Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Marsh]

.
<< 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).

I won't disagree with you. I have a friend who practices some aspects of Buddhism. I think she would tell me that prayer can be a form of meditation and in meditation we can become more in touch with ourselves. I just don't believe anything else can hear that prayer.

 

[Marsh]

OMG, stop making false accusations...

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

I have not written anything that I believe to be false. I will find those passages for you, but for now I am off to visit my mother.

 

[Jabar]

I have not written anything that I believe to be false. I will find those passages for you, but for now I am off to visit my mother.

Well, obviously that is what you believe.

Thanks.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You're sure there are documents? You, sir, are talking through your hat. The closest I am aware of in terms of likely practices are the Hanifs, but they were not Islamic in any meaningful way.

@Jabar...

Any documents? Or perhaps instead a clarification on what you mean?
Or are you just going to let this slide through??

 

[Jabar]

@Jabar...

Any documents? Or perhaps instead a clarification on what you mean?
Or are you just going to let this slide through??

Sorry, Lol.

Was this about Islam exist when man set foot on earth or what?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sorry, Lol.

Was this about Islam exist when man set foot on earth or what?

It's okay. You have multiple people posting at you, it gets hard to keep track of the traffic. I've been in the same situation before.
My question was around misappropriation of the word 'Islam'. Whilst people in pre-Muhammed times were worshipping a God, and whilst I understand that Muslims see this as the same God their religion worships (Allah), I see no reason to refer to these earlier worshippers as 'Islamic'. Those worshippers themselves would not have done so, and almost exclusively would have disagreed with you that the beliefs of Muhammad developed and superceded their particular beliefs (be they Jewish, Christian or whatever).

I don't speak Arabic, so perhaps this is lost in translation, and if so I apologize. But there seems a vast difference between claiming islam existed pre-Muhammad (as a concept - submission to God) and that Islam existed pre-Muhammad (as a religion). There was no Islamic religion pre-Muhammad. Right?

 

[Jabar]

It's okay. You have multiple people posting at you, it gets hard to keep track of the traffic. I've been in the same situation before.
My question was around misappropriation of the word 'Islam'. Whilst people in pre-Muhammed times were worshipping a God, and whilst I understand that Muslims see this as the same God their religion worships (Allah), I see no reason to refer to these earlier worshippers as 'Islamic'. Those worshippers themselves would not have done so, and almost exclusively would have disagreed with you that the beliefs of Muhammad developed and superceded their particular beliefs (be they Jewish, Christian or whatever).

I don't speak Arabic, so perhaps this is lost in translation, and if so I apologize. But there seems a vast difference between claiming islam existed pre-Muhammad (as a concept - submission to God) and that Islam existed pre-Muhammad (as a religion). There was no Islamic religion pre-Muhammad. Right?

Islam was there when man set foot on earth. Islam evolved throughout time.

However, if you mean like established type Islam, like Islam known modernly then yes i would say it is when the Qur'an was revealed.

But, in my belief Islam was there and it was the first monotheistic way of life actually.

However, if you mean established type Islam, then yea i guess you could say yes and the changed Islam.

But really Islam was when man set foot on earth.

 

[Jabar]

It's okay. You have multiple people posting at you, it gets hard to keep track of the traffic. I've been in the same situation before.
My question was around misappropriation of the word 'Islam'. Whilst people in pre-Muhammed times were worshipping a God, and whilst I understand that Muslims see this as the same God their religion worships (Allah), I see no reason to refer to these earlier worshippers as 'Islamic'. Those worshippers themselves would not have done so, and almost exclusively would have disagreed with you that the beliefs of Muhammad developed and superceded their particular beliefs (be they Jewish, Christian or whatever).

I don't speak Arabic, so perhaps this is lost in translation, and if so I apologize. But there seems a vast difference between claiming islam existed pre-Muhammad (as a concept - submission to God) and that Islam existed pre-Muhammad (as a religion). There was no Islamic religion pre-Muhammad. Right?

Christinans and Jews will of course disagree.

The parting of ways was on their part.

Prophet Muhammad was the last and final messenger and was revealed the last revelation.

All the messengers that came before Muhammad were only sent for a particular group of people and the message was supposed to be followed by that people for a limited time period.
The other revelations were meant for a particular group of people and particular time period. The miracles performed by the earlier Prophets or Messengers satisfied the people of that time. But today we cannot go back in time to examine these miracles and verify them. However, Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was not only sent for the Muslims or only for the Arabs but for mankind. The miracle given to Muhammad not only satisfied the past people, but today, and in the future for all mankind.
That is why the miracle given by him should be examinable and verified till eternity. He has performed hundreds of miracles but never emphasized them. We mainly boast of his ultimate miracle. That is the Glorious Qur'an which was revealed to him by Allah. The last and final revelation for mankind.

