Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Jabar]

What do you mean by 'similar' ?
Similar in what way(s)?

In all aspects Allah has revealed it as.

 

[Koldo]

In all aspects Allah has revealed it as.

Such as? Elaborate.

 

[Nefelie]

I don't know Nefelie. I think if the divine were in me I would have a much better understanding of string theory.

Hahaha...

Oh, and one of the things I enjoy about these discussions is that I learn things. I had never heard of Panetheism.

Panenteism = all (pan) in (en) god (theos) = god includes the universe and everything in it, and goes beyond it.

Pantheism = all (pan) god (theos) = everything (the universe and everything in it) IS god/divine. All is One and One is All.

I’m a Pantheist, not a Panentheist

Does the god of the Pantheist seek worship? Is he even self-aware?

Not a “he” not a “she” not an “it”. All together and, at the same time, none of it.

No worship asked, demanded or need. Some Pantheists do pray occasionally, but it’s basicly for satisfying their natural human need to feel "watched after", not a must do.

The self-awareness part is yours. Like I’ve said many times before: “every human is a point where the universe realizes it self”.

How do all these sound to you?

.

 

[Jabar]

What do you mean by 'similar' ?
Similar in what way(s)?

Such as? Elaborate.

I cannot give you a full detailed account of what the aspects are as it is divine obviously. However, complexity, literature, science evidences, beautiful terminology, and much more.

 

[McBell]

As the Qur´an contains a taste of your own medicine (science) evidences to prove its divinity.

Your circular reasoning is not impressive outside the choir.
That you refuse to acknowledge this fact is only going to hinder your credibility outside the choir.

 

[Jabar]

Your circular reasoning is not impressive outside the choir.
That you refuse to acknowledge this fact is only going to hinder your credibility outside the choir.

How so? What circular reasoning?

 

[Koldo]

I cannot give you a full detailed account of what the aspects are as it is divine obviously. However, complexity, literature, science evidences, beautiful terminology, and much more.

When the criteria you use to judge whether it is similar are not made clear, the challenge can't even be attempted.

 

[Jabar]

When the criteria you use to judge whether it is similar are not made clear, the challenge can't even be attempted.

They are clear, you have to make them clear to make the challenge attemptable. By doing that, you have to read the Qur'an and differentiate. Nothing will come close to the Qur'an obviously.

 

[Koldo]

They are clear, you have to make them clear to make the challenge attemptable. By doing that, you have to read the Qur'an and differentiate. Nothing will come close to the Qur'an obviously.

If they are clear then you won't have any problem to enumerate them to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

The mistakes are indeed misconceptions made by society.

Hardly, Jabar. The true misconception is the notion that people who believe in God should feel enabled to make that so hugely important that they expect others to share of that belief and feel bound to lots of odd expectations.

Most of them are hate sites, yes.

Sorry, but that is a lie. Or at the very least a misperception caused by being too used to unquestioned subservience and reverence.

Because it is a revelation of God, God is All-Mighty, All-Wise, God is the greatest you can think of. At least in my beliefs, if not the billions of people.

Well, there you have it. Your God failed to make himself manifest to me, or even to make me susceptible to the idea of revealed scripture.

That in and of itself is all the evidence I need that the Qur'an is lacking in truth, and the religion that calls itself Islam is lacking in wisdom.

May i ask, How come so many people think science, the one that is tampered with and regarded as a superiority to the Qur'an worth something listening to?

That is necessary and expected once we learn what science is. Much of its worth is in that people do not need to believe it.

If only people did not feel so unashamed to lie about it and be proud of their stubborness and ignorance...

 

[Acim]

Scientists, Acim, have a fascination for all aspects of the natural world and universe and want to figure out how all of it works. One of my professors specialized in the solar interior (he wanted to understand what made the Sun tick), but he didn't worship the Sun as a god. Do geologists worship Earth as the mother goddess, or do those who specialize in spiders worship Anansi?

I am saying scientists are worshipful of the material world. I realize they use a different word (or different words) with different connotations. But if we look at definition of worship and understand that god(s) need not be seen as only sky fairy type beings, that scientists are engaged in what sure as heck appears like worship.

 

[Marsh]

I am saying scientists are worshipful of the material world. I realize they use a different word (or different words) with different connotations. But if we look at definition of worship and understand that god(s) need not be seen as only sky fairy type beings, that scientists are engaged in what sure as heck appears like worship.

I see your point, but I think you are stretching this way too far. When God/Allah are worshiped it is to pay them homage; in the minds of the faithful the deity will reward them in the next life, or even punish them. These gods are sentient beings who care for the humans they created, and they may even grant special favour in response to prayer. No scientist prays to a force of nature, no scientist thinks the forces of the universe can grant them eternal life. No research scientist thinks any force of nature is sentient, or cares whether or not you are circumcised, eat pork, or have sex with same-sex partners. No force of nature passes moral judgement. I may be in awe of the universe, Acim, but I don't anthropomorphize it as a god.

