in many gods. Atheists do not believe in gods.

 

[muslim dude]

In response to Joe98...

The only "evidence" of a god that any of you put forward is the words written in the various "holy" books - which themselves were written by men.

The other evidence you give is the classic "the flowers are so beautiful they had to be made by a supernatural being".

I would say the fact that there was a time you did not exist, and then a time after when you did exist would be an evidence of the Creator and Sustainer of all creation.

Some people in the west who are monotheists use the term "God" to label The Creator and Sustainer of all creation and other people would use the term "Nature".

The simple answer is that nobody controlled the conditions you speak of. Nature accomplished this by itself.

However, in my opinion Nature is a polytheistic term for God because this terms combines the creation with The Creator.

If there is a god then he killed almost 400,000 people in the last 3 years or so. And most would have been believers. Only the non-believers were spared.

Well, everyone is going to die buddy. Just so you know... You are welcome to try to avoid it but my sincere advise will be to stop worshipping the creation and just worship the creator.



(Qur'an, Chapter 4 (An-Nisa: The Women): 78)
"'Wheresoever you may be, death will overtake you even if you are in fortresses built up strong and high!' And if some good reaches them, they say 'This is from Allah', but if some evil befalls them, they say, 'This is from you (O Muhammad (pbuh))'. Say: 'All things are from Allah', so what is wrong with these people that they fail to understand any word?"

Why doesn't he raise then from the dead? The classic answer: "because god works in mysterious ways".

Nope, this statement is incorrect. The classic answer is as follows:


(Qur'an, Chapter 3 (Ya-Sin): 51 - 52)
"And the Trumpet will be blown (i.e. the second blowing) and behold! From the graves they will come out quickly to their Lord."
"They will say: 'Woe to us! Who has raised us up from our place of sleep.' (It will be said to them): 'This is what the Most Beneficent (Allâh) had promised, and the Messengers spoke truth!'"

 

[muslim dude]

In response to czgibson...

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

So you are confused. Let me try to clear it up. Even if the roots of atheism go back much further, the fact is a lot of atheist come from christian background, hence its a backlash against certain christian concepts. My evidences are anecdotal so its your right to disagree if you want to... it doesn't matter, my main topic is about how atheists can be considered polytheists....

If really understood the initial posts, you would have come to realised how people went from the light of monotheism to the darkside of polytheism...

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

Now you may think that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 in which case perhaps you should brush up on your Mathematics as most people would have no problem agreeing Muslims are definitely the most widely followed monotheist religion in the world (and obviously, I am not denying that there are christians who are also monotheists).

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!"

Do you really want to know "Allah's revelation 1400 years ago is totally destroying the modern-day arguments of those who setup rivals to Allah!"? Insha'allah, I will let you know if you want

Quote:
And the people who are intent on preserving their secular laws have identified 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?

So you don't follow current affairs? That's cool. Here's a quote for starters.

"What in your opinion are the principal threats of the age? – He answered - “First, is what we call terrorism in the United States, but which is really the uprising of radical Islam against the secular world, and against the democratic world, on behalf of re-establishing a sort of Caliphate. That is directed as much against moderate Islam, than it is against non-Islamic societies.” - Hindustan Times Interview with Henry Kissinger, Nov 2004"

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?

I am happy with my sources of information thank you very much. Hey, you are more than welcome to refute the points by quoting from your "holy" atheist scriptures written by your "holy" atheist writers, if you dare...

Quote:
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.

Callum, this is the bit where you need to pay attention...

Now it depends on what you mean by "material things originally came to be". Are you talking about the process of creation? Then it doesn't matter what the process of creation was.

It could have been the Big Bang, the Small Bang, the Loud Bang, the Quiet Bang, (or as HeiGoi says some people think, it could be the devil ) The point is the process of creation is irrelevant to our discussion.

The main point is the following: Monotheists would believe that there was a point in time when there was no materials, then after a point in time materials came into existence in whatever way The Creator of all things have willed.

However some atheists would deny The Creator by stating that matter and energy always existed. Then this means that these atheists are transferring some of the attributes of God (that God is The First and The Last i.e. always existed) to the material things, thus they are treating them as God, even though they may not call them "God" and claim not to "worship" the material things as God. Hope this makes the point clear to you?!

(Qur'an, Chapter 39 (Az-Zumar - The Groups): 67) "They made not a just estimate of Allâh such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified is He, and High is He above all that they associate as partners with Him!"

Also, worth noting that "worship" in Islam has a much more deeper meaning than the traditional meaning in modern english.

 

[muslim dude]

Quote:
In response to heigoi...

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.

