How do you disbelieve in Allah !!!

[glo]

Since this thread seems to have opened up to sharing own views, I will try to explain my own reasons.

As a Christian I do believe in God, even in the God of Abraham ... so that's something we have in common.

If you are asking why I don't follow Islam, I have to say that the reason is plain and simply that Islam doesn't speak to me. :rollseyes
To me, it lacks life, it lacks divine spark, it doesn't touch me or move me in the way Christianity does.
Now I don't mean to offend anybody when I say that. I am aware that many people are touched by and passionate about Islam. I see those people here!
But no matter how much a read and understand about Islam, it continues to leave me cold.

You see, I am not worried about that.
My husband, who is an atheist, sometimes says 'If God really wants me, and he is so powerful, then he is welcome to convince me that he is real!'
You know, I agree with him. God touches our lives, and chooses to move our souls when his timing is right ... as long as we are open to him.
I believe God to be loving, caring and all-powerful.

I commit myself to God's will daily. I desire nothing more than to fulfill the purpose he has for me.
I pray daily that God will search my heart and remove anything that is not pleasing to him. And that he will fill me with everything that is good and right, to make me the person he has destined me to be.
I am convinced that as long as I do that, I am safe with God.
If ever he wanted me to leave my faith and follow another, he could move me to do so!
My trust is in God first! As long as walk with him, I have no fear.

Until now, God has not prompted me to change my faith.
Until he does so, I will continue to follow Jesus as the Son of God and my personal saviour. :statisfie

Peace.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

:salamext:

i kinda believe Allah swt only guides those who truelly desire guidance,

"who he guides none can misguide and who he misguides non can guide!"

the understanding is free-will, u wanna b guided? Allah inshaAllah will guide you, u wanna b ignorant? Allah will leave u to ur ways and let u dwell.


The disbelievers only disbelieve because they want to disbelieve, the nafs, you kno the way that jew got the people to worship the golden calf during the time of Musa and Harun AS, why did he do it? He felt like it, simple as that, NAFS!


Nafs makes people disbelieve... thats what i think ! pomp and glitter of the dunya....

Those who desire the life of the present and its glitter,- to them we shall pay (the price of) their deeds therein,- without diminution.

Surah Hud Verse 15

^ That is the reason people think they are so happy, Allah pays there the price for there deeds... they dont realise the agony which awaits !

"As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Surah Al-Imran Verse 56

 

[Curaezipirid]

Sister Curaezipirid,

At first I was quite taken back at how you could have found the thread title so offensive.

Now, after looking at it and trying to see different ways it could be seen, I think I see why it offended you. It can be taken as an attack on an Allah(swt) believing person, insinuating that the person does not believe in Allah(swt). That is if a person views it as being intended for all people and not directed at Athiests.

Another possibility it can be viewed that the thread is an instruction manual to teach a person how not to believe in Allah(swt)

This is an excellent example of how different people can see the exact same words and come to such different conclusions.

Perhaps this may be a reason why some people do not believe in Allah(swt). We all tend to interpret what we see in different manners. Perhaps that is why what makes so much sense to some people is meaningless to others.

Yes and yes yes,

There are two complimentary fact in play. The first is that Qur'an, but also very much of Gospel, has always been written so that any person determined in non-belief can readily read it as though we are all faulted for believing; that is if they so choose to break the text up into small pieces that can be assumed of meaning by lossing context. The second is simply that there are many persons whom need that a thing is told in telling about what it is not, and also what is not what it is not, until there is not possibly denial left undenied.

Factually the title of this thread is very affirming in Allah for such persons, and I was a little rapid in my approach to a response. So my apology for that. I am in a situation where my true belief has been denied repeatedly to my face so often that I am unable to accomodate any further assumptions of such upon my self, and it is in that feeling that I made the post, but as I tell, it was hasty of me, so my apology.

How . . . well it is that I was in full reconciled belief when I read, but if in any expressions otherly, slothful of course.

do . . . . this is where I had a concern as to the translation, and I also took offense; can it be that I am "doing" any other person into mistaking Allah? maybe it is possible, but not that any answer could be given if so, yet in truth simply I do not, but that I am accorded to in Allah, if doing is the correct verb to apply ever

you disbelieve in Allah . . . . .

. . . . is it possible for the whole to translate from the Arabic as something like: What is the real feeling in your expressions that are not expression of reality in Allah?