 

[Marsh]

But we are (gods).

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.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you. You are not saying we are gods in the classic sense of being able to turn into a swan, like Zeus, or throw lightning bolts, like Thor; but you are projecting the title of god upon us because we ourselves are the authors of the gods?

I still think it is going to far to call ourselves gods. We only invented the concept of the gods. We created the mythology about them, we made paintings of them, we even sculpted them in stone; but they are not real. Creating a fictional being does not impart any of the qualities of that being upon the author.

Heavens, we even invented the ultimate god, God himself. And the arguments about him continue to propagate, and the number of denominations with divergent beliefs continue to multiply; but we are not God. We even invented the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, and the list could be made ever so much longer, but none of qualities of these fantasy figures gets passed to us.

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.

Except, I don't see any of this as having any legitimacy. You are making claims but you are offering no proof. As far as I can tell, if there is a pantheistic Being, but he suddenly ceased to exist tomorrow, the fusion reactions at the core of the Sun would continue till the hydrogen ran out. Our lives would not change and we would not even be aware that a god had suddenly vanished.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Christinans and Jews will of course disagree.

The parting of ways was on their part.

Prophet Muhammad was the last and final messenger and was revealed the last revelation.

All the messengers that came before Muhammad were only sent for a particular group of people and the message was supposed to be followed by that people for a limited time period.
The other revelations were meant for a particular group of people and particular time period. The miracles performed by the earlier Prophets or Messengers satisfied the people of that time. But today we cannot go back in time to examine these miracles and verify them. However, Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him was not only sent for the Muslims or only for the Arabs but for mankind. The miracle given to Muhammad not only satisfied the past people, but today, and in the future for all mankind.
That is why the miracle given by him should be examinable and verified till eternity. He has performed hundreds of miracles but never emphasized them. We mainly boast of his ultimate miracle. That is the Glorious Qur'an which was revealed to him by Allah. The last and final revelation for mankind.

Okay. So why were multiple prophets required? Why didn't Allah simply send the final prophet earlier?

 

[Jabar]

Okay. So why were multiple prophets required? Why didn't Allah simply send the final prophet earlier?

Great question.

The other Prophets did not complete their job as well as Muhammad did.

Yes, they believed and did righteousness just as Muhammad.

People made misconceptions about Jesus and association with God.

A final prophet would not be enough, he cannot change everything.
A final prophet earlier would not have been a very good decision, as people would twist the Qur'an and try and do things with it.


Therefore, there had to be a gradual process.

Besides, the thing went on with Satan challenging Allah.

Allah is All-Merciful so he gave Satan a chance but he will go to Hell.

Allah is All-Knowing, he had a purpose for everything.

 

[Jabar]

Great question.

The other Prophets did not complete their job as well as Muhammad did.

Yes, they believed and did righteousness just as Muhammad.

People made misconceptions about Jesus and association with God.

A final prophet would not be enough, he cannot change everything.
A final prophet earlier would not have been a very good decision, as people would twist the Qur'an and try and do things with it.


Therefore, there had to be a gradual process.

Besides, the thing went on with Satan challenging Allah.

Allah is All-Merciful so he gave Satan a chance but he will go to Hell.

Allah is All-Knowing, he had a purpose for everything.

Allah has gradually developed Islam since the advent of Adam (s). The more the people were growing and the more aspects of their lives needed to be explained and reformed, the Almighty Allah sent his prophets and divine books with them. To prove my claim I would like to refer to this verse from the noble Qur'an as such (According to this verse, the only existing religion was submission to Allah):

إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللٌّهِ الإِسْلاَمُ وَمَا اخْتَلَفَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ إِلاَّ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَهُمْ الْعِلْمُ بَغْياً بَيْنَهُمْ وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِآيَاتِ اللٌّهِ فَإِنَّ اللٌّهَ سَرِيعُ الْحِسَابِ

“Surely the religion with Allāh is al-Islām. And those who have been given the Book [i.e., the Christians and the Jews] did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves. And whoever disbelieves in the verses of Allāh, then surely Allāh is quick in reckoning.”

So, it seems logical to have different various religions and divine books, Although one might ask: "why did not Allah created the grown human at first?" which can't be answered here thoroughly. but God's will was to educate the human being step by step, in fact he sent the final prophet along with his last divine book when the humanity was ready for it.

 

[Jabar]

Okay. So why were multiple prophets required? Why didn't Allah simply send the final prophet earlier?