I am really sorry but what you are saying is just so illogical. It just does not make sense, how can someone know something and be ignorant of that same thing at the same time. Thats just such a weird thing to say. Are you claiming that God has no knowledge of the wind-up toy?


(Qur'an, Chapter 6 (Al-An'am: The Cattle): 59)
"And with Him are the keys of the Ghaib (all that is hidden), none knows them but He.And He knows whatever there is in (or on) the earth and in the sea; not a leaf falls, but he knows it.There is not a grain in the darkness of the earth nor anything fresh or dry, but is written in a Clear Record."


Even this example of a wind-up toy is flawed. Don't you know that even a wind-up toy needs to be re-winded up again? See?! There is nothing that can sustain itself without its Creator.

It is so important to follow revealed scriptues otherwise you will end up being misled by your own desires and make it up as you go along - hence keep on coming up with illogical arguments.

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.

Ok, no problem. In this case you are talking about the "process of creation". That's a matter of science and revealed scriptures... whether the "process of creation" is the Devil, Big Bang or whatever - it is irrelevant when discussing monotheism vs polytheism.

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.

Firstly, if you really understood Islam, then you would know Islam is the next logical step after monotheism. Secondly, it is not enough to "believe in only one God".

Why?

You have to believe in God with the correct attributes, namely that He has power over all things, and He is the All-Knower and All-Hearer.

Don't you know that the arab pagans also believed in one God? However they worshipped idols instead, as they thought the idols will intercede to God on their behalf. By doing so, they were saying that idols had power to influence God without any clear authority, and saying that God didn't know them, couldn't hear them, thus they needed their idols. What this meant is that they were denying God was All-Powerful, All-Hearer etc. This is also polytheism.

Now, if you are suggesting that the universe/wind-up toy exists over which God has not got complete Power and Knowledge over, then this is polytheism, because you would be treating the wind-up toy as another idol, just like the arab pagans with their stone idols.

My apologies, if this is not what you are suggesting and note this concept of God being All-Powerful, All-Knower should not be confused with the predestination/free will concept.

Quote
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.

The two concepts might overlap (monotheism vs polytheism and predestination/free will), but they are still two seperate concepts nonetheless and they should not be confused, hence I disagree with your statement.

However, I can sense this issue is important to you...

... which is why I was extremely disappointed when you didn't read Ansar's post on the subject. If you did, you would not have come out with the following ignorant statement:

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.

Again, predestination/free is a seperate issue to monotheism vs polytheism.

Just to clear up any confusion, muslims have taken the middle path in this issue. Muslims believe in both predestination and free will. How? Well, this time you really will have to read Ansar's post to find out

http://www.islamicboard.com/26794-post48.html

You should find that the post also answers your questions about devil disobeying God and things like that...


(Qur'an, Chapter 87 (Al-'Ala - The Most High): 9)
"Therefore remind (men) in case the reminder profits (them)."

 

[muslim dude]

In response to KAding and Joe98...

(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.

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.

Both are you are right in saying desiring money, pleasure and whatnot is not worshipping these things as God. So how can people take their own lust as God?

It is when people think their wealth will make them self-sufficient and not in need of God. This is one example of setting up rivals to God.

Another example of how people make their desires into God, is to say, that they know that God has forbidden something like eating pork, and after this, they then say "no, no, eating pork is good for me and God don't mind", then these people will be taking their desires as God. Effectively, these people are saying they know better than God. How far away from guidence are they?!

However, if you were to eat pork, but this is out of your own weakness and you acknowledge that you are disobeying God then this is a sin and NOT taking your own desire as God.

Hope you both can now understand that atheists by denying God, and denying the blessings of God are actually, by default taking their own desires as God.

 

[muslim dude]

In response to ganeshsikkim...

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....

Sorry, did not mean to offend you unjustly. All I said was the atheists and hindus happen to share the same definition of God which is to combine the Creator with the creation.


Sure hindus don't call The Creator "God", they call The Creator "Brahma".
Sure atheists don't call The Creator "God", they call The Creator "Nature".

The simple answer is that nobody controlled the conditions you speak of. Nature accomplished this by itself.

Now the difference between hindus (and also other followers of revealed/spiritual religions) compared with atheist is that hindus usually actually still believes that The Creator is worthy of worship whereas the atheist do not.

It is in my opinion, the reason why atheist say they don't "believe in God" is not because they *disbelieve* in the Creator, but they don't want to worship the Creator. They rather focus on the material things as they believe it is the material things that will make them self-sufficient...

Hope this clears up any misunderstanding.


(Qur'an, Chapter 17 (Al-Isra: The Journey by Night): 15)
"Whoever goes right, then he goes right only for the benefit of his ownself. And whoever goes astray, then he goes astray to his own loss. No one laden with burdens can bear another's burden. And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)."