 

[Ouroboros]

I see your point, but I think you are stretching this way too far. When God/Allah are worshiped it is to pay them homage; in the minds of the faithful the deity will reward them in the next life, or even punish them.

That's only one way of looking at deities. Unfortunately, the west only see "God" and "gods" in the light of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition and can't see beyond that. There are other god-concepts that we in the west have a hard time grasping.

These gods are sentient beings who care for the humans they created, and they may even grant special favour in response to prayer.

The early pantheists (2,500 years ago) didn't consider "Theos" to necessarily be sentient, but more just a force of nature.

No scientist prays to a force of nature,

We all talk to ourselves, each other, and to our computers when they don't work. We communicate. Prayer is communication with something other than ourselves. Like I'm doing with you right now. Prayer has been hijacked by the monotheistic religions as something dedicated and different, while some of us see daily activity as a form of prayer, or respect to the world that we live in (or "God").

no scientist thinks the forces of the universe can grant them eternal life.

Yet you see articles in science journals how they are trying to use the forces of nature like medicine, drugs, technology, and so on to extend our lives and eventually, some hope, give us eternal life. Medicine is a science where the forces of nature are used to grant health.

No research scientist thinks any force of nature is sentient,

Humans are sentient. Humans are part of nature. Perhaps you're just thinking of "forces" like kinetic energy and such, but the term most definitely can be used broader than that. Unless, of course, you're saying that all scientists are fundamentally dualists when it comes to the mind? I doubt that's the case.

Besides, you're making a very generalized claim about the research scientists. How do you know if every and all research scientists think this way? Is there a study you can provide that show this to be the case that 100% of all research scientists in the world agrees with your statement?

or cares whether or not you are circumcised, eat pork, or have sex with same-sex partners.

Those things are only relating to very specific religions and faiths. Don't group everyone in the same category as the holy-book oriented monotheistic religions.

It's not the same to compare one person's faith, whichever it might be, with Judaism for instance and say that the person is wrong because you have issues with Judaism as a religion.

I don't think Acim cares about circumcision, pork, or homosexuality either, but perhaps you should ask him that first before making that comparison?

No force of nature passes moral judgement.

Except humans, which are very much part of nature and are a force of nature since we're changing and affecting our environment.

I may be in awe of the universe, Acim, but I don't anthropomorphize it as a god.

Being in deep awe of the magnitude of the universe can bring you to a religious or spiritual experience. Being in this awe, respect, and form of spiritual awareness of the universe is a form of prayer or worship. I love the universe. I'm in deep respect and gratitude for it. That is prayer, worship, and so on. But that is not the same as anthropomorphizing it. To worship the universe is not the same as giving human form and aspects to the universe.

 

[Marsh]

That's only one way of looking at deities.

The point is scientists and others like them who were bit by the science bug don't perceive their field or their particular science interest (for me that's astronomy) as a god. Nobody prays to gravity as if it were a god. That is simply nonsense and not worth wasting time on.

Prayer is communication with something other than ourselves. Like I'm doing with you right now.

If I were a god then I might construe your talking to me as prayer, but I am not. Communication with another person to convey information is not prayer and I think you know that. You are trying to twist the study of science into something that can be equated with religion and in order to accomplish this you have to water down the meaning of worship and prayer into definitions that are so broad they lose all meaning.

Besides, you're making a very generalized claim about the research scientists. How do you know if every and all research scientists think this way? Is there a study you can provide that show this to be the case that 100% of all research scientists in the world agrees with your statement?

I was simply changing the language up to avoid using the word scientist too frequently in the same sentence.

I don't think Acim cares about circumcision, pork, or homosexuality either, but perhaps you should ask him that first before making that comparison?

You misunderstood. Read it again. I was explaining that only gods care "whether or not you are circumcised, eat pork, or have sex with same-sex partners." Forces of nature are indifferent to what you do. That is probably the best indicator they are not gods. I think that pretty much sums things up.

Except humans, which are very much part of nature and are a force of nature since we're changing and affecting our environment.

But we are not gods.

Being in deep awe of the magnitude of the universe can bring you to a religious or spiritual experience.

As happened with Francis Collins. That's the first thing you've said I can agree with. I will just point out that Collins did not direct prayer to the Double Helix.

 

[Nefelie]

.

<< Prayer enables man to know someone who rarely meets. and I do not mean the Creator. I mean himself. >> - William Ralph Inge (British priest & scholar)

.

 

[Ouroboros]

But we are not gods.

But we are.