Thanks for the considerate response Woodrow,

Steve, I can not believe without evidence, and am not convinced that any person should: yet I experience evidence of Allah's existing in my very breath and the ground under my feet and sky over my head, as a minute by minute sensory experience, so thereby what more evidence can I need: is it that this is also what you were meaning rather than that belief need no evidence? Or is it that you were meaning more that we must believe in our own self; since it is more important in a ill world to believe in owning our own ills than to believe in that future we will experience in Allah: so then belief relates to the evidence only of self observation, but yet evidence. . . ? I wonder if you can perceive my perspective?

glo, I too have more true feeling in Isa than in Qur'an and Mohammed, Peace goes with Him always also in Jesus. I am, however, in absolute and permanent commitment in Islam, in belief that Islam is the real shell that true Christian Faith needs, and in belief that modern Christianity has been at fault in preventing many Muslims from sustaining Faith in Isa, and in belief that Qur'an provides to many Muslims in a way that no other previous teaching could, a way that is harsher than Gospel, to a trained ear, but once comprehended binds commitment to its cause as a permanent fact in Isa. I hope I can thereby have tempted your intellect to perhaps at least be curious and listen to Qur'an recital this Ramadan, even if it stirs unwelcome feeling: that is unavoidable but ever that reconciliable of course/ the least of Souls in worth will also be saved only through Isa, and this is Islam's true worth. I am braver in expressing in your expression so thankyou for it. Peace on Earth is/ Oh Allah but my children did

mu'asalam

 

[Trumble]

Believing is something that is done without evidence.

No. Believing as the result of faith is something that is done without evidence.

Now, I can understand that since you don't believe in all these things like the afterlife and so on which I build my answer on that you hence don't hold a lot of value to my response. However I think you'll be forced to agree that If you have an argument against Islam, then that argument is flawed when it doesn't take under consideration all the difrent aspects whitin Islam.

I think its a very good response, although hardly a novel one. I really have seen all of them before! I just don't find it convincing, just as I don't find any other argument for the existence of God convincing. In the absence of any direct experience of God... God "touching my life" as Glo would say, I have no reason for such faith. My own 'faith', though, makes both intellectual and experiential faith to me. I wasn't attempting to argue against Islam, or indeed Judaism or Christianity either, just stating why I personally do not believe there is a God. I believe that on the basis of evidence, but I have no "proof"; there is no more proof God doesn't exist than that He does.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

There is however much evidence the other way, not least of which is infamous "problem of evil". I've seen all the 'responses' to that one - Ansar has linked to the most common in the "why are children born handicapped" thread - and find them totally unsatisfactory, verging on desperate.

The post Trumble is referring to is here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/481930-post35.html

The 'problem of evil' is a argument in the form reductio ad absurdum - it is either logically sound or faulty. I have shown in detail in other threads (see the link in the above link) why there are several manifest flaws in the argument and it is one of the weakest arguments provided. I have provided my responses in debates with several atheists and agnostics and I welcome anyone to provide objective criticism on those arguments. Simply calling them 'desperate' and 'unsatisfactory' hopelessly fails to detract in any way from the strength of those arguments. By all means, be productive and provide objective feedback on my responses but please don't just waste bandwidth with unsubstantiated claims.

Please note, I don't mind if you wish to hold that opinion - that's entirely up to you. However, your quote above seems quite unequivocal in claiming there is more evidence against God, hence I challenge that assertion.

I think its a very good response, although hardly a novel one.

Hardly a novel one implies that it is probably one of the 'common' responses you mentioned earlier. 'Very good' yet on the 'verging on desperate'?

And how about if someone answered the 'problem of evil' by saying, "God is above logic!" - by your standards I would assume that would be a completely satisfactory response? Your position seems in conflict with your earlier posts.

Regards

 

[Abdul Fattah]

No. Believing as the result of faith is something that is done without evidence.

Yeah sure, but you got my point right? if you "believe" then by defenition you don't have evidence.

I think its a very good response, although hardly a novel one. I really have seen all of them before! I just don't find it convincing, just as I don't find any other argument for the existence of God convincing. In the absence of any direct experience of God... God "touching my life" as Glo would say, I have no reason for such faith. My own 'faith', though, makes both intellectual and experiential faith to me. I wasn't attempting to argue against Islam, or indeed Judaism or Christianity either, just stating why I personally do not believe there is a God. I believe that on the basis of evidence, but I have no "proof"; there is no more proof God doesn't exist than that He does.

