that is the preponderant fallacy of modern times.
a single idea can and many times, is a virtual beleif system in and of itself
example, the entire religion of Islam, the millions of books written, the hundreds of thousands of theologians and preservers and the billions of muslims that have existed is based off of what you call one simple statement or view or single metaphysical position. that is
There is no thing that deserves to be worshiped (worship in this sense is comprehensive, part of its meaning here is no law should be obeyed if in opposition to the divine law, likewise attributing the very begining of how the creation was created to other than the Creator i.e. nature, is likewise placing worship to other than God, and there are other much comprehensive realities to the meaning of this statement) except God alone
and then Muhammad is the messenger who conveyed the message God enjoined upon mankind.
The whole of the religion of not only our religion, but the religion of the prophets are centrally based on this concept, this "single metaphysical" concept.
the next islamic perspective that synchronizes a viewpoint to be a religion is that the term religion does not or fails to entail the comprehensive aspect in the english terminology. Religion, as understood according to the english speaking world, for the most part consists of certain beleifs and rituals based on a metaphysical philosophy. That, according to the premodern world is devoid of the proper definition of religion. In Islam, when someone is swayed by an opinion, lets say the opinion or viewpoint that "God has no Attributes" then that properly in Islam is in and of itself an entirely new philosophy, a religion. That is why in Islam, certain sects are deemed by due right of the Islamic jurists as "another religion" even though they are classified as among the sects of Islam. Point is, is that just a mere viewpoint that steers away from the viewpoint of what was authentically established by the prophet of Islam can and is itself an entirely new concept i.e. a heresy.
Outside of the Islamic proofs, from the logical proofs that necessitate that a single viewpoint does and can be summed up as a religion in and of itself is that the reality of "religion" as it should be properly understood is a way of life. even certain conservative thinkers classify a "liberal mindset" as a religion or school of thought by itself, likewise they themsleves classify their ideas as a religion, because logically religion is a way of life, a way to carry onself in this life by beleifs and by actions and by statements.
atheism, at its core, as you understand, survives on the notion that God is Himself non existant wa iyaadhubillah. That "single metaphysical" theory in and of itself lures one to base the actions of his or her life on that premise. Therefore when the concept of "man can rule or legislate laws for themselves without the need of God" is itself an entire way life (as we see in america) based on one single concept, the beleif that makes atheism, atheism.
posted by trumble
1. toleration is undisputed on top of which one must as well understand that a certain statement that someone may makle which is their evaluation of something else should not and cannot be classified as something "intolerant"
for example, when someone makes the preposterous assumtpion that Muhammad is a pedaphile, I understand that is their opinion and they are not being intolerant. And then when I remakrd on their compounded ignorance due to whcih led them to say such a thing, is likewise something that does not fit to be described as "intolerant"
2. as for the possibility of wrongness, even from a strictly logical viewpoint, the side that accepts the existance of the Creator is at a win/lose situation (losing based off of his own deeds) whereas the one who rejects the existence of their Creator is in a loose/loose situation. Even from a purely logical stance it makes no sense even if one were to assume the possibility that the stance of those who accept His existence are themselves wrong. However, man, as they were created can only make judgements that is proven by reason and due right of facts or the power of logic. The side that accepts His existence have reason and logic on their side as has most profoundednly been expounded upon by many theologians before simple me. Likewise in the contrast of this, if we were to look at its opposite, those who deny His existence, then only fallacious notions that oppose reason and logic is that which the beleif of His "non existance" stands upon.
3. lastly, one does not need a material proof for the absolute existance of a thing, thus your arguement would apply only in a world were people who can only be convinced based on a literal backing of a claim. But this world is not based on such a notion, otherwise judges in the court would have to be in the very incident when someone is getting murdered in order for them to ascertain the guilt of a suspect or not. The world does not function that way. What adds to the illogcal fallacy of the atheists is that while some of them may aknowledge this, they are quick to turn the tables so as to apply a different form of judging their own Creator. in other words, they may not subject human activities or objects in such a stringent methodology (of literalism to be convinced), but they are so quick to do so for a being who is by default beyond the creational aspects of this world. So with God they hold one method, and with other than Him they hold another, that is why they are willing to attribute the physical actual creation, its origion, to a non existant entity, nature, or the big bang. We can elaborate further into such catastrophic fallacies of atheism, but I don't have the time nor will to reenter this subject.
I hope i have entertained your questions on a satisfactory level.
mg:
