The fate of Non-Muslims in the hereafter

[RickHolm]

I will read that article and comment on it later...

It is not about quantity. One verse is enough however it may need to be supplemented by other verses in order to get a broader understanding.

Now it would not make sense if you can leave hell in the next world, it could mean you can leave heaven too. You still have the choice to choose between good and bad, what is the point of being tested when you can



Warning, reading the English translation of the Qur'an will not reveal its true meaning. You need to understand Arabic and the context those verses were introduced to avoid misunderstanding...

I will read it in english, and if it moves me, i will learn Arabic. Simple enough.

 

[Eliphaz]

I agree we should have a discussion, though I'm not entirely sure what purpose it shall serve for you. It helps me to overcome doubts by talking to atheists or those of different religions. So just curious, what do you gain out of it or are you even looking to achieve something in particular?

Well how you do want us to think about it?



To me you sound as though your deeply upset or worried about our beliefs, since your clearly disturbed by them, I'm getting the impression you acknowledge them.



It does depend on what you mean by x, y and z. In Islam we are told to do certain things because we may benefit from it and protect us from harm or from harming others. This shows to me Allah cares for us, otherwise why would he have continued to send so many Prophets to warn us? If you are going to ignore x, y and z, you are indulging in activities that are harming yourself and others in the process, your actions shall not only have an impact on you but others to which is quite selfish if you ask me.

I'm not going to comment on the latter...I want to hear your explanation for what I have just stated.

What believers of organised religion often don't realise is that many, if not most, of the moral precepts of their religion are shared by most non-believers. The difference is that many non-believers derive these moral precepts through rationality whilst believers tend to operate on a 'believe first, ask questions later' way of thinking, using rationality to fill in some of the gaps later on, whilst papering over the more questionable parts and simply saying 'God knows best'. I fear it is the latter which is particularly applicable in the case of some Muslims and the Islamic view of the Hereafter and yes, I find this worrying.

For instance, say instead of telling us to follow 'x, y and z', Bob told us to follow a list of commandments from a to z. Many of these are sound and appeal to our rational judgement. But then halfway down the list there is 'don't draw pictures of living things' whilst another is 'don't listen to instrument-based music'. Now, would we not wonder, 'Bob, why did you limit our creativity in this way, surely art is a way of expressing and celebrating the beauty of the human soul and universe which you have thus created?'

Bob of course is gone by this point, so is Pete. All that's left is the letter. The question is, how much did Bob actually teach you that you didn't already know through rational common sense, how much of what Bob told you and asked of you makes rational common sense, and how much of it needs to? Also, do you believe Bob is a morally just being based on your own sense of morality regardless of what the commandments a-z actually are?

 

[Skavau]

Yes God is all-knowing and will know what actions we might take. We are given free will to choose. If God knows what you are going to do before you even do it, your doomed to begin with. However that is our understanding of how God works, we use time and our limited logic to reach this conclusion. I'm stating we do not know how exactly God shall decide who shall go heaven or hell through our logic. Our way of understanding things is not applicable to God.

Even I don't really know the answer to that question.

Fair enough.

I won't go any further in this as it becomes off-topic (Omniscience/Free-Will).

Thanks for your answer, however.

 

[Skavau]

semantics!

Not really. How can a disbelief in something be a way of life?

Without the fillers, what is the alternative to non-randomness.. do you have an explanation?

I do have enough understanding to understand that if there could only be randomness then all predictions in science would simply could not be verified, ever. But that is for another topic.

Why? I think it is befitting of the topic more than hokum about lying to your friend that you are alive!

I don't care. I am sticking to the topic on the thread.

You seem to be under some strange impression that I need to convince you of anything? Don't you think that if that mattered to me in the slightest, I'd be out crusading on atheist or christian forums, rather than cozily cybering on an Islamic forum?

I'm under no impression of anything of the sort. Your obvious hostility towards me suggest you would rather me not comment on anything here at all. This is now the third thread that this has happened as well.

I was stating, and used the term "convincing" to imply that it was not a very good argument.

you are verbose and ineffective, try to cut down on the wind on the two statements that zero in on what you need to say. I have neither alleged that there is 'no such thing as morality and ethics' nor have I claimed that all there is, is obedience and authority.

Indeed so.

You haven't claimed that there is no morality and ethics, quite (you likely see them as interchangeable with Allah's will, or see ethics as the implimentation of Islamic assertion). But indeed you have unwittingly implied that only obedience exists (towards Allah). I will quote you:

"Whether or not it is sheer error in judgment it is left to the final judge to decide, from our perspective and what we know to be given so much and to deny it, is a crime!
God gets to define what a crime is in his book! "

The last sentence I highlighted in bold is a blatant nod to only obedience. To only the following of orders by Allah. If Allah can declare what he wants as a crime, then what grounds to complain would you have if Allah was to declare murder as valid?

Would you complain?

I did however assert a few pages back that your brand of morality is crude, on an animal form with a bit more calculation given your ability to reason. Religion is cultivated morality.. what you view as a delightful roll in the hay I view as a cardinal sin.. what you view as love between two men I view as bestiality. Religion defines my morality (If I have accepted this religion because it makes logical sense to me) then I have to abide by its rules and definitions. The same way when you willingly sign a contract with a job you abide by the rules.

You know nothing about my moral framework, I am afraid.

Incidentally, I know that your deeply held Islamic beliefs are your foundation of morality here.

You on the other hand, have no religion, your morality can't be made comparable to mine.. I don't know where your baseline is, why should I compare or discuss something when we aren't on the same plane?

Have you ever heard of common ground? It is the most important tool we both have in discussing. I have been using analogies and interacting with you and others on that basis since this discussion started.

I don't see any semblance between Islamic justice and a Nuremburg trial, perhaps you can draw out similarities for me so it would make better sense? I am not obeying Hitler, I am obeying God.. the God I made a conscious decision to follow and not out of coercion!

I know that you are not obeying Hitler. That is not what I was claiming. I was stating that some of the reasoning and apologetics for God and hellfire are justification and an explanation of obedience only. You stated that God has the right to decree whatever. If you state that X is right, and only right because Allah decrees so - then how is it at all any more moral than a Nazi saying that Y is right, and only right because the NSDAP decrees so?

Both have their foundation in obedience towards authority. How is the reasoning any different? (Note: this is not an accusation that Islam and Nazism are the same, but that some reasoning for God's authority consequently can be used as grounds for other, more questionable things).

Polytheism isn't based in Islam that is true, what is your point?

My point is that you (well, not just you) constantly reference things that try to tie things in as if they were influenced or dead-set against Islam. This is why words like 'disbedience' or 'breaking the rules' concerning others beliefs are used as apologetics for eternal torture when in reality they have no meaning to the reality of the system.

Would you take a Christian Evangelical seriously if they accused you of being disobedient to God?

You have to first prove that there is or isn't a God for you to understand God's code of conduct, what God finds acceptable or an abomination!

There we are again then - obedience to authority. I know it is a foundation of your belief system that God is infallible and unfalsifiable. I know that, especially in the course of this discussion you have showed little desire to break away from this foundation (if even in the interests of chat) you feel is so valid - but you need to understand that to me, it is frankly strange.

I am aware that I am told it is God's desire to impose a hellfire for deviancy towards Islam, or disbelief towards Islam. I do not dispute this. I dispute the morality is such a desire by God. The fact that it is claimed that God says it and therefore that makes it sound, is a logical fallacy (appeal to force) not a cogent argument.

I have stated and repeatedly I don't know who is to enter heaven or hell, and folks have gone so far to quote you that being a Muslim in and of itself doesn't guarantee anyone entry into heaven. I get tired of repeating myself so try to read the replies posted so you are not asking the same question in multiple different ways!

I know this, Skye. I am aware that Muslims state that even being Muslim is no guarantee for heaven. But that is not quite the point. To even be eligable for heaven, is it not true that you must be a Muslim at least? That it matters what you think before you are even considered? Or is it not? Others have as I will note again, pointed out specific differences between different sorts of Non-Muslims with some having the possibility to enter heaven through a form of 'test'.

And on this note, I will happily accept, if it is your final answer - that you don't know.

Rejecting God is probably the worse of cardinal sins, it isn't a mere matter of disobedience.. insular terms seem to fit the atheist mind, but it really has no bearing on the matter, furthermore, neither you not a 'Muslim apologists' gets to decide if that is deserving of eternal torture. If it were up to me you'd be deserving of eternal torture just for spamming the same questions over..

I know that Muslims don't decide this. But a lot of Muslims claim to know what God wants. Claim to understand the ultimate plan of God and where all fare out in heaven, in the end.

That is how I am asking Muslims to expand and verify what they mean. I am not asking you to make decisions on behalf of God.

I have never said any of those things about you. I don't know who you are and don't care, you could be an automated response, or that snotty kid that wipes my windshields whenever I stop to fill my car with gas.. I can't possibly be made to care of your beliefs or lack there of!

Right, but you have attacked my motives and others have certainly used the mantra of 'disobedience' in their defence of hell. So I feel free to repeat myself to explain my position more thoroughly.

Isn't that the sort of grievance you should take with God the (one who doesn't exist) should judgment day come? None of us here are intercessors for you or even for ourselves! It is purely your cross to bear!

Might I add that this thread is based in the Clarifications about Islam section. Before I even began interacting in this thread, several people (all Muslims) were conversing. I began talking about this because I find it an interesting discussion.

Moreover, I don't see how it is possible to take anything up with a being I don't believe exists.

Part of morality is justice.
If you put a lesser effort, less faith and less fidelity than someone else when given the same exact opportunity , you really can't complain about immorality when the end result isn't to your liking!

I agree that part of morality is justice.

So how is this 'punishment' then just?

And please, don't tell me everyone has the same exact opportunity. It is almost entirely true that if you live in a non-religious community you are very likely to remain non-religious for the rest of your life and die in that state. The exact same is with growing up in a Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Taoist, Jewish religious background - and indeed with any other fervent and insular religious background. We know that religious belief is often very geographic if anything and those of faith will group together. How is this the same opportunity?

It is a bit like me starting a race between person A and person B. I decide that person A will start a mile from the finish line, be given clean water, the best route to the finish line and a crowd of supporters to boot. I then tell person B that he must start 2 miles way, run down a grotty path with people throwing eggs at him. If person B was to complain, would I really be right in telling him "you have the exact same opportunity!"

And I too repeat, it doesn't matter to me whether you recognize said bounties as 'non-random to an open end' 'random' 'God bestowed' or just are, as firstly your judgment doesn't lie with me, and secondly you can't possibly be concerned about a matter that you don't believe will take place!

I'm not concerned. I'm interested in how Muslims reconcile omnibenevolence and 'objective morality' in the case of eternal torture.

You make an assimilation between Islam and Nazis the next time, I'll have to put a personal request to ban you!

?