 

[muslim dude]

In response to catmando...

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".

Ok Catmando, you have raised two interesting points (thanks for that, as I think both are beneficial points) and I will respond to the best of my ability insha'allah.

Point 1

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 agree and what I would called the "other beliefs" is "way of life" (religion). However the belief of worshipping one God or not influence which way of life (religion), a person would live by. So an atheist would follow a secular way of life (religion) like the various sects of democracy you mentioned whereas a person who believe in worshipping God would try to follow a revealed/spiritual way of life (religion).

Point 2

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.

What does light mean? Opposite of dark!
What does big mean? Opposite of small!
What does fast mean? Opposite of slow!
What does a moral person mean? Opposite of amoral person!
What does a theist mean? Opposite of atheist!

Do you see how the above answers to the questions does not really explain the meaning of the terms?

Dark does not really explain light.
Small does not really explain big.
Amoral person does not explain moral person...

...and atheism does not explain theism!!!

Atheists have nothing to do with Polytheism. We do not believe in any gods whatsoever. So basically it was much ado about nothing.

So, when you realise what theism really is, subha'nallah you would realise there are essentially two viewpoints in the world regarding belief. One is a monotheistic and one is polytheistic. Again I agree with you that belief is separate from the way of life(religion) but it does influence what way of life a person chooses.

Now I know, you are going to say "atheists do not believe in God or gods". However many times atheists say this, the fact is they mostly do believe in a higher power of somesort except they choose not to refer to the higher power with the label "God".

The simple answer is that nobody controlled the conditions you speak of. Nature accomplished this by itself.

Why? It means they don't have to worship the "higher power". So where does polytheism come into it? Firstly, you will have to understand what monotheism means, which is the believe in The Creator who is All-Powerful, All-Knower, All-Mighty etc (see 99 names of Allah for more info...)

Now, the reason why some atheists like using the term "Nature" instead of "God" to refer to The Creator is they deny some of the aforementioned attributes of God.

To give an example, they would say things like The Creator cannot stop death, cannot stop earthquakes and hurricanes, and in general does not have full power over all the creations (material things). So in effect, those atheists are setting up the material things as rivals to The Creator. This is what we call polytheistic way of thinking of the "higher power".

So you might say fine, but atheists don't worship these material rivals to God. Well, seeing as we both agreed that belief is separate from way of life (religion), then the logical conclusion would be that setting up material rivals to God is indeed a polytheistic belief but whether the person chooses to worship these material things or not is a matter of religion (way of life).

(Qur'an, Chapter 39 (Az-Zumar - The Groups): 67) "They made not a just estimate of Allâh such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified is He, and High is He above all that they associate as partners with Him!"

Hopefully, Catmando, what you will gain from my post is that there is a deeper meaning to "theism" ( and also to "worship" which I have not covered - might make this post a bit too long ) and my advise to you is keep your mind open and study Islam and keep on asking questions and insha'allah, we muslims of this forum will try our best to respond to you or direct you to scholars who have more knowledge.

You will benefit from your study of Islam by being better placed to make an informed decision on your beliefs and hence, on the way of life you choose to live by.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

So you are confused. Let me try to clear it up. Even if the roots of atheism go back much further, the fact is a lot of atheist come from christian background, hence its a backlash against certain christian concepts. My evidences are anecdotal so its your right to disagree if you want to... it doesn't matter, my main topic is about how atheists can be considered polytheists....

I get the point, and you're basically right to say that a lot of modern day atheists are ex-Christians. Of course there are also a number of atheist ideas that were around long before Christianity (e.g. Epicurus' paradox), but I can see where you're coming from.

If really understood the initial posts, you would have come to realised how people went from the light of monotheism to the darkside of polytheism...

In discussions on the forum with Ansar Al-'Adl, he's always maintained that polytheism was characteristic of primitive societies and monotheism of more advanced ones. Or perhaps you mean more recently? In any case, the use of "light" and "dark" add value-judgments to the discussion, thus reducing the objectivity of your argument.

Now you may think that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 in which case perhaps you should brush up on your Mathematics as most people would have no problem agreeing Muslims are definitely the most widely followed monotheist religion in the world (and obviously, I am not denying that there are christians who are also monotheists).

I disagree. All Christians describe themselves as monotheists - not just some of them! In any case, as I said, this is just an argument about a word.

Do you really want to know "Allah's revelation 1400 years ago is totally destroying the modern-day arguments of those who setup rivals to Allah!"? Insha'allah, I will let you know if you want

I just think it's a plain factual inaccuracy. No-one's told any philosophers about this, for example, and they know all about arguments of every kind.

So you don't follow current affairs? That's cool.

