Why is an Atheist an Atheist?

[inflatable jesus]

1.The Bible is not Al Qur'an. You better argue with Christians about this.
2. Personally I see nothing of what is described in Al Qur'an (or the Bible, for that matter) in contradiction with what you classify under "scientific explanations".

If you only wanted to discuss atheism as it relates to Islam you should have said so. I'm quite sure that most criticisms I would make have little application to the cargo cults of the South Pacific either but doesn't change the reasons for my atheism

The reason I'm not a muslim is because I've never heard a convincing explanation of why I should be. It's not as a result of a detailed analysis of the Qu'ran. It's because I understand that your God is regarded to be the same one mentioned in the Jewish and Christian texts and nothing in those books have convinced me of his or it's existance. I've also never heard a convincing explanation as to why I should believe that Mohammed was a divine prophet and not just a delusional egomaniac.

As for "the flood" (also described in Al Qur'an) and other such stories:
Tells about local events, serves as an example and has to be taken allegorical as well. Besides that, the story of the flood could very well be based on real experiences with giant tsunami waves (to name one possibility).

Exactly, it's a myth. It should be understood as a Hebrew folk myth. As should every other story in the Bible where God is alleged to be involved. Unfortunately a lot of people think that these things actually happenned. It should go without saying that such silly views should be challenged.

If it is reasonable or not is for you to decide.

Who's decision is it then? I would have thought that it is up to everyone to decide for themselves what is reasonable and what is not. The only caveat I would put on that is that we should be expected to present logical explanations when required.

That doesn't automatically mean it is correct. It has more chances to be incorrect then what someone who is familiar with the text you discuss can tell you about how to take such stories and what to believe about it.

salaam.

I'm quite familiar with the bible and I'm aware of the ideas about allegory. However, on detailed inspection it appears to me that people use the idea of allegory to cover up the frequent appearances of outdated primitive ideas in these texts. I can't help noticing that the idea of allegory seems to be introduced as soon as a biblical statement becomes disprovable wheras before evidence to the contrary emerged it was taken as literal fact and in some instances still is.

As such, I take the view that all religious texts should be regarded as works of fiction until proved otherwise. It certainly seems like the sturdier position.

P.S. You keep writing 'then' when you mean 'than'. I'm not trying to be a dick, but it would make your posts clearer if you corrected it.

 

[Aldebaran]

So what...? We should believe in a God that does nothing...? And if He does Nothing there's no much point in him existing, let alone being believed in..

You seem to firmly believe that God "must" somehow be "at service" of humanity. You are not alone. I saw many people who believe in God reason almost the same (all of them Christians, but I know only Muslims and Christians).

TBH, saying that you should believe in him and have faith is a cop out for a lazy (ie *no*) God...

Your ideas are slightly coloured by not knowing very well what you actually talk about

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

You have a degree in telling people fairy tales, and if they suffer now then they will be fine when they are dead...? very useful...

Not exactly. I have degrees in what Islam is about, and some others.

salaam.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So what...? We should believe in a God that does nothing...? And if He does Nothing there's no much point in him existing, let alone being believed in...

TBH, saying that you should believe in him and have faith is a cop out for a lazy (ie *no*) God...

No, that is not what I am saying. There are more fundamental reasons for not believing in any 'god' than the apparent fact that it does not intervene, so it is a weak argument.

 

[gentlegreen]

The difference between an atheist and a religionist ?

About 50 IQ points, social brainwashing / death threats, or undiagnosed psychosis.

 

[rhys gethin]

I see that you want to ARGUE with everyone, which is fair enough, but it is not my bag. To my mind Islam has been quite sensible not to get into 'modernising' - reasonable belief was developed by Protestantism and led naturally to reasonable non-belief . The less reasonable a belief the easier - up to a point - to keep holding it (which is not to say that Islam - or Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Judaism - aren't reasonable within their own terms). I don't think (I'm not an anthropologist either) that hunter-gatherer societies believed in gods much - only in magic. You say

as far as I'm informed, notions of or ideas on God seem to have existed for as long as there are traces of humanity..

but my own understanding is that the notion of gods developed out of tribal and clan totems (which is why early gods take animal shapes) and that the notion of one God developed with the would-be world empires round the fifth century BC - I think it was. It is a relatively-reasonable hypothesis when you haven't developed science, I suppose, like magic itself.