Yes I agree, I already stated various times in other threads: personal expieriances goes a long way. The reason I made this reply was not to "proove" Islam is right, but simply to show there is no evidence against it, just as there is no evidence for it.

And naturally, when you don't believe, you see not believing as a neutral position when there is no more proof God doesn't exist than that He does.
However consider for the sake of argument, what if religion is true. Is not believing then still neutral? What if, you already had all the personal expieriances but you simply didn't connect the dots because you were unwiling to? (I'm not saying this is teh case, I'm just saying what if )

 

[Curaezipirid]

Alaikumassalam,

Hey! nobody believe at all without evidence of some sort or else they must be only imagining. We as Muslims are not to believe in imagination, it is forbidden.

Think of this: I can not manifest belief without cause.

If a person told me they could chop of a head and replace it with and elephant's head, I can not believe, because I have never found any evidence within which to believe that such could be true. Unless I wonder upon the metaphor of Ganeesh. Then I try a had upon my head of "it could mean . . ." but can only sustain belief if that hat fits.

So we believe or disbelieve according to cultural conditioning. Every culture conditions to expect evidence, but what is regarded as the actual evidence of science is what accords Faith. One culture could establish that if you get a idea in your mind you might be able to alone realise that idea: well that would be a cult not a culture. But it inspires some belief, yet it inspires that belief by falisfying some semblence of evidence in the manner in which Humans are conditioned to accept what is to be believed in. Some folk believe that they can "make money" for example. But in it all only habitual conditioning, yet can not be accorded without some degree of what seems to be evidence. That is why some folk take as evidence only that pictures come into their minds, by they need at least that to sustain any belief surely! Nobody gets about in the belief that they can make money out of thin air without something or other that is mistaken occuring in their mind in a semblence of evidence.

However Faith is distinct from cutlural conditioning. Faith is when we have been smitten by the evidence of hard cold facts. Faith is at all times able to be scientifically verified. Once verified by science Faith is sustaining.

That is, the verification that is scientific, and accords Faith, is that verification that a fact is true in every situation. While belief manifests within changiblity depending upon the world as our faulted perceptions manifest acceptance of what could be evidence. But there needs to be at least that perception that a manifestation could potentially mean something or other to believe in. That is we never completely randomly associate belief. We find faulted evidence. Faulted because the world we live in is faulted.

While Faith sustains that which exists now, even in this world, within constance that we know such is has constance and perhaps could also manifest in Jannah, or even that such will manifest in Jannah.

Think about the difference between a person whom can believe in Qur'an, because it is evidenced to them; and a person whom sustains Faith in Qur'an. The person whom sustains Faith has only experienced a higher quality of evidence. Evidence that is being commanded by Allah in a fine density of matter such that it can not be mistaken even in very dense matter. Such is the nature of a miracle.

But never fail in the confidence of our Human biology, it can not be caused to believe without there existing some cause; whether that cause be good or evil, there is a cause of every belief, and that is inseperable from the evidence by which we sustain the belief.

mu'asalam

 

[Trumble]

The 'problem of evil' is a argument in the form reductio ad absurdum - it is either logically sound or faulty. I have shown in detail in other threads (see the link in the above link) why there are several manifest flaws in the argument and it is one of the weakest arguments provided. I have provided my responses in debates with several atheists and agnostics and I welcome anyone to provide objective criticism on those arguments. Simply calling them 'desperate' and 'unsatisfactory' hopelessly fails to detract in any way from the strength of those arguments. By all means, be productive and provide objective feedback on my responses but please don't just waste bandwidth with unsubstantiated claims.

'Problem' implies that an at least debatable case, or cases, exists for both sides - else it would not be a problem. The 'problem of evil' is, as you know, something has been debated for the best part of two millennia. The reason it is still being debated is that ALL arguments put up on both sides are either flawed in some way or another, or counters exist that cannot be easily dismissed (that does not imply they are necessarily sound).