You asked me to explain the connection I made. I said that by the author's logic of invoking self-interest (not by Islam) you would have equal reason to join the NSDAP in order to save your skin. I was not saying that Islam is similar to Nazism.

The claim that I have made is that God made all born on fitrah which is what the article finds to be true. Whether or not you believe in scientific research is your preparative!

Do you have any idea how peer-review works? Just because a single article about a single topic by a single researcher exists does not mean it is unilateral scientific fact.

 

[Skavau]

Will the torment of the people of Hell in Hell be neverending, or will there come a time when it will end?.

^ Read that.

If hell was not eternal, then no one on Earth would pay attention to Allah warning. Like taking an exam, some students are not worried because they have a chance to retake it if they fail. The same can be applied here where if hell was not eternal some people would not take this life test very seriously.

You have once chance and you have time....this will ensure people will take this test seriously. Oh I would like to add, what a pointless life it would be in the next world, if you can leave hell, it could mean you can leave heaven too which is not exactly different from the world we are living today...

Isn't this all a bit strange?

Why would we not pay attention to Allah is hell was not an eternity? Is this the sort of relationship you believe that Allah wants with his creation?

 

[GuestFellow]

What believers of organised religion often don't realise is that many, if not most, of the moral precepts of their religion are shared by most non-believers.

I'm aware followers of faith and non-believers do share similarities with regards to moral concepts. However we do have differences such as Muslims believes fornication, drinking alcohol and eating pork is a serious sin. A non-believer could careless and might indulge in those sins.

The difference is that many non-believers derive these moral precepts through rationality whilst believers tend to operate on a 'believe first, ask questions later' way of thinking, using rationality to fill in some of the gaps later on, whilst papering over the more questionable parts and simply saying 'God knows best'.

You sound as though believers are robots and do not think. We all question the things that we are taught, some do it openly while others keep it to themselves. Even on this forums, Muslims have questioned Islam. We do have reasons for most of the things we're told, however non-believers may not be satisfied with them.

I fear it is the latter which is particularly applicable in the case of some Muslims and the Islamic view of the Hereafter and yes, I find this worrying.

I understand you would be worried about matters that would affect you and other people in this world, but not life after death since you don't believe in.

For instance, say instead of telling us to follow 'x, y and z', Bob told us to follow a list of commandments from a to z.

Okay...

Many of these are sound and appeal to our rational judgement. But then halfway down the list there is 'don't draw pictures of living things' whilst another is 'don't listen to instrument-based music'. Now, would we not wonder, 'Bob, why did you limit our creativity in this way, surely art is a way of expressing and celebrating the beauty of the human soul and universe which you have thus created?'

Drawing pictures is fine as long as you do not have the intention to copy God's creation. Probably God does not see it as expressing and celebrating the beauty of the human soul and universe.

Music is forbidden due to it could divert our concentration from Allah. Some people who listen to music and then pray may have difficulty concentrating due the music is playing within our own head. Muslims do aim to achieve to have a constant reminder of Allah, music can easily divert Muslims from that.

Bob of course is gone by this point, so is Pete. All that's left is the letter. The question is, how much did Bob actually teach you that you didn't already know through rational common sense,

Well A-Z I would consider it to be Islamic principles. I would say Muslims have been taught a lot, not to drink alcohol, how to show our obedience to God (praying 5 times a day), fasting, how to divide property, how to set up a marriage contract, how to get a divorce, stating riba (interest) is haraam and so on.

I would say you would need more than common sense to develop A-Z consisting of some of the Islamic principles I mentioned above. Common sense would tell us drinking alcohol is bad since if you loose control on how much you drink, you loose control over yourself and become drunk, plus it is not healthy for your body.

how much of what Bob told you and asked of you makes rational common sense, and how much of it needs to?

Well lets consider everything that Islam taught us, the Qur'an and the Hadiths contain information on how to set up a government, how to deal with political matters, dealing with criminal matters, how to conduct fair trade, how to deal with family disputes, how to pray and what direction to pray. It would require more than common sense if you ask me.

Also, do you believe Bob is a morally just being based on your own sense of morality regardless of what the commandments a-z actually are?

Not sure what you mean...

 

[RickHolm]

I agree with Eliphaz on this part, in the discussion so far.

Music will only distract you if you have weak mental control, or listen to to much of it.

In any case, does music related to the Quran have anything wrong with it?

Most of the youtube videos on islam and music are very... well.. suggestive, so I can see why.

 

[جوري]

Not really. How can a disbelief in something be a way of life?

And that very point indeed puzzles me as to why you would want to discuss a completely ancillary detail of reward or punishment in a life that you as well disbelief in!

I do have enough understanding to understand that if there could only be randomness then all predictions in science would simply could not be verified, ever. But that is for another topic.

It is quite the point of the topic, and the fact that you have no cohesive response is why you dodge it every time.. if you wished to weasel out of it, then you shouldn't have brought in the first place about 'muslim apologetic' reference to randomness!

I don't care. I am sticking to the topic on the thread.

see above statement!

I'm under no impression of anything of the sort. Your obvious hostility towards me suggest you would rather me not comment on anything here at all. This is now the third thread that this has happened as well.

I don't see how you can sense hostility in the written words, science proves that body language and tone of voice are the true determinants of the other party's state of mind!
are you perhaps psychic?

I was stating, and used the term "convincing" to imply that it was not a very good argument.

Nothing is a 'very good argument' if you come in with a specific mindset!

Indeed so.

You haven't claimed that there is no morality and ethics, quite (you likely see them as interchangeable with Allah's will, or see ethics as the implimentation of Islamic assertion). But indeed you have unwittingly implied that only obedience exists (towards Allah). I will quote you:

What is morality and ethics to you? I have already defined, that which you feel on an instinct is already instilled by God but in a crude form. So, from my perspective what you see as obedience or whatnot is refined fitrah!

"Whether or not it is sheer error in judgment it is left to the final judge to decide, from our perspective and what we know to be given so much and to deny it, is a crime!
God gets to define what a crime is in his book! "

The last sentence I highlighted in bold is a blatant nod to only obedience. To only the following of orders by Allah. If Allah can declare what he wants as a crime, then what grounds to complain would you have if Allah was to declare murder as valid?

Would you complain?

See previous statement!

You know nothing about my moral framework, I am afraid.

We can only work with what you echo of yourself here, frankly I don't think you are that deep... if there is one ideology that is a dime a dozen, it is the atheist mentality!

Incidentally, I know that your deeply held Islamic beliefs are your foundation of morality here.

See your comment and my reply to it!

Have you ever heard of common ground? It is the most important tool we both have in discussing. I have been using analogies and interacting with you and others on that basis since this discussion started.

Indeed, and I have been so telling you all along. I have no common grounds with you I don't think you on the same platform and I won't challenge the common denominator so that it better appeals to you!

I know that you are not obeying Hitler. That is not what I was claiming. I was stating that some of the reasoning and apologetics for God and hellfire are justification and an explanation of obedience only. You stated that God has the right to decree whatever. If you state that X is right, and only right because Allah decrees so - then how is it at all any more moral than a Nazi saying that Y is right, and only right because the NSDAP decrees so?

The state and God aren't the same, if your mind can't wrap around that, then there is no discussion. Again, too esoteric a topic for someone in a state of disbelief-- how do we compare apples and Gadus macrocephalus? if the creator can't be made to be akin to anything in creation then there is no topic for us to gauge especially at the level of your sophomoric and very puerile understanding. This is rather a point you should address a christians (they obey a man/god) we don't!

Both have their foundation in obedience towards authority. How is the reasoning any different? (Note: this is not an accusation that Islam and Nazism are the same, but that some reasoning for God's authority consequently can be used as grounds for other, more questionable things).

See the very last comment!

My point is that you (well, not just you) constantly reference things that try to tie things in as if they were influenced or dead-set against Islam. This is why words like 'disbedience' or 'breaking the rules' concerning others beliefs are used as apologetics for eternal torture when in reality they have no meaning to the reality of the system.

I don't see how telling you directly that things in which you are in 'disbelief' about can't really harm you, why do you care so much, what I think will become of you in the hereafter?

Would you take a Christian Evangelical seriously if they accused you of being disobedient to God?

What does this have to do with the topic?

There we are again then - obedience to authority. I know it is a foundation of your belief system that God is infallible and unfalsifiable. I know that, especially in the course of this discussion you have showed little desire to break away from this foundation (if even in the interests of chat) you feel is so valid - but you need to understand that to me, it is frankly strange.

See comment above!

I am aware that I am told it is God's desire to impose a hellfire for deviancy towards Islam, or disbelief towards Islam. I do not dispute this. I dispute the morality is such a desire by God. The fact that it is claimed that God says it and therefore that makes it sound, is a logical fallacy (appeal to force) not a cogent argument.

Again, you bring this to morality and it is a question of justice a question of gratitude.
It is that simple, I don't think I could distill it for you so that it becomes more refined an answer. Either way, to you 'frankly strange' denotes you should shrug your shoulder have a chuckle in private and go about your private life. From my perspective and what I know of science to keep you alive one day, every cell functioning not through any volition of your own to sustain you with various physiological and biochemical reactions that keep you going is quite a massive feat. One day in my view not just a life time is enough for you to have eternal torture so you are indeed quite lucky that your judgment doesn't lie with humans!

I know this, Skye. I am aware that Muslims state that even being Muslim is no guarantee for heaven. But that is not quite the point. To even be eligable for heaven, is it not true that you must be a Muslim at least? That it matters what you think before you are even considered? Or is it not? Others have as I will note again, pointed out specific differences between different sorts of Non-Muslims with some having the possibility to enter heaven through a form of 'test'.

The criteria is based on intentions and those are secrets that lie in the breasts of men beknown only to the one who created them. Again, pages of circuitousness.. I really don't understand your interest to hammer in the same point (I am obviously not going to see things from your perspective) do you only do it to convince yourself that your understanding or morality and justice is the better cultivated?.. to you there is this life, why not enjoy it and not focus on something that you already disbelief in?

And on this note, I will happily accept, if it is your final answer - that you don't know.

Don't know what?

I know that Muslims don't decide this. But a lot of Muslims claim to know what God wants. Claim to understand the ultimate plan of God and where all fare out in heaven, in the end.

We know what God wants as has been clearly delineated in his book. When it comes to your fate in the after life, it is a matter left to God indeed, if I had to venture a guess based purely on conjecture I'd think you'd rot in hell as you are indeed a prototypic atheist!

That is how I am asking Muslims to expand and verify what they mean. I am not asking you to make decisions on behalf of God.

Ok!

Right, but you have attacked my motives and others have certainly used the mantra of 'disobedience' in their defence of hell. So I feel free to repeat myself to explain my position more thoroughly.