This all goes back to a question:

Why did Allah create us?

He created us as this life is a test for the Hereafter.

This could have been a test from Allah to test those in faith and those not.
Specifically, the changing of the Bible and misconceptions.

Allah knows Best.

 

[Marsh]

OMG, stop making false accusations...

Jabar, I also posted that "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?" You hinted that you think not everyone who claims to be Muslim is in fact a true believer. In a similar fashion not all Christians identify one another as true Christians. What is your view?

You have said you are Muslim, but I don't know what kind your are: Sunni, Shia, or something else? I am quite certain you are not Sufi. I hope you don't mind me asking. When I am in conversation with Christians I typically like to know their denomination; it helps in understanding their position on many different issues.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

OK, but I’m defending Pantheism

*laughs*
Got me. But it would still hold true, right? I'm as spiritual as concrete dust. Both of us would agree with that I think.

It’s interesting up to the point that our own senses can be misleading. Same as the fact that if you are smelling chocolate while eating a steak, you will think that you are eating chocolate.

So, yes, we are back to subjectivity.

<< Two men where watching a flag winnow and were arguing if it was the air that was moving or the flag. A Zen master happened to hear the debate and said to both: “it’s is neither the air or the flag that is moving. It is the mind” >>

Why dogmatic? Nor religion or faith has anything to do about this. This is plain physics and understanding of our interaction with the universe.

Hmm...I know I'm an atheist, and so I'm supposed to be all over science, but I'm not. Some bits interest me, some not so much.
*waits for his atheist card to be revoked*

For me, though, anytime subjectivity is being discussed, there is a philosophical element, which is what I meant by 'considering less dogmaticreligious views'. In fact I should probably just say 'less dogmatic beliefs'. In some ways I have reached a point where I am less interested in the truth than I am in the pragmatic impacts of that truth. However, if you are suggesting to me that the hard sciences (so to speak) support the view that we don't physically touch anything, but instead our energies are entwined with the object we are interacting with (some form of temporary merging I am thinking) then I'd be interested enough to read something, assuming it was reasonably approachable. Anything too technical would be outside my grasp. I majored in science, but it was psychology, so...ya know...lol

The Greek word for “human” is “anthropos” which means “looking up”. This is both literal as in “looking up to the stars” and metaphorical as in “aiming high”.
Many ancient philosophers argued that it is that awe we feel as humans when looking at the night sky that inculcates our spiritual/religious feeling and, at the same time, begets our scientific part, that motivates us to understand it and... concur it.
What you felt is the archetype feeling that makes you human, distinguishes you from all other earthly creatures and unites you with all of humanity, from the beginning of our time.
It is also that same feeling that inspired the first Gnostics to believe that: << each and every human is a point from where the universe realizes it self >>. And, therefore, denying the supreme being is denying your own self.

...Food for thought

I'd agree with everything you've said there apart from your conclusion. There was a topic on this here at some point actually, but it might be lost in the mists of time. Basically, as an atheist, I can still share all sorts of 'spiritual' feelings. In this specific instance, the fact that my girlfriend (now wife) sat thousands of kilometres away and potentially looked at the same sky was comforting. That she didn't see the same sky was a reminder about perspective. Almost instinctively, I ended up fixating on the moon a little, since that was an object we could both clearly see. Metaphorical hand-holding, I suppose.
The little lights in the water...plankton or whatever they were...they actually made me consider some song lyrics I'd been listening to. I remember the vibe, but not the song, but google should be able to fix that...

*googles song*

when he was six he believed that the moon overhead followed him
by nine he had deciphered the illusion, trading magic for fact
no tradebacks...
so this is what it's like to be an adult
if he only knew now what he knew then...

The trade-off, I guess, between experiencing and knowing. Or perhaps awe and fact. Over the years 'fact' has become less important for me, and what I see as 'facts' has become far more restricted. But ultimately I don't see that I am denying myself, nor denying some sort of connection/commonality between all things.

Why not? What’s the deference?
That’s your part in the play

It doesn't fit, for me. If my sentience is to play a part in the sentience of God, so to speak, then too much of God lacks sentience for me to see God as a single encompassing thing. I suspect this train of thought, if accepted, would instead lead me down some sort of non-religious left-hand path.
Rather than being sentient, this seems to point to your God having multiple (innumerable) sentiences. It makes some sense, since God seems pretty ineffective at taking coherent action...*coughs*...sorry, atheist humour.

If you are interested, we can talk about what the myths really meant. All of them are metaphorical. Kinda like parables.
.

I'm interested, if rusty. But perhaps a topic for another thread?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Great question.

The other Prophets did not complete their job as well as Muhammad did.