We fashioned the old gods after ourselves. The old anthropomorphic gods were made in the image of man. Man was the template for gods. So we are the blueprints for the gods we used to admire.

But ultimately, all that exists is God (in a pantheistic view), including man, so in my opinion, we are gods. Heraclitus said, some 2,500 years ago, before Socrates and Plato, "God : All." That includes humans.

The key to understanding the "breath" that's gave Adam life in the mythological story Genesis, is to be understood as the divine. The divine of the universe gave life to us, humans. It's the ability to think, act, decide, invent, create, communicate, and so on. The divine is in every human that can communicate ideas. And to communicate with each other, and to commune with nature (by just being in it) is both prayer and meditation.

I do see my studies into life, nature, math, science, etc as a form of exploring and understanding "God", this god of totality, which includes me. There's no difference between "God acting" in the form of me lifting my arm or a proton-proton chain reaction in the Sun. It's both "God" doing something. And it's just as amazing in both instances.

 

[Marsh]

You are giving examples of ignorant people who have lived in societies which called themselves ´´Muslims´´ but not do the things Islam allow.

Much of Ayaan Hersi Ali's schooling was in Saudi Arabia, where she joined the Muslim Brotherhood and Ibin Warraq grew up, I think, in Iran. Are these two nations not true Muslims in your eyes? Both these individuals are well educated; I wouldn't call them ignorant. They know Islam very well.

I think you have not read the Qur´an. I may be wrong however your words do not reflect it. The Bible contains many contradictions and is not divine. Comparing a undivine book to a divine book, the Qur´an, is not a good thing to do.

I have read part of the Koran in conjunction with the book, Why I am not a Muslim. I wanted to be certain that what Warraq was saying about the Koran was true. It was. I bought the book some 30 years ago intending to read it, but found it very boring and put it aside. Then about three years ago I bought another Koran for one of my son's for Christmas. That's the one he read cover to cover just a few months ago. His impression was that it was very poorly written, repetitive, and full of material lifted directly from the Torah (the Jewish bible) and Christianity. It also contained a bizarre story lifted from Gnostic literature. Clearly Mohammad had contact with a group of Gnostic Christians and included some of their literature in his own book. My son also thought it looked as if Mohammad was making up commandments on the spur of the moment just to benefit himself. The other point he made it that all of the atrocities committed by ISIS are authorized by the Koran. Theses fanatics are following the prophet to the letter.

I am sorry, but to non-Muslim eyes the Koran looks as flawed as any book written by men, but is unfortunately a good deal more violent.

 

[Jabar]

Much of Ayaan Hersi Ali's schooling was in Saudi Arabia, where she joined the Muslim Brotherhood and Ibin Warraq grew up, I think, in Iran. Are these two nations not true Muslims in your eyes? Both these individuals are well educated; I wouldn't call them ignorant. They know Islam very well.


I have read part of the Koran in conjunction with the book, Why I am not a Muslim. I wanted to be certain that what Warraq was saying about the Koran was true. It was. I bought the book some 30 years ago intending to read it, but found it very boring and put it aside. Then about three years ago I bought another Koran for one of my son's for Christmas. That's the one he read cover to cover just a few months ago. His impression was that it was very poorly written, repetitive, and full of material lifted directly from the Torah (the Jewish bible) and Christianity. It also contained a bizarre story lifted from Gnostic literature. Clearly Mohammad had contact with a group of Gnostic Christians and included some of their literature in his own book. My son also thought it looked as if Mohammad was making up commandments on the spur of the moment just to benefit himself. The other point he made it that all of the atrocities committed by ISIS are authorized by the Koran. Theses fanatics are following the prophet to the letter.

I am sorry, but to non-Muslim eyes the Koran looks as flawed as any book written by men, but is unfortunately a good deal more violent.

OMG, stop making false accusations...

Tell me one verse that promotes killing of innocent people and i will agree that Islam support terrorism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Tell me one verse that promotes killing of innocent people and i will agree that Islam support terrorism.

Unfortunately, many, even here on RF, focus on part of one verse from the Quran, take it way out of context, and take something that applies to war and apply to every day life, and seem oblivious about what comes after their cited passage that mentions taking prisoners that you don't kill and treat with decency, or the rules in the rest of the Quran that clearly condemn the things groups like ISIS, Al-Shabaab, or Boko Haram are doing.

 

[Jabar]

Unfortunately, many, even here on RF, focus on part of one verse from the Quran, take it way out of context, and take something that applies to war and apply to every day life, and seem oblivious about what comes after their cited passage that mentions taking prisoners that you don't kill and treat with decency, or the rules in the rest of the Quran that clearly condemn the things groups like ISIS, Al-Shabaab, or Boko Haram are doing.

Exactly.