Please don't make assumptions like that. Of course I follow current affairs; it's just that I don't interpret them in the same way you do. Try to accept that people hold different opinions to you rather than simply assuming they are ignorant.

"What in your opinion are the principal threats of the age? – He answered - “First, is what we call terrorism in the United States, but which is really the uprising of radical Islam against the secular world, and against the democratic world, on behalf of re-establishing a sort of Caliphate. That is directed as much against moderate Islam, than it is against non-Islamic societies.” - Hindustan Times Interview with Henry Kissinger, Nov 2004"

I'm very surprised that you've claimed that this quote supports your view that: "the people who are intent on preserving their secular laws have identified 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."

In the quote from Kissinger, of course, this position is not in evidence. Unless you'd like to equate terrorism with Islam, that is; but this idea is obviously abhorrent.

I am happy with my sources of information thank you very much. Hey, you are more than welcome to refute the points by quoting from your "holy" atheist scriptures written by your "holy" atheist writers, if you dare...

I don't think anything is "holy". I think the word is essentially meaningless.

I can't use any atheist writer to refute your idea that atheists are actually polytheists, since the idea is so transparently ludicrous that none of them have ever considered it.

Callum, this is the bit where you need to pay attention...

Thank you for patronising me; I am an adult, you know.

Now it depends on what you mean by "material things originally came to be". Are you talking about the process of creation? Then it doesn't matter what the process of creation was.

It could have been the Big Bang, the Small Bang, the Loud Bang, the Quiet Bang, (or as HeiGoi says some people think, it could be the devil ) The point is the process of creation is irrelevant to our discussion.

You say this, and then you go on to discuss the process of creation. Confusing.

I think HeiGou could be talking about Manichaeanism.

The main point is the following: Monotheists would believe that there was a point in time when there was no materials, then after a point in time materials came into existence in whatever way The Creator of all things have willed.

However some atheists would deny The Creator by stating that matter and energy always existed. Then this means that these atheists are transferring some of the attributes of God (that God is The First and The Last i.e. always existed) to the material things, thus they are treating them as God, even though they may not call them "God" and claim not to "worship" the material things as God. Hope this makes the point clear to you?!

But you have claimed that all atheists are polytheists in disguise - not just some of them. For what it's worth, I don't know of any atheists who hold the position you mention - I certainly don't. I would never dream of "stating that matter and energy always existed" - this is something that is simply unknown.

Overall, I'm still as stunned by your views as ever. I'm utterly amazed that anyone could believe that atheists are actually polytheists. This is the case to such an extent that I can only believe that we are talking at cross-purposes in some way: you and I must have different understandings of one or other of the terms involved here, since, as I understand these terms, your claim is straightforwardly and obviously wrong. To me, it's just as illogical as saying that vegetarians are actually all omnivores, or that pacifists are actually all soldiers.

Peace

 

[Link]

I don't think anything is "holy". I think the word is essentially meaningless.

Why does it exist then? And how come people use it and understand it when it is used?

 

[snakelegs]

"polytheistic atheists" is an oxymoron.
because they don't believe in god = they believe in a whole bunch of gods????
don't take offense, but here's a definition of "oxymoron" just because the word isn't used that often.
Main Entry: ox·y·mo·ron
Pronunciation: "äk-sE-'mor-"än
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ox·y·mo·ra /-'mor-&/
Etymology: Late Greek oxymOron, from neuter of oxymOros pointedly foolish, from Greek oxys sharp, keen + mOros foolish
: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/oxymoron

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Why does it exist then? And how come people use it and understand it when it is used?

Apologies, I was not being precise. By 'essentially meaningless', I mean that the word refers to nothing in reality; it has no reference. So people understand it in the same way that they understand words like 'unicorn'. If you tried to define a unicorn you would have to get into the realm of fiction, and this is similar with words like 'holy'. Many other theological terms are also without a reference in this way.

Peace

 

[Link]

Greetings,


Apologies, I was not being precise. By 'essentially meaningless', I mean that the word refers to nothing in reality; it has no reference. So people understand it in the same way that they understand words like 'unicorn'. If you tried to define a unicorn you would have to get into the realm of fiction, and this is similar with words like 'holy'. Many other theological terms are also without a reference in this way.

Peace

Unicorns can be imagined, drawn, so it is has a reality atleast to an extent, holiness therefore still has a reality in the minds of mankind - the most you can say is that the reality is baseless - but it exists in the minds much like the concept of love, happiness, etc exists in our minds - so it's a inward part of man whether you believe it should be or not. The most you can say is that it's a pointless reality mankind does not need.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Unicorns can be imagined, drawn, so it is has a reality atleast to an extent, holiness therefore still has a reality in the minds of mankind - the most you can say is that the reality is baseless - but it exists in the minds much like the concept of love, happiness, etc exists in our minds - so it's a inward part of man whether you believe it should be or not. So it still exists, the most you can say is that it's a pointless reality mankind does not need.