You have the position of disbelief.. being a Muslim really requires five tasks.. None of them akin to anything 'Hitlerish'
Prayer- for your relationship with God, which science has proven has a similar affect to anti-depressants as similar neurotransmitters are released during the act plus a light exercise if you were looking at it purely from the 'what is in it for me'
Fast, which science has also proven to be of benefit in fact in medicine we practice NPO on many folks just to give them bowel rests (folks for instance those who have pancreatits)
Giving alms to the poor
making pilgrimage (if you can afford it)
So you can see why all the crap you peddle about 'obedience' and Hitler comes up empty?
You can always do great things outside of academia, but if you want to practice and be recognized for your achievement in medicine or engineering etc. chances are you have to go through formal schooling..
So good for you if you do said things on your own private time--to have them count for credit hours you have to use the right Chanel.. it is really that simple!
Given that you do what you do for this life, then you shall have a good life, what more do you want?

Might I add that this thread is based in the Clarifications about Islam section. Before I even began interacting in this thread, several people (all Muslims) were conversing. I began talking about this because I find it an interesting discussion.

OK

Moreover, I don't see how it is possible to take anything up with a being I don't believe exists.

My point exactly!

I agree that part of morality is justice.

So how is this 'punishment' then just?

See my above paragraph!

And please, don't tell me everyone has the same exact opportunity. It is almost entirely true that if you live in a non-religious community you are very likely to remain non-religious for the rest of your life and die in that state. The exact same is with growing up in a Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Taoist, Jewish religious background - and indeed with any other fervent and insular religious background. We know that religious belief is often very geographic if anything and those of faith will group together. How is this the same opportunity?

NBC News tells us that 20,000 Americans converts every year, so I think that pretty much flushes down the toilet your self-concocted example above?

[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfx4glTU5JQ[/MEDIA]
​

It is a bit like me starting a race between person A and person B. I decide that person A will start a mile from the finish line, be given clean water, the best route to the finish line and a crowd of supporters to boot. I then tell person B that he must start 2 miles way, run down a grotty path with people throwing eggs at him. If person B was to complain, would I really be right in telling him "you have the exact same opportunity!"

See the very last paragraph!

I'm not concerned. I'm interested in how Muslims reconcile omnibenevolence and 'objective morality' in the case of eternal torture.

The same way a good judge can sentence you to death and be a good person!
The same way a good doctor can amputate a leg and still be a good person
The same way a good coach can scold you to do an extra lap around the pool and be a good person... Do you have no concept of equilibrium whatsoever?

You asked me to explain the connection I made. I said that by the author's logic of invoking self-interest (not by Islam) you would have equal reason to join the NSDAP in order to save your skin. I was not saying that Islam is similar to Nazism.

See previous paragraph!

Do you have any idea how peer-review works? Just because a single article about a single topic by a single researcher exists does not mean it is unilateral scientific fact.

This isn't the sort of research you can subject to a random double blind trial. Different research requires different studies.. You are certainly free to neglect it for whatever intelelcttualizations your mind wishes to conjure in fact you are just PO'd that the article enforces what we have been saying all along.

if you have an article that is peer reviewed to challenge the results found in this one, then bring it forth instead of asking me of what I know!

all the best

 

[Skavau]

And that very point indeed puzzles me as to why you would want to discuss a completely ancillary detail of reward or punishment in a life that you as well disbelief in!

Because I like to debate.

It is quite the point of the topic, and the fact that you have no cohesive response is why you dodge it every time.. if you wished to weasel out of it, then you shouldn't have brought in the first place about 'muslim apologetic' reference to randomness!

Actually, the quotation you provided from an anonymous source (you referred to it as a dear brother) began making the first claim about the alleged 'randomness'.

The Qur’an tells us that Allah created us for a purpose and that is to worship Him. We humans are given a brain and an ability to think logically. If we look at the universe and all of creation and yet don’t acknowledge the existence of a Creator, but rather believe that it all came about by chance, then isn’t that a most horrendous crime to deny the clear signs of Allah and His existence.

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifi...fate-non-muslims-hereafter-4.html#post1266328

Anyway, no it has no place in this topic.

I don't see how you can sense hostility in the written words, science proves that body language and tone of voice are the true determinants of the other party's state of mind!
are you perhaps psychic?

Hostility of course can be expressed in writing. If someone writes to you, detailing to you how you are a nasty human being and deserve nothing but contempt - you could clearly see that it was hostile letter.

What is morality and ethics to you? I have already defined, that which you feel on an instinct is already instilled by God but in a crude form. So, from my perspective what you see as obedience or whatnot is refined fitrah!

I would contend morality, broadly defined is a suggestion of what an individual ought to do in specific situations based on a deliberate consideration of others. That is how I very broadly base my personal dilemmas with other people in my life.

But that very broad definition there does not reflect on what my ethics is, as such. I contend that no-one is means to an end, or rather ought to be a means to an ends for any purpose. That objectively (if 'objective morality' can exist) the only recognisable and understood form of morality can be one that caters to the liberation of all, rather than just some.

We can only work with what you echo of yourself here, frankly I don't think you are that deep... if there is one ideology that is a dime a dozen, it is the atheist mentality!

There is no such thing as an "atheist mentality". It is only your bigotry and misunderstanding of others than leads you to conclude this.

Indeed, and I have been so telling you all along. I have no common grounds with you I don't think you on the same platform and I won't challenge the common denominator so that it better appeals to you!

So why did you ever bother to interact with me?

The state and God aren't the same, if your mind can't wrap around that, then there is no discussion.

No, this is a qualifier of difference that you hold to be completely valid. I know that you believe God to be infallible, unquestionable always of importance. I know that you believe states to be fallible inventions of men. I was asking you, on an objective level - what is the difference in reasoning for your obedience to god, and someone else's obedience to some other concept not of god?

I don't see how telling you directly that things in which you are in 'disbelief' about can't really harm you, why do you care so much, what I think will become of you in the hereafter?

I must have answered this so many times. Have I not told you that I am not scared of hellfire already? Have I not told you why I am just interested in discussing this for advocacy's sake? You accuse me of repetition, but then go on and keep asking me why I'm here.

It is that simple, I don't think I could distill it for you so that it becomes more refined an answer. Either way, to you 'frankly strange' denotes you should shrug your shoulder have a chuckle in private and go about your private life. From my perspective and what I know of science to keep you alive one day, every cell functioning not through any volition of your own to sustain you with various physiological and biochemical reactions that keep you going is quite a massive feat. One day in my view not just a life time is enough for you to have eternal torture so you are indeed quite lucky that your judgment doesn't lie with humans!

What's this? Is this some sort of warning or threat?

The criteria is based on intentions and those are secrets that lie in the breasts of men beknown only to the one who created them. Again, pages of circuitousness.. I really don't understand your interest to hammer in the same point (I am obviously not going to see things from your perspective) do you only do it to convince yourself that your understanding or morality and justice is the better cultivated?.. to you there is this life, why not enjoy it and not focus on something that you already disbelief in?

I'll do what I want thanks, and without your interrogation.

You have the position of disbelief.. being a Muslim really requires five tasks.. None of them akin to anything 'Hitlerish'
Prayer- for your relationship with God, which science has proven has a similar affect to anti-depressants as similar neurotransmitters are released during the act plus a light exercise if you were looking at it purely from the 'what is in it for me'
Fast, which science has also proven to be of benefit in fact in medicine we practice NPO on many folks just to give them bowel rests (folks for instance those who have pancreatits)
Giving alms to the poor
making pilgrimage (if you can afford it)
So you can see why all the crap you peddle about 'obedience' and Hitler comes up empty?

No, because the specifics of Islamic ritual has nothing to do with my point about Hitler. It is to do with theistic morality (morality from god) in general. I say the same and make similar comparisons when interacting with Christians as well.

NBC News tells us that 20,000 Americans converts every year, so I think that pretty much flushes down the toilet your self-concocted example above?

Right... I never said that there were no exceptions. I meant it as a general point. You will, usually be the same religion as your parents.

The same way a good judge can sentence you to death and be a good person!
The same way a good doctor can amputate a leg and still be a good person
The same way a good coach can scold you to do an extra lap around the pool and be a good person... Do you have no concept of equilibrium whatsoever?

These are moot points. We don't say that a judge is always right in all of his decisions because he has a position of being a 'judge'. Judges ought to get criticised if large proportions of the population feel that they have messed up. We don't say that a good coach is allowed to decree what he wants because he has a position of being a 'coach'. We don't say that all doctors can tell you that what they like and do what they like on you because, well, they are 'doctors'. We regulate and control all of the decisions that doctors, coaches and judges make in life. They can all be removed from their profession for corruption of incompetence.

The same of course is not said of Allah, who according to many Muslims can essentially act as he please and always be considered right no matter what. The comparison you invoke simply does not work. And to further, if you're going to talk about balance - then what balance exists in an eternal punishment for finite 'crimes'?

 

[جوري]

Because I like to debate.

Then learn the difference between a debate and vain discourse!

Actually, the quotation you provided from an anonymous source (you referred to it as a dear brother) began making the first claim about the alleged 'randomness'.
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifi...fate-non-muslims-hereafter-4.html#post1266328

Which instead if ignoring you harped on-- the least you can do when you come with such bravado in opposition of a statement made by myself or another is to sustain your points with your own 'valid' views?

Anyway, no it has no place in this topic.

It has quite the place in the topic as evidenced by your own ill comments on it!
You have no response in actuality and that is why you'd rather dodge it!

Hostility of course can be expressed in writing. If someone writes to you, detailing to you how you are a nasty human being and deserve nothing but contempt - you could clearly see that it was hostile letter.

• 7% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is in the words that are spoken.
• 38% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is paralinguistic (the way that the words are said).
• 55% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is in facial expression.

http://www.businessballs.com/mehrabiancommunications.htm

I can tell my friend to go to hell and have it be in jest! I am not suggesting that I am being friendly or even hostile to you.. I don't have any feelings toward you would be realistically summing it up!
Be that as it may, I have never referred to you as 'nasty' or 'deserving of contempt'.. Again, not only are you incorrectly citing me, you are further narrowing the statistics by creating erroneous beliefs in your head in face of evidence to the contrary to what I personally have written!

I would contend morality, broadly defined is a suggestion of what an individual ought to do in specific situations based on a deliberate consideration of others. That is how I very broadly base my personal dilemmas with other people in my life.

Broad sense is shared by all.. there is really no intelligent thought in it.. it is based on feelings..
Religion is to morality what pathology is to surgery..
as a surgeon you may take out a parotid mass not knowing whether it is benign or malignant or of which subtype:

all you know is it is bad to have an irregularity there, so let's take it out,
now whether it is a: pleomorphic adenoma or Malignant mixed tumor or a Mucoepidermoid carcinoma or an Adenoid cystic carcinoma
or an Acinic cell carcinoma or a Polymorphous low-grade adenocarcinoma or a Salivary duct carcinoma or a Basal cell adenocarcinoma or Warthin tumor or an adenolymphoma or an Oncocytoma or Oncocytic or papillary cystadenoma or a Myoepithelioma or a Sialadenoma papilliferum. etc etc. etc.
You'll have no clue, and if you have no clue then you'll also not know how to manage it properly and believe me management makes all the difference (especially in avoiding recurrence).. your job ends with taking it out..