Those arguments form part of any self-respecting philosophy undergraduate program, which is why I haven't bothered trying to go over two thousand years worth of debate taking "my" side of the argument. Anybody interested in the topic from the philosophical angle will know all of them. "Your" responses are just repeats of the same old arguments and any attempt of mine to respond would just be a rehash of other old arguments. A "waste of bandwidth", as you put it. I have made no "unsubstantiated claims", only stated my opinion that the (implied empirical) evidence and philosophical argument are stronger 'against' than 'for'... a perfectly "productive" response to the original question.

All such arguments are "unsatisfactory", as none provide sound logical proofs - usually because it is far too easy to attack the premises. As to "desperate", that is again my opinion, but you fail to grasp the context. I don't view the philosophical arguments as particularly desperate, or at least any more desperate than many others on a multitude of subjects. As you know, it is possible to put up a reasonably strong philosophical argument for just about anything if suitably schooled in the tools for doing so. No, in my opinion what is desperate is that such arguments have to be invoked by 'believers' at all!! They do so as an attempt to justify faith when clearly the empirical evidence for the existence of God is minimal verging on zero. Quite why they do that, I'm not sure.. if faith required it it would not be faith.

And how about if someone answered the 'problem of evil' by saying, "God is above logic!" - by your standards I would assume that would be a completely satisfactory response? Your position seems in conflict with your earlier posts.

It is obviously not a completely satisfactory response in that it provides a proof neither way. It is, however, satisfactory in that it offers a hypothesis that cannot be disproved, and hence could be seen as supporting what is no more than an article of faith - which, in the absence of a satisfactory logical proof (as opposed to argument) either way, is what we are talking about. There is no conflict or contradiction with my earlier posts.

Faith is when we have been smitten by the evidence of hard cold facts. Faith is at all times able to be scientifically verified.

I've tried very hard to reconcile that with any definition of 'faith' I am aware of and have, I'm afraid, failed miserably.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

'Problem' implies that an at least debatable case, or cases, exists for both sides - else it would not be a problem.

I call it the 'problem of evil' in quotations because that is how it is commonly reffered to, not because I believe it is a problem from a religious perspective.

The 'problem of evil' is, as you know, something has been debated for the best part of two millennia. The reason it is still being debated is that ALL arguments put up on both sides are either flawed in some way or another, or counters exist that cannot be easily dismissed

The problem of evil is an argument against theism, and it is still frequently quoted today in the words of epicurus who died about 2 thousand 2 hundred years ago. It is mistaken to believe that there has been some progressive debate between two parties during this period; to the contrary there have simply been the repetition of ancient fallacies from one side. Let's examine the arguments themselves rather than just saying, "Oh this has been debated for so long that it means no one has a good argument." There are many people who have used the 'problem of evil', recieved the response, and accepted it. Dr. Jeffery Lang, an atheist convert to Islam, is a notable example as he has dedicated much of his writings to this subject.

I have made no "unsubstantiated claims", only stated my opinion that the (implied empirical) evidence is stronger 'against' than 'for'.

What do you feel you accomplished by claiming someone else's arguments were desperate while backing out of any debate on the subject, claiming it to be futile. Why the initial claim if it is futile?

As to "desperate", that is again my opinion, but you fail to grasp the context. I don't view the philosophical arguments as particularly desperate, or at least any more desperate than many others on a multitude of subjects. As you know, it is possible to put up a reasonably strong philosophical argument for just about anything if suitably schooled in the tools for doing so. No, in my opinion what is desperate is that such arguments have to be invoked by 'believers' at all!!

Actually, such arguments are responses to the atheist argument and enable people to understand the divine wisdom behind afflictions in our world. Claiming that it is used to 'justify faith' is the most ridiculous assertion. It has absolutely nothing to do with justifying faith since the answer to why people get sick does not provide proof in any way for the veracity of Islam. The response to the 'problem of evil' is only an explaination of Islamic theology.

Quite why they do that [attempt to justify faith], I'm not sure..

I'm quite amused at how an atheist raising this argument against God recieves no criticism from you but is accepted as 'evidence', while on the other hand when a theist responds to this argument by offering an explanation of their religious theology and exposing the flaws and fallacies in the argument, you dismiss their response as a futile justification of faith!

It is obviously not a completely satisfactory response in that it provides a proof neither way. It is, however, satisfactory in that it offers a hypothesis that cannot be disproved, and hence could be seen as supporting what is no more than an article of faith - which, in the absence of a satisfactory logical proof (as opposed to argument) either way, is what we are talking about. There is no conflict or contradiction with my earlier posts.