Right - this is the point I'm making.

I notice you say that unicorns can be imagined - holiness too can be imagined. This only shows that it's a real concept that exists in our minds, not that it's necessarily real.

Peace

 

[Link]

Hey Czibson,

I think my point and your point are slightly different.
I am saying it is real but it's not something physical - it's something concious - just like love, hate, happiness, jealousy, are all things that exist in the concious - holiness is real like wise but a concious real - it's experienced just like love, angriness, taste, colours, are all experienced. If you think it's not neccessarily real, then love too isn't neccessiraly real. The most you can say is that it is a pointless thing that exists in the concious. "Holiness" is a real reality, the source and why exists we do differ about, but the fact it is a reality within us like love is a reality cannot be argued. "Love" cannot be attributed to imagination, neither can holiness, it's something that exists.

peace

 

[duskiness]

The Roman Emperor's plan to stop the monotheist is not working... this message of "There is no one worthy of worship except God" is spreading. What can the Roman Emperor do to convince his subjects that he should also have some power?!

Books were burned, pure places of monotheist worship (synagogues and churches) were destroyed and monotheist Christian and Jews (especially the scholars) were brutally murdered. As well as the fear created in upholding the rule of the law of the ancient Roman state, the knowledge disappeared which meant confusion spread amongst the mass followers of the teachings of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

St Paul and others like him managed to convince a lot of people of his ideas.

The Roman Emperor was jumping from joy at this turn of events. Now, he has found his champion in St Paul, which is to change monotheistic Christianity to something where creations were given part of divinity. From the Roman Emperor's point of view, it was only a matter of time before divinity given to "dead" unseen creations were passed on to "alive" creations i.e. himself. This is how the Roman Emperor will maintain his rule and also contain the threat of the original teachings of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) which was La ilaha illallah!

- sorry for such a long quotation. Do you know Muslim Dude, that prosecution of Christian took place mostly AFTER St. Paul (who live in I AD, his letters were written artound 50-60AD). So why "The Roman Emperor was jumping from joy at this turn of events" and AFTER that starting to prosecut Christians???

One such conference was the (in)famous Nicea held in AD325. No surprise to learn that St Paul's views were mostly adopted and this brand of Christianity was so beloved by the Roman Emperor, that he declared it the official state religion

- false. Constantine didn't make make Christianity (or "any brand") state religion.
But i don't think you're intrested in history of Christianity

ad: atheist=politheist i think you are simply changing meaning of these terms. you are trying by force to put atheists to a drawer they really don't suite.
n.

 

[muslim dude]

I get the point, and you're basically right to say that a lot of modern day atheists are ex-Christians. Of course there are also a number of atheist ideas that were around long before Christianity (e.g. Epicurus' paradox), but I can see where you're coming from.

Thanks and I did say before that I agree that a number of atheist ideas that were around long before Christianity.

In discussions on the forum with Ansar Al-'Adl, he's always maintained that polytheism was characteristic of primitive societies and monotheism of more advanced ones. Or perhaps you mean more recently?

Sure, I agree that polytheism is a characteristic of primitive societies but by that it could be meant in terms of thoughts, goals of the society and morals. I mean when people don't believe in God and the last day, people will end up just fighting over the dunya (the materials of this world) with the strong trampling over the rights of the poor (although I am not saying that this applies to all polytheists, there are lots of people who have good morals without worshipping God alone) because they don't believe that hearafter is better than this world...

However, this does not mean that the primitive societies were less technologically advance. Quite often, you would find that they were very technologically advanced when Messengers of God was sent to them. And sometimes, it was because of their advanced technology, that they became arrogant and thought the materials of this world is enough to make them self-sufficient and not in need of God. For example, Egypt was the unrivalled power of the time of Moses (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). There are many stories in the Qur'an about societies with these kind of polytheistic ideas about materials making them self-sufficient, and then God sent His Messengers to warn them and due to their arrogance, they didn't see the error of their thinking, thus were destroyed in whatever way God willed.


(Qur'an, Chapter 35 (Fatir: The Originator of Creation): 24-26)
"Verily! We have sent you with the truth, a bearer of glad tidings, and a warner. And there never was a nation but a warner had passed among them."
"And if they belie you, those before them also belied. Their Messengers came to them with clear signs, and with the Scriptures, and the book giving light."
"Then I took hold of those who disbelieved, and how terrible was My denial (punishment)!"