You seem to suggest that all you mentioned under your reply to the quesiton what "truth" is to you, for some mysterious reason don't count for me (although I never saw research that traced the development of language back to "creatures close to apes").
Why?

There can't be research on such a thing - it is too far back - but we have Darwin and a great deal of useful stuff on language, which is in its essentials quite primitive. All language is clearly metaphorical, and the metaphors are VERY basic, such as 'inflation is rising' (like a pile of nuts) or 'IN October' (time is like a box). Try a book called 'Metaphors we live by'.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

What do yo see as "the theist's understanding of the world"? (Maybe I could say the same about atheists.)

I'm sure you could, because that's all you ever do. You say you want to understand atheists and atheism, but at the same time you admit that your religion commands that you explain your religion to us. You're like the Borg. If I explain my atheism to you in terms of philosophers I admire, you say that the philosophers who came up with those ideas are actually prophets of God. If I explain it in terms of the way I observe theists to behave, you say that you think atheists are exactly the same. All you seem to want is for me to be more like you. You aren't looking to understand me at all; you're looking to dissect, label and demolish me. Why?

 

[Aldebaran]

If you only wanted to discuss atheism as it relates to Islam you should have said so.

I never mentioned I wanted to discuss atheism "as it relates" to anything else but atheism.

You "decided not to be Muslim" because of what you found about God in other religions and without even knowing what Islam is about or even opening Al Qur'an? Not a very impressive intellectual journey if you ask me.
As for Muhammed: how on earth can you receive "a convincing explanation" on his prophethood if you are even too intellectually lazy to discover what he talked about?

It should go without saying that such silly views should be challenged.

Why? This comes across as if you to take it as your task or respnsibility to "convert" everyone to atheism.

Who's decision is it then? I would have thought that it is up to everyone to decide for themselves what is reasonable and what is not.

Like I said, it is your decision.

As such, I take the view that all religious texts should be regarded as works of fiction until proved otherwise. It certainly seems like the sturdier position.

Tis comes down to "you believe something or you don't". If you are on the side of the "don't" yours is a reasonable position to take.

P.S. You keep writing 'then' when you mean 'than'. I'm not trying to be a dick, but it would make your posts clearer if you corrected it.

I wouldn't know if or when I do that. I never studied this language and I have a birthgift called dyslexia too (I usually call him my brotehr Dyslex).

salaam.

 

[tastebud]

I dislike the term atheist as it implies that those who are not religious should be defined by their lack of belief.

Yeah, I agree with this actually.

 

[jæd]

The difference between an atheist and a religionist ?

About 50 IQ points, social brainwashing / death threats, or undiagnosed psychosis.

Basically... In this day and age anyone who tries to perpetuate the fairy stories of Islam, Christianity and others is either not very bright or has their own agenda.

Religions: Handy for controlling the stupid masses...

 

[jæd]

Not exactly. I have degrees in what Islam is about, and some others.

So we can't debate because we stopped believing in these silly stories when we were 5...? Pity no-one told you it was a pile of bs. You could've studied something *useful*...

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm sure you could, because that's all you ever do. You say you want to understand atheists and atheism, but at the same time you admit that your religion commands that you explain your religion to us.

Correction: I said it is a command for me to explain Islam to people who ask because they want to know.

Please try to avoid twisting what I write in something you would like to be there.

The rest of your post is too ludicrous to waste my time on a reply. (By the way: It seems even impossible for you to imagine that possibly I studied more on philosophy, including Western philosophers, then you did.)

salaam.

 

[jæd]

The rest of your post is too ludicrous to waste my time on a reply. (By the way: It seems even impossible for you to imagine that possibly I studied more on philosophy, including Western philosophers, then you did.)

So why do you bother debating with us thickos...? Havn't you got intelligent, brainy people like yourself to discuss this with...?

 

[fudgefactorfive]

The rest of your post is too ludicrous to waste my time on a reply. (By the way: It seems even impossible for you to imagine that possibly I studied more on philosophy, including Western philosophers, then you did.)