It is nice don't get me wrong.. but that is a very crude form of medicine or morality for our purposes!

But that very broad definition there does not reflect on what my ethics is, as such. I contend that no-one is means to an end, or rather ought to be a means to an ends for any purpose. That objectively (if 'objective morality' can exist) the only recognisable and understood form of morality can be one that caters to the liberation of all, rather than just some.

See above analogy!

There is no such thing as an "atheist mentality". It is only your bigotry and misunderstanding of others than leads you to conclude this.

Sure there is and you display it with each subsequent post.. as to why you think it is bigoted is beyond me, you view it as 'liberation of all' as per your last testimony!

So why did you ever bother to interact with me?

It is relaxing and virtually appealing!
I have already stated previously that I never write with an atheist in mind.. You are not the only one that frequents this forum nor the only one that peddles in the same rhetoric!

No, this is a qualifier of difference that you hold to be completely valid. I know that you believe God to be infallible, unquestionable always of importance. I know that you believe states to be fallible inventions of men. I was asking you, on an objective level - what is the difference in reasoning for your obedience to god, and someone else's obedience to some other concept not of god?

The only perceivable difference is if there is direct malice to your fellow man in any form or fashion the here and now!
other than that what you hold as an ideology and practice is of no consequence!

I must have answered this so many times. Have I not told you that I am not scared of hellfire already? Have I not told you why I am just interested in discussing this for advocacy's sake? You accuse me of repetition, but then go on and keep asking me why I'm here.

I haven't asked you 'why you are here?' I have asked you, why concern yourself with something you hold in disbelief?.. the fact that you not merely repeating your same claims but misconstrue what I have written all along, only echos how much investment and true interest you have in this and how much time spent discerning what others have written...
You don't get to decide to yourself that not only are you right as far as you are concerned but misconstrue my comments in such a way as to coax yourself and have my thoughts be in concert with your own professed stigma of theists and to why I subscribe to the beliefs that I do!

What's this? Is this some sort of warning or threat?

I'd have to care on some level to issue you some sort of warning, rather see what I have written here a few paragraphs ago !

I'll do what I want thanks, and without your interrogation.

Do what? I haven't written anything to the extent of interrogation.. where do you come up with this stuff? Honestly the way you process the written word leaves me very puzzled!

No, because the specifics of Islamic ritual has nothing to do with my point about Hitler. It is to do with theistic morality (morality from god) in general. I say the same and make similar comparisons when interacting with Christians as well.

I haven't see any comparisons you've thrown spit against the wind. In order for comparisons to be drawn, similarities actually have to exist!

Right... I never said that there were no exceptions. I meant it as a general point. You will, usually be the same religion as your parents.

Well the exceptions seem to be in the folds of thousands, rather rendering your analogies of and pls allow me to quote:

And please, don't tell me everyone has the same exact opportunity. It is almost entirely true that if you live in a non-religious community you are very likely to remain non-religious for the rest of your life and die in that state. The exact same is with growing up in a Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Taoist, Jewish religious background - and indeed with any other fervent and insular religious background. We know that religious belief is often very geographic if anything and those of faith will group together. How is this the same opportunity?

moot..

we are not herded animals, we are reasoning human beings who ask the same questions at some point!

These are moot points. We don't say that a judge is always right in all of his decisions because he has a position of being a 'judge'. Judges ought to get criticised if large proportions of the population feel that they have messed up. We don't say that a good coach is allowed to decree what he wants because he has a position of being a 'coach'. We don't say that all doctors can tell you that what they like and do what they like on you because, well, they are 'doctors'. We regulate and control all of the decisions that doctors, coaches and judges make in life. They can all be removed from their profession for corruption of incompetence.

You are speaking not only of a hypothetical but again, drawing comparisons between fallible human beings and an infallible deity. The analogy was used purely to show how you can be an excellent person and yet do things that might appear in every day light horrific, even though they are very justified-- and that, that it isn't at all at odds with being benevolent to create a system of contrast!

The same of course is not said of Allah, who according to many Muslims can essentially act as he please and always be considered right no matter what. The comparison you invoke simply does not work. And to further, if you're going to talk about balance - then what balance exists in an eternal punishment for finite 'crimes'?

The crimes aren't finite, and we aren't mere ['random' as per your agreement] transient souls.. only your mind conceives as such!

all the best

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Skavau,
I've been skimming through this thread, and one of your posts (the long one, post 64) cought my attention in particular. If you don't mind I'd like to jump in and give my two cents.

Regarding the anthropic principle. If I understand it, you consider our existence (or the universes existence) as random, correct? If so I'd like to ask you, what kind of definition of random were you having in mind? See the way I see it, random can have two meanings, which are often interchanged (perhaps un-knowingly). It could either be seen in a strict definition as an event that is without any cause. Or there's the more populistic usage, where random means that there is a cause, however it is to complex to calculate (a bit like how the lottery-outcome is strictly causal, however we call it random simply because we fail to predict it). the reason I'm asking, is because if you look at it that way, neither of the two definitions seems to be addressing the problem of existence in the anthropic principle. If you meant the strict definition, that the way we exist is truly without any cause, then this makes the anthropic principle even stronger, begging the question how/who designed such perfection then. If you meant the second definition, then all you're saying is that the cause for the universe to exist in the way it is is something beyond our capabilities to calculate. Putting it in terms like that doesn't seem to strip down the anthropic principle either. In fact it can again be seen as an enrichment of the anthropic principle, for you admit that indeed there is a complexity to it.

Yet somehow when God is claimed as true, it no longer has any familiarity with randomness and becomes a marvel of absolute creation. Strange.

Well if you look at it from a scientific point of view, we did beat insane odds merely by existing.

The only error here that I can see is a lack of ability for either you or the Qu'ran to understand that polytheism is not linked nor based on Islam, a lack of objective understanding of beliefs not grounded in the same question-begging assumptions as yours and a failure to recognise the naturalistic fallacy.
Note: Even if a God does exist, it does not mean that it is a crime or "monstrous" to ascribe partners or models to him - it would just be in error.

On the subject of polytheism, it is a very complex matter. The reason as to why polytheism is considered the biggest sin is as far as I know not explained in Islam. However I do think that one can debate the ethics of polytheism from a logical basis, and show how this is monstrous for it leads to practically every other sin that exists. Still I should stress that this is my personal opinion, and not official dogma in Islam. I'm more then willing to get into an ethics debate on that issue if you wish so? Perhaps a separate thread might be wise though (pm me if you do want this, I don't watch all threads on this forum on a regular basis, did subscribe to this one though).

Simple: disbelief is not disobedience. If I disbelieve in something it could mean that I am not convinced of it rather than actively shunning it. This is the mistake that Muslim apologists make when they claim that Non-Muslims are disobedient and therefore deserving of eternal torture.

True, there's a difference between not believing, and ascribing partners to God. What matters is why one doesn't believe. If one doesn't believe, because one hasn't been explained the finer details, of has been fed incorrect information then wheter or not this person will be punished is unknown. If however a person understands the validity of Islam, but refuses to accept its law/creed for personal preference, then that person is in a way committing polytheism. He is ascribing his personal preferences an authority that does not belong to it. Every action is judged by its intention. And I do believe that people choose what they believe. Part of the choice might be subconscious. Or the choice might be made at a very early point in ones life, and trap one inside that thinking afterwards. But nevertheless I do believe that it is a choice, and thus that people can be held accountable for it. Unless of course as I mentioned, when they based that choice on false information they were given.

Secondly, I repeat my position because it is one of the foundations of my complaints here. The idea that I ought to be, or rather it would be acceptable for me to be punished in eternal torture for what I thought, or did not think. Several posters on here have posted specific distinctions of different kinds of disbelief that offer differing responses, but in general the qualifier is and appears to be disbelief. This is what I am arguing against. What I believe is unjust.

I haven't read all comments, but I suspect allot of people here have been talking without knowledge. As I said, depending on the reason for disbelieving, the hereafter can be different. And since we cannot know what goes on in your head, we cannot judge whether or not you'll be tortured in the afterlife.

That sort of logic is an opening to an acceptance of all kinds of evil.

I wholeheartedly agree. It pains me to see so many people taking their faith blindly, when in fact Islam is a religion of reason. More then that, Islam actually encourages reason, and encourages people to question and seek. It is one of the things that attracted me so much to Islam for me to convert to it. Every question is allowed and has an answer. Unfortunately, when people don't know the answer in a mislead sense of righteousness they try to find the next best answer, and give you that instead. I can only pray that this hasn't tainted your perception of Islam already.

 

[Skavau]

It has quite the place in the topic as evidenced by your own ill comments on it!
You have no response in actuality and that is why you'd rather dodge it!

yeah, I will now be ignoring everything unrelated to your ramblings about me, or other possible discussions.

I can tell my friend to go to hell and have it be in jest! I am not suggesting that I am being friendly or even hostile to you.. I don't have any feelings toward you would be realistically summing it up!
Be that as it may, I have never referred to you as 'nasty' or 'deserving of contempt'.. Again, not only are you incorrectly citing me, you are further narrowing the statistics by creating erroneous beliefs in your head in face of evidence to the contrary to what I personally have written!

You haven't indeed. The letter was an example of how hostility can be determined from writings.

Broad sense is shared by all.. there is really no intelligent thought in it.. it is based on feelings..
Religion is to morality what pathology is to surgery..
as a surgeon you may take out a parotid mass not knowing whether it is benign or malignant or of which subtype:

all you know is it is bad to have an irregularity there, so let's take it out,
now whether it is a: pleomorphic adenoma or Malignant mixed tumor or a Mucoepidermoid carcinoma or an Adenoid cystic carcinoma
or an Acinic cell carcinoma or a Polymorphous low-grade adenocarcinoma or a Salivary duct carcinoma or a Basal cell adenocarcinoma or Warthin tumor or an adenolymphoma or an Oncocytoma or Oncocytic or papillary cystadenoma or a Myoepithelioma or a Sialadenoma papilliferum. etc etc. etc.
You'll have no clue, and if you have no clue then you'll also not know how to manage it properly and believe me management makes all the difference (especially in avoiding recurrence).. your job ends with taking it out..

It is nice don't get me wrong.. but that is a very crude form of medicine or morality for our purposes!

I never said that is my only method of morality, rather that is how I would define morality.

Sure there is and you display it with each subsequent post.. as to why you think it is bigoted is beyond me, you view it as 'liberation of all' as per your last testimony!

I don't represent anyone but myself, so what are you talking about? What I type shows my mentality, not all atheists.

The only perceivable difference is if there is direct malice to your fellow man in any form or fashion the here and now!

Huh?

Does not follow from what I asked.