Quote:
Now you may think that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 in which case perhaps you should brush up on your Mathematics as most people would have no problem agreeing Muslims are definitely the most widely followed monotheist religion in the world (and obviously, I am not denying that there are christians who are also monotheists).

I disagree. All Christians describe themselves as monotheists - not just some of them! In any case, as I said, this is just an argument about a word.

Well Callum, as an English teacher, I am sure you know that meanings of word is important and this thread is indeed about atheism, polytheism and monotheism, so their meanings are important.

Sure, all Christians might describe themselves as monotheists but then it boils down to a mathematical equation.
Some sects like the Jehova Witnesses have accepted Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is just an earthly prophet and servant of God and not Son of God (just like the muslims position), thus I am sure they would not mind accepting 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, whereas the others argue 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.

But, never in a millions years, did I expect that you too, would also argue that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. Anyway, this point is off-topic so you don't have to respond...

Quote:
Do you really want to know "Allah's revelation 1400 years ago is totally destroying the modern-day arguments of those who setup rivals to Allah!"? Insha'allah, I will let you know if you want

I just think it's a plain factual inaccuracy. No-one's told any philosophers about this, for example, and they know all about arguments of every kind.

With all due to respect, I would say you have a little to much blind faith in your philosophers if you feel they answered all the arguments under the sun. Anyhow, do let me know if you change your mind...

Quote:
So you don't follow current affairs? That's cool.

Please don't make assumptions like that. Of course I follow current affairs; it's just that I don't interpret them in the same way you do. Try to accept that people hold different opinions to you rather than simply assuming they are ignorant.

Yes, you are right. Insha'allah in the future, I will try to give people benefit of the doubt.

Quote:
"What in your opinion are the principal threats of the age? – He answered - “First, is what we call terrorism in the United States, but which is really the uprising of radical Islam against the secular world, and against the democratic world, on behalf of re-establishing a sort of Caliphate. That is directed as much against moderate Islam, than it is against non-Islamic societies.” - Hindustan Times Interview with Henry Kissinger, Nov 2004"

I'm very surprised that you've claimed that this quote supports your view that: "the people who are intent on preserving their secular laws have identified 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."

In the quote from Kissinger, of course, this position is not in evidence. Unless you'd like to equate terrorism with Islam, that is; but this idea is obviously abhorrent.

I think you should give Kissinger's understanding a bit more credit than you have. Essentially, the war on terrorism is phoney because its targetting the less than 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001% muslims who believe Islam should be spread through terror.

However the vast majority know that only Islam (or what Kissinger, unhelpfully calls "Radical Islam") can spread by winning hearts and minds of people. How do we know this? This is the way (sunnah) of the final Prophet and Messenger of God, Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. See stage 1 and 2 of the seerah (biography) of the final Prophet of Allah for more details.

And as you are following current affairs, you would read that indeed the secular leaders of the West and East also realise the need to win the hearts and minds.

Why? Because Islam takes away people from the worship of man to the worship of God alone.

The secular leaders intend to win the hearts and minds through their twin weapons of fear and materialism and do you want to know what is the weapon that all the muslims posses in order to protect themselves and strike fear into their enemies?

It is the Noble Qur'an, the Weapon of Mass Guidance!

This is the weapon that Blair, Bush and every other secular leader fears the most as it will mean they will lose control of the people... (especially if us muslims do our job properly by fulfilling the sunnah by giving Da'wah to the people)


(Qur'an, Chapter 11 (Hud: The Prophet Hud): 1-2)
"Alif-Lâm-Râ. [These letters are one of the miracles of the Qur'ân and none but Allâh (Alone) knows their meanings]. (This is) a Book, the Verses whereof are perfected (in every sphere of knowledge, etc.), and then explained in detail from One (Allâh), Who is All-Wise and Well-Acquainted (with all things)."
"(Saying) worship none but Allâh. Verily, I (Muhammad ) am unto you from Him a warner and a bringer of glad tidings."

Quote:
I am happy with my sources of information thank you very much. Hey, you are more than welcome to refute the points by quoting from your "holy" atheist scriptures written by your "holy" atheist writers, if you dare...

I can't use any atheist writer to refute your idea that atheists are actually polytheists, since the idea is so transparently ludicrous that none of them have ever considered it.

Hey, that's your call...

Quote:
Callum, this is the bit where you need to pay attention...

Thank you for patronising me; I am an adult, you know.

Sorry, it was not my intention to insult you. I know that my posts can be a bit long and I know your time is valuable so I would rather you concentrate on the main topic of why I think atheists are really polytheists instead of the political/"which religion is bigger" stuff which are slightly off-topic...

Again, the following is what I really want to concentrate on...