This is exactly why there is no point in having dialogues on the nature of the universe with theists - because it's just "ludicrous". It doesn't matter how much more time you've spent reading philosophy than me, it doesn't make you any more "right".

Your religion commands you to proselytise, but atheists aren't operating under any such constraint - I don't think that atheism is something that requires "defence" in the first place, but even when we do take up some of our valuable time in explaining ourselves, you either co-opt us (Buddha was a Islamic prophet; Jesus was an incarnation of Vishnu) or try to destroy us. Literally, in some cases. And when you fail to stamp out the heresy, you just dismiss it.

You ask us to open ourselves up to your attack. But the second anyone fights back, we're all word-twisting misquoters not worthy of your brilliant intellect.

You go ahead and make yourself an adversary. I've got better things to do.

 

[red_gordon]

Aldebaran, what is Islams position on homosexuals?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Aldebaran, what is Islams position on homosexuals?

This is a much better way to proceed. In order to understand atheism, you need to present your beliefs to us so that we can show you where they are wrong. This is the only way an atheist can debate with you.

 

[WouldBe]

So for example I could look at the biblical claim that all the humans and animals in the world were killed in a flood except those upon Noah's ark. I can compare that with a reasonable idea about how many species of animals can fit aboard a boat or the likelihood of all animal life developing from no more than two per species during the time that humans have had the necessary skills to build large boats or any other common sense reasons why that event could not have happenned and I would come to the conclusion that it is a myth and not something that actually happenned.

Hence, I come to a reasonable conclusion about an article of religious belief.

Not to mention that one of the birds on the ark died when released too early and couldn't find any dry land so the species should have died out but hasn't.

Maybe if the bible had said "Noah released a teradactyl" that would explain why they don't exist anymore and make the story more sensible.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

"clean" animals went onto the Ark in sevens

 

[inflatable jesus]

I never mentioned I wanted to discuss atheism "as it relates" to anything else but atheism.

Atheism by virtue of being atheism relates to all theist religions. So if you want to discuss atheism you can't really be that dismissive of atheist ideas centred around other theist religions. Otherwise you're not actually making a defence of theism, you're making a defence of Islam. So you're not actually dealing with the question you posed.

You "decided not to be Muslim" because of what you found about God in other religions and without even knowing what Islam is about or even opening Al Qur'an? Not a very impressive intellectual journey if you ask me.
As for Muhammed: how on earth can you receive "a convincing explanation" on his prophethood if you are even too intellectually lazy to discover what he talked about?

I didn't say I decided not to be a muslim, I said I hadn't decided to be one.

Tell me, how was it you decided not to believe in South Pacific cargo cults? Was it after a detailed analysis and a trip to the South Pacific? Or have you just never decided to believe in that because what little you have heard about it just strikes you as daft.

I have no responsibility to investigate every crackpot derranged idea anyone has ever had on the subject of religion. My only responsibility is to make logical assumptions based on the world as I see it.

Although as it happens I'm hoping to finish reading the bible over the weekend and move on the Qu'ran next. I think reading one old boring pile of nonsense at a time is enough for anyone. I don't suppose you can recommend a decent English translation or commentary can you?

Why? This comes across as if you to take it as your task or respnsibility to "convert" everyone to atheism.

I respect anyone's right to believe whatever pile of nonsense they like. However, I think that ideas should be challenged when they provide the motivations for actions that affect others in a possibly negative way. So when somebody believes that his duty as a Christian is to picket the funerals of dead gay people, that should be challenged. When somebody tries to convince another person of the rightness of his or her religious beliefs, then that should be challenged.

Tis comes down to "you believe something or you don't". If you are on the side of the "don't" yours is a reasonable position to take.

I think there is more reliable evidence on the 'don't' side. There's very little on the 'do' side besides magic and ignorance.

 

[WouldBe]

"clean" animals went onto the Ark in sevens

I understood that to be only sheep, goats and cattle, non of which could fly last time I checked.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

I understood that to be only sheep, goats and cattle, non of which could fly last time I checked.