I haven't asked you 'why you are here?' I have asked you, why concern yourself with something you hold in disbelief?.. the fact that you not merely repeating your same claims but misconstrue what I have written all along, only echos how much investment and true interest you have in this and how much time spent discerning what others have written...

You will have to tell me what I have misconstrued.

Well the exceptions seem to be in the folds of thousands, rather rendering your analogies of and pls allow me to quote:

Lol, right.

There are over 300 million people in the USA. If we assume NBC's numbers are valid, then that means 0.006% of Americans convert to Islam each year.

So almost entirely true is still valid.

You are speaking not only of a hypothetical but again, drawing comparisons between fallible human beings and an infallible deity. The analogy was used purely to show how you can be an excellent person and yet do things that might appear in every day light horrific, even though they are very justified-- and that, that it isn't at all at odds with being benevolent to create a system of contrast!

Surgeons are required to explain their decisions. So are judges and coaches. They might be horrific in appearance, but at least share their justification.

The crimes aren't finite, and we aren't mere ['random' as per your agreement] transient souls.. only your mind conceives as such!

How are the 'crimes' infinite?

 

[Skavau]

Regarding the anthropic principle. If I understand it, you consider our existence (or the universes existence) as random, correct? If so I'd like to ask you, what kind of definition of random were you having in mind? See the way I see it, random can have two meanings, which are often interchanged (perhaps un-knowingly). It could either be seen in a strict definition as an event that is without any cause. Or there's the more populistic usage, where random means that there is a cause, however it is to complex to calculate (a bit like how the lottery-outcome is strictly causal, however we call it random simply because we fail to predict it). the reason I'm asking, is because if you look at it that way, neither of the two definitions seems to be addressing the problem of existence in the anthropic principle. If you meant the strict definition, that the way we exist is truly without any cause, then this makes the anthropic principle even stronger, begging the question how/who designed such perfection then. If you meant the second definition, then all you're saying is that the cause for the universe to exist in the way it is is something beyond our capabilities to calculate. Putting it in terms like that doesn't seem to strip down the anthropic principle either. In fact it can again be seen as an enrichment of the anthropic principle, for you admit that indeed there is a complexity to it.

I actually do not consider our existence as random. Natural Law is not random. We are extremely unlikely indeed, but it does not necessitate that we came about randomly because of that.

On the subject of polytheism, it is a very complex matter. The reason as to why polytheism is considered the biggest sin is as far as I know not explained in Islam. However I do think that one can debate the ethics of polytheism from a logical basis, and show how this is monstrous for it leads to practically every other sin that exists. Still I should stress that this is my personal opinion, and not official dogma in Islam. I'm more then willing to get into an ethics debate on that issue if you wish so? Perhaps a separate thread might be wise though (pm me if you do want this, I don't watch all threads on this forum on a regular basis, did subscribe to this one though).

Wait, I'm not sure what you mean by the part in bold. By 'sin' do you mean immoral? (keeping in mind I don't recognise the concept of 'sin'). I am sure according entirely to Islamic edict that polytheism is absolutely out of the question morally - but objectively, as in something that is understandable to all - how is polytheism anything other (even if Islam is true) a specific belief that may be wrong?

True, there's a difference between not believing, and ascribing partners to God. What matters is why one doesn't believe. If one doesn't believe, because one hasn't been explained the finer details, of has been fed incorrect information then wheter or not this person will be punished is unknown. If however a person understands the validity of Islam, but refuses to accept its law/creed for personal preference, then that person is in a way committing polytheism.

I'll be honest here. If I was to conclude that perhaps Islam is true and Allah is God - that would only be the halfway point. I find the concept of an omniscient arbiter, who holds a specific interest in my actions and chooses to tell me what to do, how to act in general as something most unwelcome. Something I have not mentioned in this thread, and that is more important to note is that I am an anti-theist in that I believe it would be rather awful if the trademarked monotheistic Gods did exist. You would never have a waking movement when you were not watched, judged. Never a moment of privacy. You would have to lead your life in a specific way. You would have to sacrifice what is enjoyable for seemingly arbitrary reasons. You would be expected to worship and provide nothing but adulation for this being (why is this necessary?) purely for existing. I could go into even further depth.

I would indeed have many ethical issues with Islam even if I did accept it as true. I daresay that I would be even more stubborn with theistic morality than I would for evidence for Islam. Why would ethical issues that I might have with this be reason to send me to a place of torture?

He is ascribing his personal preferences an authority that does not belong to it. Every action is judged by its intention. And I do believe that people choose what they believe. Part of the choice might be subconscious. Or the choice might be made at a very early point in ones life, and trap one inside that thinking afterwards. But nevertheless I do believe that it is a choice, and thus that people can be held accountable for it. Unless of course as I mentioned, when they based that choice on false information they were given.

Well, I disagree that belief is a choice. You formulate your beliefs and ideals based on your upbringing, knowledge gained and your observation and experience of and with natural phenomena. I cannot change my beliefs unless I am convinced. The same is with everyone. This is why preachments of piety do not work with those who believe otherwise. This is why we all find it rather impossible to believe that we can will things into existence: reality contradicts it.

I haven't read all comments, but I suspect allot of people here have been talking without knowledge. As I said, depending on the reason for disbelieving, the hereafter can be different. And since we cannot know what goes on in your head, we cannot judge whether or not you'll be tortured in the afterlife.

Okay. I understand that I am talking to the opinion of Muslims and that they not represent all of Islam, or the knowledge base of Islam.

I wholeheartedly agree. It pains me to see so many people taking their faith blindly, when in fact Islam is a religion of reason. More then that, Islam actually encourages reason, and encourages people to question and seek. It is one of the things that attracted me so much to Islam for me to convert to it. Every question is allowed and has an answer. Unfortunately, when people don't know the answer in a mislead sense of righteousness they try to find the next best answer, and give you that instead. I can only pray that this hasn't tainted your perception of Islam already.

I appreciate your sincerity, and welcoming post.

 

[جوري]

yeah, I will now be ignoring everything unrelated to your ramblings about me, or other possible discussions.

What is that? You have no valid theories of your own to combat the 'Random' existence as thought and peddled by 'Muslim Apologists' to offer as an alternative to their own dogma as they apprehend of atheists?-- yeah, that is what I thought all along.. Perhaps if you too had arrived to that conclusion before getting vehement the first time around we'd have all been spared alot of wasted time!

You haven't indeed. The letter was an example of how hostility can be determined from writings.

And I have already quite expanded on the matter, the words you construed were not in fact written by me, and statistics show that very little emphasis is actually based on word itself a negligible percentage!
Again a non-point made by your person!

I never said that is my only method of morality, rather that is how I would define morality.

Where do you drive your morality from? care to expand on your other methods?

I don't represent anyone but myself, so what are you talking about? What I type shows my mentality, not all atheists.

No, actually most if not all atheists we've had on board have echoed the same ideology with various gradation depending on whether they were soft or zealots in their own beliefs.

Huh?

Does not follow from what I asked.

It does you asked and I quote:

what is the difference in reasoning for your obedience to god, and someone else's obedience to some other concept not of god?

And I wrote:
The only perceivable difference is if there is direct malice to your fellow man in any form or fashion the here and now!
other than that what you hold as an ideology and practice is of no consequence!

You will have to tell me what I have misconstrued.

you wrote and I quote:

You accuse me of repetition, but then go on and keep asking me why I'm here.

to which I have replied:

I haven't asked you 'why you are here?' I have asked you, why concern yourself with something you hold in disbelief?.

Lol, right.

There are over 300 million people in the USA. If we assume NBC's numbers are valid, then that means 0.006% of Americans convert to Islam each year.

So almost entirely true is still valid.

That would be true if it were a fixed statistic in a fixed population and in a sequestered place (the video only speaks of the U.S) Again, rendering your point of no legal significance. Since we say a rise in Islam globally!

Surgeons are required to explain their decisions. So are judges and coaches. They might be horrific in appearance, but at least share their justification.

And God has explained his decisions in a series of books and thousands of messengers all attesting to the same thing even if there were minor variance!

How are the 'crimes' infinite?

If you accept that that we are not mere physical beings then it is very easy to see why a 'crime' will echo infinitely.. When you for instance commit murder as per Quran, it is as if you've murdered the whole of man-kind.. it affects everyone as we are a part of a cycle a chain and not some 'random' transient material things that live for a while with no impact on self or others.. If you hold the atheist position, then again, why concern yourself with a chain of event which you hold in disbelief when all you view are materialistic worldly-minded events?


all the best

 

[MSalman]

Someone who wishes for others what they wish for themselves

fair enough. So according to your criteria, if a rapist doesn't mind someone raping his daughter then he can go ahead and rape someone else's daughter. I got you and it is brilliant isn't?

preferably without any desire to score points and achieve rewards.

1 - how are we going to check this?
2 - what is wrong with desiring something in return? When did this become a criteria of someone not being good or lacking goodness

For me, justice is a punishment which fits the crime. Eternal punishment for a finite action, particularly polytheism (shirk), compared to say - rape, paedophilia or murder is antithetical to justice.

you are not god so we don't give a d@mn about what you think. you are a puny human and what you think is not evidence or proof for your point. This is simply your understanding and perception. Who said that a finite crime must get a finite punishment? Did you get this from your other god?

Yes it is purely subjective.

you are simply muttering the nonsensical progressive methodology. If good and bad is subjective then there is nothing good or bad because there is no such thing as an absolute as there is no criteria to judge right and wrong. What you perceive as moral is simply your view and holds on value. Simply put, for example, a murderer should not be punished since according to him he perceived it as good. Your whole nonsense gets even worse when you turn around and try to enforce your own ways on others or start judging other people's moral values using your own perceptions and understanding. Here is the crux of the matter and end result of your methodology:

1 - Each individual can decide what is good and bad because morality changes with time and affected by many other factors (advancements, inventions, environment, etc.)
2 - However, everyone should live by what I consider moral or morality is judged by my standards, understanding and criteria.

Your arrogant ideals are written all over yet you dare to come out as if you are so moral and prime example of good.

Maybe before getting into so called logical and rational discussions you need to weigh yourself so that you don't making yourself a laughing stock.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi skavau,

Wait, I'm not sure what you mean by the part in bold. By 'sin' do you mean immoral? (keeping in mind I don't recognise the concept of 'sin'). I am sure according entirely to Islamic edict that polytheism is absolutely out of the question morally - but objectively, as in something that is understandable to all - how is polytheism anything other (even if Islam is true) a specific belief that may be wrong?

