It seems strange to me that people so secure in their faith would find it necessary to make apostasy a capital offense.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the lack of faith of Atheists due to theists' failure to support their claims?
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
Might that somehow contribute to the dismal number of atheists in Muslim countries?It seems strange to me that people so secure in their faith would find it necessary to make apostasy a capital offense.
... and that its creator was created?
Out atheists, but I think it might.
It seems strange to me that people so secure in their faith would find it necessary to make apostasy a capital offense.
It is wrong to assume that making apostasy a capital offense will reduce the number of disbelievers.
Look how you can't deny the dismal number of atheists in Muslim countries
Our argument is whether there is a creator or not ...the question of whether this creator was created or not is another question.
It just might discourage considering disbelief, don't you think? Or at least openly expressing it.
"How I can't deny"?
Shia Islam, you are sorely misunderstanding how things are. Are you perhaps assuming that atheism is something that should be contained, "healed" or repressed?
Because if you are... oh boy, am I going to disappoint you something fierce.
Let me be perfectly clear: this supposed argument of yours hurts your case quite badly.
That Muslims or Islam even see atheism as something to disapprove, let alone to punish with a capital offense, strongly indicates that the religion is not only false but also misguided and fragile. That it needs to create an enemy in order to bring itself purpose. That it is lacking in goals and ends up relying on belief in an extremely unlikely god in order to attempt to build at least a façade of united understanding and purpose.
You seem to think you are giving testimonial of how great Islam is and how powerless evil atheism is when faced with it.
But what I see is a naive confession of how pointless and misguided Islam is and how badly disoriented about the very point of having a religion Muslims have become.
It is easy to test. Remove it and see what happens.
Why do you have it, by the way, if you guys, allegedely, have such strong foundations for your faith?
Ciao
leibowde84
Veteran Member
You do realize that they have just as much of a dedication to this in Christianity, right?
It is a double fallacy, over an utterly unimportant question no less.
It is an appeal to divine exception ("everything needs a creator, except of course a creator god") compounded by the false claim that appealling to a hypothetical creator god is in some sense a meaningful explanation.
It is not. It is just a claim that meaninglessly occupies the logical space that would be necessary for an actual answer or explanation. It does, in fact, stop people from seeking actual answers.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
So, our ignorance of possible explanations somehow prove God's existence?! That is incredibly counter-intuitive. We just don't understand enough scientifically to understand how the universe came into being. Jumping to the conclusion of God is not warranted yet.
Where did he make this claim?
Context: not only am I interested in your justification for your assumption; I'm also interested in whether you have to violate your normal approach to do it.
I don't think it does much of anything to the number of atheists. I think it can do something to the number of open atheists.
In any case, the point I was trying to get at is that people don't tend to legislate against the impossible. The fact that Iran and other Muslim countries make apostasy punishable by death implies that they think that if nothing was done, apostasy from Islam would be so common that it would be a serious problem warranting an extreme response (e.g. state-sanctioned murder).
Tumah
Veteran Member
Do you also think that if murder was not punishable by the death sentence (where applicable) murder would be so common that it would be a serious problem?
I think that we only legislate against things we think have a reasonable chance of happening.
I'm against the death penalty generally, with only very narrow exceptions that, effectively, don't apply if there's a stable government.
If our God is God the Gap, the revolution in Iran in 197 would have been named "the atheist revolution of Iran" Not "the Islamic Revolution of Iran"
Tumah
Veteran Member
Ok, but personal feelings about the death penalty aside, America does/did have states with capital punishment. So do you feel that without such legislation, murder would be commonplace, or do you think that perhaps murder is considered such a great offense that even if the law would deter one extra murderer, it would be worth having.
I ask this because you say"the fact that Iran and other Muslim countries make apostasy punishable by death implies that they think that if nothing was done, apostasy from Islam would be so common that it would be a serious problem warranting an extreme response"
Applying that logic here, it seems that the reason American states had the death penalty is because if nothing was done, murder would be so common, that it would be a serious problem. Do you think that's a reasonable assumption about the average American?