Quote:
It could have been the Big Bang, the Small Bang, the Loud Bang, the Quiet Bang, (or as HeiGoi says some people think, it could be the devil ) The point is the process of creation is irrelevant to our discussion.

You say this, and then you go on to discuss the process of creation. Confusing.

Well, we have three concepts The Creator, the creation and the process of creation. What I was stating was that as long as you agree that all the materials are creation, then I would say that's the evidence of the Creator and the process of creation (i.e. how the creation was created) is irrelevant to our discussion as its a matter of revealed scripture and science.

Here is an analogy that might help you. Take for example that I am a chef and have cooked some meat for dinner because you feel like having meat or something like that. However, I didn't tell you how I cooked the meat (which is the process of creation) maybe because you don't care as long as its meat. So the process of how I cooked the meat could have been grilled, fried, barbecued, roasted, stewed or made into a curry, but I just didn't tell you.

Likewise, we are discussing whether matter and energy (i.e. everything) is created or not. If you accept the notion of a Creator, then you have to accept that matter and energy (i.e. everything) is created and the exact process of creation (i.e. Big Bang, whatever etc) is irrelevant to our discussion.

Overall, I'm still as stunned by your views as ever. I'm utterly amazed that anyone could believe that atheists are actually polytheists.

Ok... let me try to approach it from a different angle. Do you remember in our discussion awhile ago about the "evidence for the existence of God" and I was saying the evidence are things like the Sun, Moon, rain, trees etc.

Your reply was this is not evidence because according to you, I was just attributing everything to God. Well, the point I will make now is if these things are not attributed to God, then who/what are you attributing these things to then?

The answer you give will determine if your belief is monotheistic or polytheistic.

I would never dream of "stating that matter and energy always existed" - this is something that is simply unknown.

So what are you saying?

Well allow me to present the two options.

option 1
Are you saying that everything is created, hence you believe in the Creator? Why would people with these beliefs be classified as atheist?

option 2
Are you saying that matter and energy always existed and hence deny the existence of The Creator? In that case you have just give some of the attributes of God (namely that God is The First and The Last i.e. always existed) to the material things and seeing as matter and energy are plural things, hence that belief is polytheistic (even if for example you do not prostrate to these materials things).

Perhaps the source of your confusion is you don't know if you are an atheist/polytheist or a monotheist? Well, I do hope you think about it and by the permission of Allah, you end up choosing option 1.


(Qur'an, Chapter 17 (Al-Isra: The Journey by Night): 15)
"Whoever goes right, then he goes right only for the benefit of his ownself. And whoever goes astray, then he goes astray to his own loss. No one laden with burdens can bear another's burden. And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)."

 

[muslim dude]

"polytheistic atheists" is an oxymoron.
because they don't believe in god = they believe in a whole bunch of gods????
don't take offense, but here's a definition of "oxymoron" just because the word isn't used that often.
Main Entry: ox·y·mo·ron
Pronunciation: "äk-sE-'mor-"än
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ox·y·mo·ra /-'mor-&/
Etymology: Late Greek oxymOron, from neuter of oxymOros pointedly foolish, from Greek oxys sharp, keen + mOros foolish
: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/oxymoron

Ok snakelegs, thanks for the info.

In response to your point the fact that atheist deny the existence of God, The Creator, The Sustainer, The All-Knower, All-Mighty etc implies that they are giving the attributes of God to material things, hence they are taking the material things as gods, even if they do not worship the material things as gods (although the term "worship" has a deeper meaning in Islam...).

Hope that explains my point of view...

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Muslim Dude,

I mean when people don't believe in God and the last day, people will end up just fighting over the dunya (the materials of this world) with the strong trampling over the rights of the poor (although I am not saying that this applies to all polytheists, there are lots of people who have good morals without worshipping God alone) because they don't believe that hearafter is better than this world...

Do you believe that an atheist could have good morals?

Well Callum, as an English teacher, I am sure you know that meanings of word is important and this thread is indeed about atheism, polytheism and monotheism, so their meanings are important.

OK. My point was simply that we can argue about what a polytheist is or is not and we'll never get anywhere if we're using different definitions of the word. I've already given the dictionary definition of polytheist, and shown that it has nothing in common with atheism, which I would have thought is quite clear to everyone. You seem to want to differ on this basic point though, and I'm still not sure why.

Sure, all Christians might describe themselves as monotheists but then it boils down to a mathematical equation.

No it doesn't. It boils down to the mysteries of Christian belief.

But, never in a millions years, did I expect that you too, would also argue that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.

And I didn't actually argue that. I find the idea just as ludicrous as you do; I simply said that Christians describe themselves as monotheists, which is true.

With all due to respect, I would say you have a little to much blind faith in your philosophers if you feel they answered all the arguments under the sun.