Your right, that was an ambiguous choice of words I took. What I meant was that "shirk" (=ascribing partners to Allah) leads to immoral actions. Again, keep in mind this is my personal interpretation. I have no knowledge of this and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best. But it seems to me that almost every immoral act, has shirk in it's core. To explain that, I should first explain that shirk is not limited to the stereotypical worship of statues and such. There are many forms of shirk, which the people commiting them are in general not even aware of. Take pride/vanity for example. First of all, when being proud one gives himself praise he does not deserve. Imagine for example that I would be smart (for the sake of argument). I would then have been born that way. That I was born smart is not something I can rightfully take credit for myself. If you believe that God created us, then all credit for one being smart for example, would be due to God alone. And thus pride is in a way a form of shirk by giving praise to yourself, when in reality all such praise is due to our creator. Of course the argument doesn't require this premise. Even if you do not believe in God, the argument still holds. It remains evident that one cannot possible take credit for one's characteristics given at birth. This form of shirk (pride), leads to selfish behaviour. Now to continue my argument, for you might perhaps not yet be convinced that such is immoral.

In western psychology, those who follow Ellis' school of thought consider selfish behaviour as the default. A sort of self-preservation instinct which is perfectly natural. According to Ellis, anybody who commits acts of altruism then either has a selfish hidden agenda, or has an unhealthy inferiority complex. While of course my argument here is not about whether or not such unselfish altruism is healthy, I merely mentioned this here to indicate that indeed these things are connected and there's allot more to it then first meets the eye.​

The extreme form of such pride can eventually lead to becoming sociopathic. In groups such forms of shirk can also lead to nationalism, racism, and separatism and other forms of bigotry. I think that's already a large portion of human immoral behaviour listed right there, all coming from a single form of shirk. Of course I grant, that this is a very rudimentary explanation. These concepts I mention are very complex and have allot more factors build into it, which I haven't mentioned for simplicity's sake. Nevertheless I hold that shirk lies at the base of it, and is in a way the root of all evil. I also don't think it ends with just that one form of shirk. Similar arguments can be made for other forms of shirk and other immoral behaviour.I do think however that the specific form of shirk I mentioned, and the types of immorality that follow it are the most significant. So I think for now, I'll leave it at that, and wait for your response.

I'll be honest here. If I was to conclude that perhaps Islam is true and Allah is God - that would only be the halfway point. I find the concept of an omniscient arbiter, who holds a specific interest in my actions and chooses to tell me what to do, how to act in general as something most unwelcome. Something I have not mentioned in this thread, and that is more important to note is that I am an anti-theist in that I believe it would be rather awful if the trademarked monotheistic Gods did exist. You would never have a waking movement when you were not watched, judged. Never a moment of privacy. You would have to lead your life in a specific way. You would have to sacrifice what is enjoyable for seemingly arbitrary reasons. You would be expected to worship and provide nothing but adulation for this being (why is this necessary?) purely for existing. I could go into even further depth.

Thanks for your honesty. There's quite allot crammed in that paragraph, I'd like very much to analyse it and place my opinions regarding it. I do hope though, you wouldn't consider such as a personal attack or think that I am in any way judging you. I think for now I'd best touch it superficially rather then diving in completely, because I think that your statement here is strongly depending on two premises: "trademark monotheistic God" and "seemingly arbitrary reasons". I further suspect that if those two premises in the statement would change, that then your opinion and conclusion would change as well?

I'll respond to the second one first, since I think that's the easiest to respond to. If -for the sake of argument- I would be able to show you that the rules are not merely arbitrary but in our own best interest, would you still consider the omniscient omnipotent arbiter resent-full?
As for the other premise, I find that most rationalists who do not believe in God, don't believe in a very specific concept of God, a concept of God that I myself do not believe in either. So since I don't know which concept you hold to be the "trademark" one, perhaps I should ask you first? Which of the characteristics of God exactly would you find objectionable for such an arbiter to have?

I would indeed have many ethical issues with Islam even if I did accept it as true. I daresay that I would be even more stubborn with theistic morality than I would for evidence for Islam. Why would ethical issues that I might have with this be reason to send me to a place of torture?

Well if you would be convinced that Islam is true, but you have these issues you mention, then at the risk of posing a false dilemma I would be inclined to think that means one of the following 2 options:

1) A situation where a person is still on the fence. Where a person still has doubts, but on the other hand also has conviction. In such a case, the logical course of action would be for this person to look deeper into the matter until either his conviction or his doubts are cleared. However, instead some might make a (impulsive) choice, a choice to follow either the conviction despite the doubts, or to follow the doubt despite the conviction; probably depending on whichever one is strongest. Such a choice would of course make one accountable.
2) The other possibility, would be that in such a situation the person starts from a warped sense of morality. To simplify it, consider for example the case of a racist who refuses to accept Islam for it forbids him his habits of separatism, something he considered his birthright. In such a case obviously there is again grounds for accountability (even though my example was somewhat simplistic I admit).​

The reason I mentioned my views being at risk of a false dilemma; is because in all fairness I have to grant there exists a 3rd technical possibility.

3) Despite being convinced of its validity and fully understanding Islam, one still finds the morality and ethics of it is questionable. Although granted as a technical possibility, I don't know if this one is a realistic possibility. I don't know if it's possible for somebody to be convinced of Islam, yet still have these issues with it. I'd argue that anybody claiming to be like this, either doesn't have all the correct information or has a warped, flawed standard by which he/she is judging. Of course I admit that I am biased here. I don't believe this scenario is possible, because I do believe that Islam is 100% ethical and moral. This I grant is debatable. But I'm more then willing to debate just that.​

Well, I disagree that belief is a choice. You formulate your beliefs and ideals based on your upbringing, knowledge gained and your observation and experience of and with natural phenomena. I cannot change my beliefs unless I am convinced. The same is with everyone. This is why preachments of piety do not work with those who believe otherwise. This is why we all find it rather impossible to believe that we can will things into existence: reality contradicts it.

Well, although I understand why you would think so, I disagree strongly. The viewpoints you mention are the default, intuitive view that most people share. I myself used to think like that before and I really don't mean that in a condescending way. However, as later on in my life I changed my viewpoints (changing from atheistic to Muslim) I reconsidered these views as well. Think of Freud's iceberg theory (a.k.a. topography of mind).

If your unfamiliar with it, it holds that our consciousness has only a small say in what we choose/do/think; and that our subconsciousness, although under the surface has allot more to say in things. The theory is visualised by the comparison of an iceberg, of which only the top surfaces the water, but which has a much larger, more significant body under the water.​

I do think that we are lead by our subconscious personal preference to choose a faith (or absence of it). This happens when we are still young adolescents. Then later as we grow up somewhere along the line we learn to justify this subconscious inclination with conscious thinking. Once this step is made, it seems as though our faith (or absence of it) is the mere result of this chain of thoughts. As if the chain of thoughts has "trapped" us in a certain conviction, but in reality it is the other way around. Our subconscious is strongest and has first pick. Then conscious arguments are only added afterwards.

Exited In anticipation of your reply (it's so very rare to be able to have a conversation of this calibre, don't you agree?) ^_^

 

[Skavau]

Your right, that was an ambiguous choice of words I took. What I meant was that "shirk" (=ascribing partners to Allah) leads to immoral actions.

Would these immoral actions be in the context of Islam? By this I mean that could you reasonably demonstrate to me, a non-theist the validity of those claims?

Again, keep in mind this is my personal interpretation. I have no knowledge of this and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best. But it seems to me that almost every immoral act, has shirk in it's core. To explain that, I should first explain that shirk is not limited to the stereotypical worship of statues and such. There are many forms of shirk, which the people commiting them are in general not even aware of. Take pride/vanity for example. First of all, when being proud one gives himself praise he does not deserve. Imagine for example that I would be smart (for the sake of argument). I would then have been born that way. That I was born smart is not something I can rightfully take credit for myself. If you believe that God created us, then all credit for one being smart for example, would be due to God alone. And thus pride is in a way a form of shirk by giving praise to yourself, when in reality all such praise is due to our creator. Of course the argument doesn't require this premise. Even if you do not believe in God, the argument still holds. It remains evident that one cannot possible take credit for one's characteristics given at birth. This form of shirk (pride), leads to selfish behaviour. Now to continue my argument, for you might perhaps not yet be convinced that such is immoral.

Well, yes, perhaps if certain people were born with an above higher than average intelligence they would be wrong in holding a certain amount of pride about it - but, I wouldn't class it as immoral nor necessarily inevitable that it would lead to selfish behaviour (it could lead to more confidence, and ergo more success).

But accepting this argument here, what does this have to do with say, the traditional 'shirk'? The worship of idols or multiple beings? Remember that polytheists are sincere. They honestly believe they have the truth as much as you do.

The extreme form of such pride can eventually lead to becoming sociopathic. In groups such forms of shirk can also lead to nationalism, racism, and separatism and other forms of bigotry. I think that's already a large portion of human immoral behaviour listed right there, all coming from a single form of shirk.

I think this is all a bit of a makeshift slippery slope here. You've made the claim that abnormal pride in one's intelligence (birth-given) is the cause, or a cause of nationalism, racism, seperatism and all other forms of bigotry. It appears to me that you've simply put a specific type of label on a negative behaviour and then given examples of extreme things that could happen to some people exhibiting some aspects of that behaviour.

Of course I grant, that this is a very rudimentary explanation. These concepts I mention are very complex and have allot more factors build into it, which I haven't mentioned for simplicity's sake. Nevertheless I hold that shirk lies at the base of it, and is in a way the root of all evil. I also don't think it ends with just that one form of shirk. Similar arguments can be made for other forms of shirk and other immoral behaviour.I do think however that the specific form of shirk I mentioned, and the types of immorality that follow it are the most significant. So I think for now, I'll leave it at that, and wait for your response.

Also I'd want to know how an unwarranted sense of self-worth from having above average intelligence leads to nationalism, racism, etc.

Thanks for your honesty. There's quite allot crammed in that paragraph, I'd like very much to analyse it and place my opinions regarding it. I do hope though, you wouldn't consider such as a personal attack or think that I am in any way judging you. I think for now I'd best touch it superficially rather then diving in completely, because I think that your statement here is strongly depending on two premises: "trademark monotheistic God" and "seemingly arbitrary reasons". I further suspect that if those two premises in the statement would change, that then your opinion and conclusion would change as well?

That depends on what you would present, really.

I'll respond to the second one first, since I think that's the easiest to respond to. If -for the sake of argument- I would be able to show you that the rules are not merely arbitrary but in our own best interest, would you still consider the omniscient omnipotent arbiter resent-full?

No I wouldn't.

But I still would have an issue with the compulsion aspect. A creator is well to advice people towards specific paths (an omniscient and omnipotent one not needing to advice, but impose) but the problem specifically arises when it is commanded, or demanded under threat.

As for the other premise, I find that most rationalists who do not believe in God, don't believe in a very specific concept of God, a concept of God that I myself do not believe in either. So since I don't know which concept you hold to be the "trademark" one, perhaps I should ask you first? Which of the characteristics of God exactly would you find objectionable for such an arbiter to have?

Well I believe an omniscient, omnipotent God to be self-refuting (but that is for another thread) but, in terms of things that people tell me - I find many characteristics about the typical (by typical I mean the of the three monotheistic faiths) God to be problematic.