Yes, they believed and did righteousness just as Muhammad.

People made misconceptions about Jesus and association with God.

A final prophet would not be enough, he cannot change everything.
A final prophet earlier would not have been a very good decision, as people would twist the Qur'an and try and do things with it.


Therefore, there had to be a gradual process.

Besides, the thing went on with Satan challenging Allah.

Allah is All-Merciful so he gave Satan a chance but he will go to Hell.

Allah is All-Knowing, he had a purpose for everything.

Allah knew before giving the earlier prophets his message that they were doomed to fail. More correctly, they were doomed to succeed, and gather followers, but that those followers would follow the wrong beliefs. Is that what you are saying?
And that this was a neccessary part of the process of teaching those on Earth how to be Islamic?

 

[Jabar]

Jabar, I also posted that "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?" You hinted that you think not everyone who claims to be Muslim is in fact a true believer. In a similar fashion not all Christians identify one another as true Christians. What is your view?

You have said you are Muslim, but I don't know what kind your are: Sunni, Shia, or something else? I am quite certain you are not Sufi. I hope you don't mind me asking. When I am in conversation with Christians I typically like to know their denomination; it helps in understanding their position on many different issues.

I do not believe in the different Sects of Islam.

Qur'an prohibits sects. I believe there is only one type of Muslims, just Muslims.

Just call me a Muslim, there is only one type of believer, just the believer.

If they follow the commandments and belief in One God and do not lie and tamper with things especially in this situation, then yes.

 

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps I have misunderstood you. You are not saying we are gods in the classic sense of being able to turn into a swan, like Zeus, or throw lightning bolts, like Thor;

But we do throw lightning bolts today. We can throw hundreds of thousands of volts through cables and even through air.

but you are projecting the title of god upon us because we ourselves are the authors of the gods?

We are gods because the gods we create are created from ourselves.

I still think it is going to far to call ourselves gods. We only invented the concept of the gods. We created the mythology about them, we made paintings of them, we even sculpted them in stone; but they are not real. Creating a fictional being does not impart any of the qualities of that being upon the author.

"Ye are gods." Ever heard that phrase? It's more than 2,000 years old. Nothing new.

Heavens, we even invented the ultimate god, God himself. And the arguments about him continue to propagate, and the number of denominations with divergent beliefs continue to multiply; but we are not God. We even invented the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, and the list could be made ever so much longer, but none of qualities of these fantasy figures gets passed to us.

The issue here is that you are projecting your idea of what God is into the mix of the discussion you're having. In reality, everyone has a different view of what "God" really means.

We also invented language. We invented what words mean. Words are metaphors for the things we talk about. We invented to say that neutrinos have three different flavors, when in reality, they don't. That's how we work as humans, we invent and create.

Except, I don't see any of this as having any legitimacy. You are making claims but you are offering no proof.

Proof of what? Proof that we are the same kind of gods that you necessarily think of or proof that your idea of gods doesn't match other people's views? There are many different views and ideas of what God/gods are supposed to be, and people around you might not have the same concept as you do.

As far as I can tell, if there is a pantheistic Being,

There's no pantheistic "Being". Now you're projecting the old classical Christian God unto the idea of pantheism. The pantheistic "Being" is the ALL of ALL things, you, me, universe, multiverse, existence, reality, yesterday, tomorrow, popcorn, and every puppy you have ever seen. There's no single "Being" except all that exist is the "Being" in existence.

but he suddenly ceased to exist tomorrow,

If the pantheistic "Being" ceased to exist, then we all would be gone, into nothing. Because we are part of that "Being".

the fusion reactions at the core of the Sun would continue till the hydrogen ran out.

Not if the pantheistic "Being" ceased to exist since the Sun is also part of it.

Our lives would not change and we would not even be aware that a god had suddenly vanished.

We wouldn't have lives since that "Being" would include us.

 

[Jabar]

Allah knew before giving the earlier prophets his message that they were doomed to fail. More correctly, they were doomed to succeed, and gather followers, but that those followers would follow the wrong beliefs. Is that what you are saying?
And that this was a neccessary part of the process of teaching those on Earth how to be Islamic?

Yes, and another thing is Allah gave them a life as a blessing or chance but they blew it.

Making just life full of Muslims would not make it diverse. Of course Allah knew they are doomed to fail.


Allah is All-Merciful and Compassionate.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, and another thing is Allah gave them a life as a blessing or chance but they blew it.

Making just life full of Muslims would not make it diverse. Of course Allah knew they are doomed to fail.


Allah is All-Merciful and Compassionate.

He couldn't have picked a better prophet? Or location for the message (audience)?