Responding to an atheist by saying "God is above logic" is obviously a response. And above you agree that it is also satisfactory. So I was right in saying that you deem it to be a 'satisfactory response' if a theist evades any debate with such a comment, but if they instead provide an in-depth explanation of the religious theology and how it views evil, that is instead declared to be 'unsatisfactory' and 'desperate'!

Thank you for affirming what I have said in your above post

 

[Curaezipirid]

The post Trumble is referring to is here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/481930-post35.html

The 'problem of evil' is a argument in the form reductio ad absurdum - it is either logically sound or faulty. I have shown in detail in other threads (see the link in the above link) why there are several manifest flaws in the argument and it is one of the weakest arguments provided. I have provided my responses in debates with several atheists and agnostics and I welcome anyone to provide objective criticism on those arguments. Simply calling them 'desperate' and 'unsatisfactory' hopelessly fails to detract in any way from the strength of those arguments. By all means, be productive and provide objective feedback on my responses but please don't just waste bandwidth with unsubstantiated claims.

Please note, I don't mind if you wish to hold that opinion - that's entirely up to you. However, your quote above seems quite unequivocal in claiming there is more evidence against God, hence I challenge that assertion.
Hardly a novel one implies that it is probably one of the 'common' responses you mentioned earlier. 'Very good' yet on the 'verging on desperate'?

And how about if someone answered the 'problem of evil' by saying, "God is above logic!" - by your standards I would assume that would be a completely satisfactory response? Your position seems in conflict with your earlier posts.

Regards

God is indeed above logic; above any logic possible by any persons since such is the correct definition of God. The sounding of "God" as opposed to "Allah", evokes that certain conviction of being Forgiven; so we must challenge all Faith that asserts "God" as of any other capacity by to cause that continuance is/ yet therein by definition outside of the logic of Men, of Shaytan, of Jinn, and ever even of his own Angels. There is no other God but He who manifestly is beyond all our comprehension.

Now I have a little commentary upon the matter of there being a supposed problem with Evil. I am Evil! Evil is Hope while Good is Faith. This is the correct science. I am female in body therefore of positive self; but I am also of passive receptive quality of Soul, ans thus at cause I am Evil. Yet I reconcile this fact well, in the light of my positive forward faceing self, and also with the Love of Allah, and Men.

Now, I have a matter to report upon as to why many Buddhists perceive that they can account for themselves without sustaining Faith in Monothiesm. Many of them related to their breath expended in sacred mantras embodying in their comprehension a similarly Evil certainty as I am defining. In Allah, a negative light Soul is manifest is full black. Such experienced within positive self is that experience of Holy acceptance of truth of being. Yet when experienced within a negative male self that can not find alone a positive future, despair results. How can One God be, the rationalise, when their own Soul so black is what calling upon Allah manifests recognition of. So they suppose that Allah, in His positive attributes is no more that the negativity of their own Soul. The Buddhist teachings are not written to accomodate any persons learning from except a positive soul in negative self and negative soul in positive self: therefore the words they use can be poison to a self whose experience is not of perfection in discerning negative from positive matter. When the male self coating a negative Soul calls the sound Allah, if it fails to recognise that in such can only exist past, and no future, then there is only less and less reality for it. This explains much that is wrong with Earth. The solution is for positive souls in female positive self, to forgive the future of excess male attributes coating negative Souls. Then we learn why there are to be many more females than males. But here I trace the very boundary of culture. Yet I have not tresspassed only borne witness to Buddhists whom have believed that the future causes the past as their only method of perceiving any worth in any Buddhist scripture.

There is no problem with Evil; it needs only small good to reconcile.

wasalam

 

[Trumble]

It is mistaken to believe that there has been some progressive debate between two parties during this period; to the contrary there have simply been the repetition of ancient fallacies from one side.

No, it is not "mistaken", it is fact. You just show your own bias with an "unsubstantiated claim".

ISo I was right in saying that you deem it to be a 'satisfactory response' if a theist evades any debate with such a comment, but if they instead provide an in-depth explanation of the religious theology and how it views evil, that is instead declared to be 'unsatisfactory' and 'desperate'!

I explained both why such a response would be "satisfactory" and in some detail how and why I used "unsatifactory" and "desperate". As you either can't be bothered to read that, or deliberately "waste bandwidth" choosing to ignore it, I can't see any point in debating further.