1. The concept of being punished for what one thinks. God, if true and if as Islam decrees created us all. He created us with the absolute knowledge (omniscience) of everything that we do, experience and conclude. He knew in advance that millions of people would simply not be convinced, not have enough evidence, not be interested or not even informed. Now would it be appropriate to decree any of those people for any of those reasons, as a consequence of this towards hellfire, or eternal agony? I don't think that it would be at all. Indeed I will note that earlier you suggested that other posters on this thread might not be knowledgable and perhaps you yourself do not believe that non-believers will necessarily by proxy end up in hellfire - but it is a common belief.

2. The concept of compulsion towards feelings. In Islam, or at least amongst Muslims I have observed more of a tendency to encourage forced feelings towards God (even more than fundamentalist christianity). That you ought to feel nothing but adulation and admiration for Allah. That it is wrong to do otherwise. That you ought to worship Allah and focus your life around Allah, and consider nothing or little else. Everything else is a means to an end. It is all for the 'dear leader'. To me it sounds slightly unappealing and a dampener rather than divine. An empty existence. It also appears utterly pointless. What purpose does forcing yourself to 'love' a supernatural creator and expressing this through service to him achieve or mean? Is this the sort of relationship that is desired?

Those are just two. I could expand on related points, but I'd need further input from you to see what it is you specifically believe to be true.

Well if you would be convinced that Islam is true, but you have these issues you mention, then at the risk of posing a false dilemma I would be inclined to think that means one of the following 2 options:

1) A situation where a person is still on the fence. Where a person still has doubts, but on the other hand also has conviction. In such a case, the person might either look deeper into the matter until either his conviction or his doubts are cleared. Or instead he might make a choice, a choice to follow either his conviction despite his doubts, or to follow his doubt despite his conviction; probably depending on which one is strongest. Such a choice would of course make one accountable.

Well, these things 'choose' themselves. He would either live in denial, or concede to what he finds most convincing. I don't think anyone in such a quandry ought to be punished or found 'accountable' for anything.

2) Yet another possibility, would be that in such a situation the person starts from a warped sense of morality. To simplify it, consider for example the case of a racist who refuses to accept Islam for it forbids him his habits of separatism, something he considered his birthright. In such a case obviously there is again grounds for accountability (even though my example was somewhat simplistic I admit).

This would not be a moral difficulty with Islam. This would be as apologists frequently describe, someone holding islam in contempt because it contradicts their objectives.

I do think that we are lead by our subconscious personal preference to choose a faith (or absence of it). This happens when we are still young adolescents. Then later as we grow up somewhere along the line we learn to justify this subconscious inclination with conscious thinking. Once this step is made, it seems as though our faith (or absence of it) is the mere result of this chain of thoughts. As if the chain of thoughts has "trapped" us in a certain conviction, but in reality it is the other way around. Our subconscious is strongest and has first pick. Then conscious arguments are only added afterwards.

I do not deny bias. Indeed it has an impressive effect on what we think - but it leads only to denial and hypocrisy amongst people. I am talking to the root of what people really believe not what they say they believe. Someone and indeed this happens a lot, might have themselves publicly declared as Christian but really, do not believe in it. Their disbelief is something that cannot change unless convinced, despite their biases towards the previous.

 

[Ummu Sufyaan]

http://islam-qa.com/en/ref/31174/muslims in hell

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Skavau

Your right, that was an ambiguous choice of words I took. What I meant was that "shirk" (=ascribing partners to Allah) leads to immoral actions.

Would these immoral actions be in the context of Islam? By this I mean that could you reasonably demonstrate to me, a non-theist the validity of those claims?

Yes, I believe so.

Well, yes, perhaps if certain people were born with an above higher than average intelligence they would be wrong in holding a certain amount of pride about it - but, I wouldn't class it as immoral nor necessarily inevitable that it would lead to selfish behaviour (it could lead to more confidence, and ergo more success).
But accepting this argument here, what does this have to do with say, the traditional 'shirk'? The worship of idols or multiple beings? Remember that polytheists are sincere. They honestly believe they have the truth as much as you do.

Well as I said, shirk is not limited to the traditional worship of idols. I had hand-picked a single form of shirk, and shown how that leads to immoral behaviour. I do believe similar arguments can be made for the other forms of shirk, however I have limited my post to only this specific type for practical reasons. And I think the post was already long ^_^

The extreme form of such pride can eventually lead to becoming sociopathic. In groups such forms of shirk can also lead to nationalism, racism, and separatism and other forms of bigotry. I think that's already a large portion of human immoral behaviour listed right there, all coming from a single form of shirk.

I think this is all a bit of a makeshift slippery slope here. You've made the claim that abnormal pride in one's intelligence (birth-given) is the cause, or a cause of nationalism, racism, separatism and all other forms of bigotry.

I didn't say that pride in intelligence caused this. The part about intelligence was just an example to clarify the concept. People can have pride for many (unjust) reasons. But in the end every form of bigotry goes hand in hand with such an unjust feeling of superiority. Without such feelings its practically impossible. Also the sociopathic behaviour is clearly a result of pride (sociopathy is narcissism with a biased morality based on it).

Also I'd want to know how an unwarranted sense of self-worth from having above average intelligence leads to nationalism, racism, etc.

As I said, you're hung up on the "intelligence example" to much. I didn't mean to say that these things are derived from that specific form of pride, but rather from different forms of pride.

I'll respond to the second one first, since I think that's the easiest to respond to. If -for the sake of argument- I would be able to show you that the rules are not merely arbitrary but in our own best interest, would you still consider the omniscient omnipotent arbiter resent-full?

No I wouldn't.
But I still would have an issue with the compulsion aspect. A creator is well to advice people towards specific paths (an omniscient and omnipotent one not needing to advice, but impose) but the problem specifically arises when it is commanded, or demanded under threat.

I'm inclined to disagree. First of all, there are different type of rules, absolute prohibitions, things which are compulsory, and then things which are encouraged/discouraged.

• In almost every religious prohibitions, one can see that the benefit is not just on a personal level for the one following the law, but it is for the sake of the whole society. Leaving such matters at the will of the followers, would enable them to wrong society, and thus wouldn't be proper guidance from God.
• As for the compulsory, those are only the basics acts of faith, some of which are still intended for the well-being of society (like mandatory alms for the poor) and some of which are aimed to maintain the faith (like 5 daily prayer). If these would be left out of divine guidance. So the importance of these laws is to maintain the laws themselves. If a system of laws is perfect for society, but not able to be maintained, it is not a good system either. Self-preservation needs to be build into it.
• As for discouraged and encouraged things, those are as you would find preferable, up to the individual to decide whether he does them or not. But still, you cannot deny that there is a difference in a person who follows them and a person who doesn't from the viewpoint of an arbiter. Should those who do allot of effort be rewarded the same as those who do only the minimum? I think you'll agree there's no fairness in that.

As for the other premise, I find that most rationalists who do not believe in God, don't believe in a very specific concept of God, a concept of God that I myself do not believe in either. So since I don't know which concept you hold to be the "trademark" one, perhaps I should ask you first? Which of the characteristics of God exactly would you find objectionable for such an arbiter to have?

Well I believe an omniscient, omnipotent God to be self-refuting (but that is for another thread) but, in terms of things that people tell me - I find many characteristics about the typical (by typical I mean the of the three monotheistic faiths) God to be problematic.

I've heard many claims of omniscience and omnipotence being incompatible and self-refuting. So far I've haven't seen any such argument hold its ground though. If you care for it, I discuss the most common arguments on my website here: http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/brainwashing.htm
(somewhere near the bottom of that page)

1. The concept of being punished for what one thinks. God, if true and if as Islam decrees created us all. He created us with the absolute knowledge (omniscience) of everything that we do, experience and conclude. He knew in advance that millions of people would simply not be convinced, not have enough evidence, not be interested or not even informed. Now would it be appropriate to decree any of those people for any of those reasons, as a consequence of this towards hellfire, or eternal agony? I don't think that it would be at all. Indeed I will note that earlier you suggested that other posters on this thread might not be knowledgable and perhaps you yourself do not believe that non-believers will necessarily by proxy end up in hellfire - but it is a common belief.

Yes as I explained we do not know the faith of those who didn't receive the correct message. Only Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows whether they will be for heaven or hell.

2. The concept of compulsion towards feelings. In Islam, or at least amongst Muslims I have observed more of a tendency to encourage forced feelings towards God (even more than fundamentalist christianity). That you ought to feel nothing but adulation and admiration for Allah. That it is wrong to do otherwise. That you ought to worship Allah and focus your life around Allah, and consider nothing or little else. Everything else is a means to an end. It is all for the 'dear leader'. To me it sounds slightly unappealing and a dampener rather than divine. An empty existence. It also appears utterly pointless. What purpose does forcing yourself to 'love' a supernatural creator and expressing this through service to him achieve or mean? Is this the sort of relationship that is desired?

I suppose it's a fine line between what people have to do compulsory, and what they ought to do (as in what would be the best). Furthermore, I don't think there's any base in Islam which shows us we have to "force" feelings upon ourselves. On the other hand, when you don't have love/adoration, for the most merciful, most forgiving who created us and all around us, then that is a tell-tale sign that there's something fundamentally wrong with either your beliefs (creed) or your religion (actions). As for the purpose of it, I think that is self-evident if you start from the premise that God does exist.

1) We believe it is the purpose we have been created for.
2) If you consider the characteristics Of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala); and consider the many things he does for us, then he is definitely worth this adoration, more then that, I'd say it is due.
3) Even though the intention in adoration should be for the sake of Allah, there is a personal benefit in it as well, since it brings reward.​

Perhaps you find it purposeless because you start from the premise that God doesn't exist? While I grant that such would be your prerogative as atheist of course, I would like to point out the following. If you deduce the purposelessness of worship, from the non-existence of God. And then in turn use the purposelessness of worship as an argument for not believing in the existence of God, then your (dis)belief is circular reasoning. Then again I gladly admit that my viewpoints are circular just as well. In fact I believe that circularity in viewpoints is inevitable for the human mind. But that's a whole different discussion altogether...

Well if you would be convinced that Islam is true, but you have these issues you mention, then at the risk of posing a false dilemma I would be inclined to think that means one of the following 2 options:
1) A situation where a person is still on the fence. Where a person still has doubts, but on the other hand also has conviction. In such a case, the person might either look deeper into the matter until either his conviction or his doubts are cleared. Or instead he might make a choice, a choice to follow either his conviction despite his doubts, or to follow his doubt despite his conviction; probably depending on which one is strongest. Such a choice would of course make one accountable.

Well, these things 'choose' themselves. He would either live in denial, or concede to what he finds most convincing. I don't think anyone in such a quandry ought to be punished or found 'accountable' for anything.

Again I strongly disagree. If a person receives guidance, and gets clear conviction, yet refuses to delve deeper in the matter (for whatever motives he might not). Then he is in effect choosing not to believe despite knowing better. He is knowingly prefering the pleasures of this world over doing what he believes is the right thing to do. that to me, reeks of accountability.