And I never stated that either. Please read my posts carefully.

You claimed that "Allah's revelation 1400 years ago is totally destroying the modern-day arguments of those who setup rivals to Allah!". I simply pointed out that this is nowhere near being true. Read some contemporary philosophy, consider the arguments, and then tell me how Islam destroys them. Better still, find me a philosopher who agrees with you!

I think you should give Kissinger's understanding a bit more credit than you have.

Where have I discredited Kissinger? He's a hateful man, but I pretty much agree with what he says here.

Essentially, the war on terrorism is phoney because its targetting the less than 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001% muslims who believe Islam should be spread through terror.

Why does that make it phoney?! Surely that's exactly what Bush and Blair are claiming to do?

This War on Terror discussion is not really relevant to the main topic of the thread, so I'll stop discussing it here, once I've said the following:

I highly doubt that Bush and Blair are very worried that Westerners will be reading the Qur'an and flocking to Islam. Firstly, so what if they do? People are free to follow whatever belief-system they choose. Secondly, the reaction of most Westerners on reading the Qur'an consists of boredom alternating with disbelief and bafflement - sorry, but it just doesn't translate well.

Hey, that's your call...

It's not my opinion, it's a fact. Unless, of course, you can find me an example of an atheist writer seriously considering the proposition that atheism may actually be polytheism. Good luck with that...

Sorry, it was not my intention to insult you.

Apology accepted.

I know that my posts can be a bit long and I know your time is valuable so I would rather you concentrate on the main topic of why I think atheists are really polytheists instead of the political/"which religion is bigger" stuff which are slightly off-topic...

Quite right.

Ok... let me try to approach it from a different angle. Do you remember in our discussion awhile ago about the "evidence for the existence of God" and I was saying the evidence are things like the Sun, Moon, rain, trees etc.

Yes. This is essentially the argument from design.

Your reply was this is not evidence because according to you, I was just attributing everything to God. Well, the point I will make now is if these things are not attributed to God, then who/what are you attributing these things to then?

I'm not attributing them to anything, except to say they are part of the universe. We can say how they evolved to get there up to a certain point, but we don't know how they ultimately originated.

The answer you give will determine if your belief is monotheistic or polytheistic.

Does atheism not exist anymore?! Are there really no other possibilities between monotheism and polytheism?

So what are you saying?

Well allow me to present the two options.

option 1
Are you saying that everything is created, hence you believe in the Creator? Why would people with these beliefs be classified as atheist?

Certainly not. That would obviously not be an atheist position.

option 2
Are you saying that matter and energy always existed and hence deny the existence of The Creator? In that case you have just give some of the attributes of God (namely that God is The First and The Last i.e. always existed) to the material things and seeing as matter and energy are plural things, hence that belief is polytheistic (even if for example you do not prostrate to these materials things).

I'm not saying this either. In answer to the question: "Do you believe that matter and energy have always existed, or that they came into being at some point?" I say "I don't know".

Perhaps the source of your confusion is you don't know if you are an atheist/polytheist or a monotheist? Well, I do hope you think about it and by the permission of Allah, you end up choosing option 1.

The source of my confusion is your highly unusual argument!

I'm an atheist. There's no question about that whatsoever.

I notice that in your response to snakelegs you've given a succinct account of your view. I hope you don't mind if I respond to it here:

In response to your point the fact that atheist deny the existence of God, The Creator, The Sustainer, The All-Knower, All-Mighty etc implies that they are giving the attributes of God to material things, hence they are taking the material things as gods, even if they do not worship the material things as gods (although the term "worship" has a deeper meaning in Islam...).

This is a very odd argument, full of assertions, conditionals and reservations. You've claimed certain things that are in fact nothing to do with the atheist position. Let me ask: can you tell me precisely which material things I bestow with the attributes of god? What material thing(s) do atheists such as me claim are all-knowing? What material thing(s) do atheists claim to be "The Creator"?

Next, you appear to contradict yourself. You say that atheists are taking these things as gods, even though they do not worship them as gods. If we found out what these things were, that might be a start, but since atheists don't believe in any gods, it's hard to see how they could be worshipping them!

Still baffled, by the way. It's mind-boggling to think that anyone actually holds the position you're advocating here!

Peace

 

[Link]

Czgibson, since your stance is you don't know, why aren't you agnostic instead of athiest?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Czgibson, since your stance is you don't know, why aren't you agnostic instead of athiest?

Here's what I said:

In answer to the question: "Do you believe that matter and energy have always existed, or that they came into being at some point?" I say "I don't know".

This question has no bearing on whether I am an atheist or an agnostic. When asked "Do you believe in god?" I say "No", not "I don't know", as an agnostic would.

Peace