It's my understanding - of course, I defer to the learning of those far better acquainted with the Flying Spaghetti Monster than I - that all animals are clean unless they are stated as being unclean. Doves aren't on the list.

 

[WouldBe]

It's my understanding - of course, I defer to the learning of those far better acquainted with the Flying Spaghetti Monster than I - that all animals are clean unless they are stated as being unclean. Doves aren't on the list.

The dove was the second bird released. The first was a rook or raven.

 

[Aldebaran]

To my mind Islam has been quite sensible not to get into 'modernising'

Depends on what you mean with "modernising".

I don't think (I'm not an anthropologist either) that hunter-gatherer societies believed in gods much - only in magic.

Magic requires belief in a force bigger then human comprehension.

Maybe I should better have said "notions of religion". It seems that many antropologists derive (or want to derive) such traces from what they find about early humanity.

Jean Pierre Vernant situated the shift from what was later called myth (in reality "myth" as such also covering concerning "religious stories") to a more "rational" worldview between the 8the and 5th century BC and argues it has a relation with the transition from oral to written culture.
Since the 5the century BC within the frame of history writing and philosophy "myth" and "logos" come forward as eachother's opposite and "myth" received its pejorative meaning of "idle argument, proposition withouth sufficient proof, view without serious evidence or reliable witness".

salaam.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

The dove was the second bird released. The first was a rook or raven.

Ahh. Ravens are on the list. Interesting. I've heard that some species can, under certain environmental pressures, reproduce asexually, producing clones of themselves - particularly amphibians and fish. Maybe this was some kind of raven-frog hybrid.

 

[WouldBe]

Maybe this was some kind of raven-frog hybrid.

It should have been able to swim to safety then.

 

[Aldebaran]

This is exactly why there is no point in having dialogues on the nature of the universe with theists - because it's just "ludicrous". It doesn't matter how much more time you've spent reading philosophy than me, it doesn't make you any more "right".

You only try avoiding to adress my critique on your post.

Your religion commands you to proselytise

No, it does not.

You ask us to open ourselves up to your attack. But the second anyone fights back, we're all word-twisting misquoters not worthy of your brilliant intellect.

You must feel very insecure if you see this thread as asking you to "open up" to "my attack" and feel as if you need to "fight back"
Fight back on what?

salaam.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

You only try avoiding to adress my critique on your post.

There was a critique?

 

[rhys gethin]

Depends on what you mean with "modernising".


Magic requires belief in a force bigger then human comprehension.

Maybe I should better have said "notions of religion"..

My Muslim students have always insisted that there could be no development of Islam, for instance, and the text must be in Arabic so that it shouldn't change or be re-evaluated - so I don't think there can be the kind of textual modernising that happened to Christianity in the Nineteenth Century. Religion - to my mind anyway - seems to involve the PROPITIATION of some sort of super-being, who seems normally to be as cross as an Urban poster, or at least obedience to that being's peculiar orders. Magic is just the use of forces (mainly imaginary, but that was chance) to achieve personal or tribal ends, just as we might use electricity. I don't think we need 'religion' to explain it at all - and these ideas, I'd gather, are based on contemporary hunter-gatherer groups.


I don't have any problems with the mythical mode of thinking except when it is taken literally by the likes of President Bush. Christian fundamentalists, anyway, are indulging in a profoundly novel excercise in reading myth as 'real' rather than 'true'.

 

[red_gordon]

So what is Islams position on homosexuality then? Answer please.

 

[Aldebaran]

Atheism by virtue of being atheism relates to all theist religions.

You position atheism as if it needs to be "in defense" against all theism = as if it can't exist on its own.
Where am I "dismissive"? I said I'm not qualified to talk about Christianity, its dogmas and teachings.
"Defence" of "religion" against atheism is not what can be read in my OP.

If you feel the urge to criticize you should be informed on what you critcize if you want to avoid to come across as yet an other sheep running wiht the obliviously bleating herd.

I don't suppose you can recommend a decent English translation or commentary can you?

I can look it up. I shall send it to you on PM.

On what you describe you think "should be challenged", I can agree if in certain situation people disturb or hurt others.

On evidence: It depends on what people see and take as evidence.

salaam.