2) Yet another possibility, would be that in such a situation the person starts from a warped sense of morality. To simplify it, consider for example the case of a racist who refuses to accept Islam for it forbids him his habits of separatism, something he considered his birthright. In such a case obviously there is again grounds for accountability (even though my example was somewhat simplistic I admit).

This would not be a moral difficulty with Islam. This would be as apologists frequently describe, someone holding islam in contempt because it contradicts their objectives.

I'm sorry I didn't understand get what you're getting at here. Are you agreeing with me that this is indeed one of two possibilities in which disbelieve could be accountable? Or are you saying that this would be the default path for people to take and thus doesn't make them accountable for their choice?

I do think that we are lead by our subconscious personal preference to choose a faith (or absence of it). This happens when we are still young adolescents. Then later as we grow up somewhere along the line we learn to justify this subconscious inclination with conscious thinking. Once this step is made, it seems as though our faith (or absence of it) is the mere result of this chain of thoughts. As if the chain of thoughts has "trapped" us in a certain conviction, but in reality it is the other way around. Our subconscious is strongest and has first pick. Then conscious arguments are only added afterwards.

I do not deny bias. Indeed it has an impressive effect on what we think - but it leads only to denial and hypocrisy amongst people. I am talking to the root of what people really believe not what they say they believe. Someone and indeed this happens a lot, might have themselves publicly declared as Christian but really, do not believe in it. Their disbelief is something that cannot change unless convinced, despite their biases towards the previous.

again, I'm not quite sure I caught your drift. Are you agreeing that indeed belief is by choice, and then later on justification by reasoning is added? I wasn't talking about contradictions between what one claims and what one is inclined to believe. even if those two are in tune, it would still be the subconscious who chose, and the reasoning that followed. Or are you suggesting yet a third slightly different scenario. If so, would you mind elaborating on it?

 

[Skavau]

Hello Abdul

I caught the tail end of one of your last posts. Yes it is rare to have discussions like this. In the face of accusations and other things, it is most 'pious' (if I can say that :3)

Well as I said, shirk is not limited to the traditional worship of idols. I had hand-picked a single form of shirk, and shown how that leads to immoral behaviour. I do believe similar arguments can be made for the other forms of shirk, however I have limited my post to only this specific type for practical reasons. And I think the post was already long ^_^

Yes it was a long post. You showed to me how negative behavioural characteristics and tendencies can at times, in some people possibly lead to bad people or bad actions that have demonstrable consequences. You determine these characteristics as 'shirk'. And whilst I am not interested in disputing the meaning of shirk, and how broad it is - I should as I have stated previously be more interested in the traditional meaning of shirk.

I didn't say that pride in intelligence caused this. The part about intelligence was just an example to clarify the concept. People can have pride for many (unjust) reasons. But in the end every form of bigotry goes hand in hand with such an unjust feeling of superiority. Without such feelings its practically impossible. Also the sociopathic behaviour is clearly a result of pride (sociopathy is narcissism with a biased morality based on it).

I will agree. Bigotry towards others is almost always based on a feeling of unwarranted superiority. Would it be out of bounds for me to propose that Islam, or at least many Muslims at least in some sense (and I've seen it directly stated with the cliche "the worst muslim is better than the best non-muslim") believe Muslims to be of more worth, at least to god? This may be not what you believe, but I'd like some clarification if I may.

And what is your opinion of Islamic Law, a system which according to many legislates a system of inequality towards people based on their religious beliefs? Some of the 'liberal' leaning proponents of Islamic Law that I have seen propose a multi-religious theocracy where people of different beliefs are in their own little refuges and run by their own religiuous rulings (which doesn't explain where atheists might be, mind).

As I said, you're hung up on the "intelligence example" to much. I didn't mean to say that these things are derived from that specific form of pride, but rather from different forms of pride.

Okay

I'm inclined to disagree. First of all, there are different type of rules, absolute prohibitions, things which are compulsory, and then things which are encouraged/discouraged.

Indeed I know of this distinction.

* In almost every religious prohibitions, one can see that the benefit is not just on a personal level for the one following the law, but it is for the sake of the whole society. Leaving such matters at the will of the followers, would enable them to wrong society, and thus wouldn't be proper guidance from God.

Are you talking specifically about the following of law in societys under Islamic Law, or the relevance of Muslims in general following the tenets of Islam?

* As for the compulsory, those are only the basics acts of faith, some of which are still intended for the well-being of society (like mandatory alms for the poor) and some of which are aimed to maintain the faith (like 5 daily prayer). If these would be left out of divine guidance. So the importance of these laws is to maintain the laws themselves. If a system of laws is perfect for society, but not able to be maintained, it is not a good system either. Self-preservation needs to be build into it.

Are you suggesting that the persistent ritualism of Islam is designed so that it acts as a catalyst for people to feel confident about the prevailing Islamic society that they are in?

* As for discouraged and encouraged things, those are as you would find preferable, up to the individual to decide whether he does them or not. But still, you cannot deny that there is a difference in a person who follows them and a person who doesn't from the viewpoint of an arbiter. Should those who do allot of effort be rewarded the same as those who do only the minimum? I think you'll agree there's no fairness in that.

Well, sure. If I pledged allegience to anyone and stated I would follow their ideals, and effectively ignored all things proposed as encouraged and engaged in what was discouraged then he might be right in being miffed, but again this is a not a mandatory relationship. It would be a consensual one. When you talk about Islam, there's no doubt about it, it is a system imposed upon all.

I've heard many claims of omniscience and omnipotence being incompatible and self-refuting. So far I've haven't seen any such argument hold its ground though. If you care for it, I discuss the most common arguments on my website here: http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/brainwashing.htm

Lol, well. In this thread I've had about 5 links thrown at me, several youtube links and in the other thread too (the one on apostasy) other links were thrown at me.

Maybe I'll get back to you?

Heh

Yes as I explained we do not know the faith of those who didn't receive the correct message. Only Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows whether they will be for heaven or hell.

Okay. You would do well to pass this message on to others. You must know that threats of eternal torture would be offputting.

But on an extension of this: Why is torture, and infinite at that a necessary response to anything we have done in this life? And I note I assume you accept hellfire as one of eternal torture, because unlike Christians - I have never seen a Muslim contend that it is not. Not even the more liberal leaning ones.

I suppose it's a fine line between what people have to do compulsory, and what they ought to do (as in what would be the best). Furthermore, I don't think there's any base in Islam which shows us we have to "force" feelings upon ourselves. On the other hand, when you don't have love/adoration, for the most merciful, most forgiving who created us and all around us, then that is a tell-tale sign that there's something fundamentally wrong with either your beliefs (creed) or your religion (actions). As for the purpose of it, I think that is self-evident if you start from the premise that God does exist.

1) We believe it is the purpose we have been created for.
2) If you consider the characteristics Of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala); and consider the many things he does for us, then he is definitely worth this adoration, more then that, I'd say it is due.
3) Even though the intention in adoration should be for the sake of Allah, there is a personal benefit in it as well, since it brings reward.

#3 is an interesting point here. What does Allah expect his adherents to praise him for? Self-interest or devotion to him? Both? The only way #3 could be valid is if you see your existence as designed as inherently worthy or something to cherish. But if you wish to maintain this existence, is it due to overwhelming self-interest or because you really enjoy the purpose you were created for?

Perhaps you find it purposeless because you start from the premise that God doesn't exist? While I grant that such would be your prerogative as atheist of course, I would like to point out the following. If you deduce the purposelessness of worship, from the non-existence of God. And then in turn use the purposelessness of worship as an argument for not believing in the existence of God, then your (dis)belief is circular reasoning.

These are my reasons for be an anti-theist, not an atheist.

Then again I gladly admit that my viewpoints are circular just as well. In fact I believe that circularity in viewpoints is inevitable for the human mind. But that's a whole different discussion altogether...

I am glad of your viewpoints. They bring a more mature edge to the regretful comments of too many posters on here.

Again I strongly disagree. If a person receives guidance, and gets clear conviction, yet refuses to delve deeper in the matter (for whatever motives he might not). Then he is in effect choosing not to believe despite knowing better. He is knowingly prefering the pleasures of this world over doing what he believes is the right thing to do. that to me, reeks of accountability.

But why do you think he would choose the pleasures of this world over righteousness? In this context you are accusing this person of having a high amount of self-interest in themselves. So much so that they are unwilling to observe Islam even though they believe it to be true. You then go on to say that they ought to be accountable for this.

The problem is of course, is that from a self-interest perspective this makes no sense. The promise of eternal paradise is more rewarding than the reality of lushness we see here on earth. If this person was to be consistent, then perhaps he would be a Muslim. Remember earlier on you already said that acknowledgement of Allah brings reward.

Moreover I don't believe my analogy necessarily had anything to do with ignoring Islam due to reasons of self-interest, but of cognitive dissonance.

I'm sorry I didn't understand get what you're getting at here. Are you agreeing with me that this is indeed one of two possibilities in which disbelieve could be accountable? Or are you saying that this would be the default path for people to take and thus doesn't make them accountable for their choice?

I am somewhat agreeing with you. Someone refusing a belief system they know to be true because they rather much value their own bigotry. I don't agree that any accountability from that would be deserving of torture, eternal or otherwise - but it would be somewhat stubborn and evidence of agenda.

again, I'm not quite sure I caught your drift. Are you agreeing that indeed belief is by choice, and then later on justification by reasoning is added? I wasn't talking about contradictions between what one claims and what one is inclined to believe. even if those two are in tune, it would still be the subconscious who chose, and the reasoning that followed. Or are you suggesting yet a third slightly different scenario. If so, would you mind elaborating on it?

You said: "I do think that we are lead by our subconscious personal preference to choose a faith (or absence of it).".

I'm not sure how your subsconscious 'choosing' anything is the same thing as actively choosing anything. Which is what I am contending is not the case with belief. I am saying that often people will make it appear that their beliefs are by choice (and indeed things like the placebo effect and confirmation bias assist in making these people comfortable in themselves and their beliefs). They will say that they like certain aspects of X and therefore believe it. These people are usually unlearned in what they say they believe and motivate a desire for it to be true (Indeed they are often those who spend a lot of time trying to convince others of this too). An unspecified proposition here that I make though is that faith is nothing without this desire to be true. That faith is more often manifested as wanting X to be true rather than actual confidence or reasoning that it is true.

I'll give you an obvious example. I would quite like to get £100 pounds. It'd be nice. However much I really want that to just happen in the next five minutes does not mean that I can actually be convinced that it will. I am aware of people who have convinced themselves through bias and desire exist (and indeed, the desire for something to be true is a choice. It is preference). I am however talking generally that in life, there are things that most people find ridiculous and cannot believe due to lack of evidence. With Islam, and other belief systems this is the case. People can't 'choose' to believe it - they have to be convinced.

Ramble over.
But