Why do some Atheists, Christians, Hindu's etc., believe in Islamic ahadith so passionately?

[lewisnotmiller]

Okay, I have a tendency to read it literal. Can you explain more about what/who the 'we' is?

Humanity. But it's not suggesting what we (humans) think. Rather the way it written indicates what the author think we (humans) should be doing in their opinion.

Like you might say 'I think all humans should love thy neighbours'.
'We should love thy neighbour'

Same proposition

As opposed to 'We all love our neighbours'.
Which is different, as it's claiming how others act or think.

English is a weird language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. So lets say Muslims are "literalists". How does that justify a non-muslim addressed in the OP?

But that is a strawman argument at best. Only some Muslims are literalists. Why accuse all Muslims of the same sin?

But let's take your hypothetical for fun. If all Muslims were literalists (which they are not) then the OP would not have a valid complaint, even though I do not know of any atheists like that. I am sure that there are some, it is a wide world out there. But that is a pretty pointless argument.

 

[Altfish]

You had beliefs prior to science getting interesting that were sort of incompatible or contrary to science and scientific thinking?

Yes, I went to church, was in the Church Lads Brigade, I even got confirmed !!
Then I started doing O Level physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Why do you need 2000-year old books to explain things when science was doing it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you have any beliefs? What do you believe that world is as independent of the mind? What is morally right and wrong? Is science right(non-moral) as for what the world is?

As all people, he surely beliefs lots of things.

But let's not pretend as if evidence based beliefs are the same as faith based beliefs.

There's a reason why people believe that if you drop your keys, they'll fall to earth instead of shoot into space - regardless of their ethnical and cultural background, while religious beliefs tend to be determined by ethnical and cultural background.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Shah. Very clever. You clever mate. Good.

I don't understand this post.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Very good. You finally got the whole point.

Huh?

The point is that you are misrepresenting people?

I'm confused.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Very good.

So, what's up with these zero content responses?

 

[firedragon]

So, what's up with these zero content responses?

No response needed sometimes because of the level of absurdity. Very clever but absurd. Hope you understand. If you wish lengthy responses to nonsense it won't happen mate.

I know that you are looking for ways to insult someone. Ultimately you will end up calling my wife a Gold Digger. Some cheap ad hominem is inevitable.

There you go. You got a bit of a lengthy response.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As all people, he surely beliefs lots of things.

But let's not pretend as if evidence based beliefs are the same as faith based beliefs.

There's a reason why people believe that if you drop your keys, they'll fall to earth instead of shoot into space - regardless of their ethnical and cultural background, while religious beliefs tend to be determined by ethnical and cultural background.

So non-religious humans only have evidence based beliefs?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I went to church, was in the Church Lads Brigade, I even got confirmed !!
Then I started doing O Level physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Why do you need 2000-year old books to explain things when science was doing it?

You don't need religion as such.

But what about this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
What is your position on that?

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Yes, I went to church, was in the Church Lads Brigade, I even got confirmed !!
Then I started doing O Level physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Why do you need 2000-year old books to explain things when science was doing it?

I just find it interesting that a lot of people grew up with a sort of conflict going on between science and religion, but I didn't, my whole family was science oriented since my mother is a physician/medical doctor, my sister was a biology major, I had all sorts of science books since I was little, all my relatives were in medicine or sciences, my grandparents were engineers and stuff like that, architects and whatever, math was all over, biological sciences, technology, and all these things meshed perfectly with my beliefs about God. God was believed to be the creator of all these sciences inspired in the human beings, who gave humans all this technology and intelligence and put them to work at it, whose guidance led to all these advances, who knows all the secrets of the sciences, and that Science was the Truth created by God who was revealing it to people and making them figure it out bit by bit, and had told them things ahead of time even, but not in the Bible. I only read the Bible much later on in comparison to my exposure to the Qur'an, which seemed to me to have a fondness for learning, science, and the biological, as it talked about things that were generally hidden from sight, like it talked about things hidden by the outer flesh going on inside the womb, or it talked about things deep in space that people don't regularly see, or things covered in time like the stages of Earth's development and evolution, and evolution even, how the human beings that exist now and all the other creatures developed in the sea and come from the water. It is funny even that such a book is in the hands of practically cave-men who are imitating Christians now with their resistance to science at times, when they hold a book that tells people to travel and observe and study and learn and seek knowledge, and that knowledge only confirms the amazing and novel things that God has created.

The Bible, when I finally did read it, was absolute trash in my opinion in comparison, and yeah, didn't seem very focused on science, since the science it did seem to mention was not very sound or good or couldn't be matched up easily or well to what seemed to really be going on.

I grew up with science, and continue to believe in science, and even consider Science a potential name for God. Science, The Scientist.

When you were young, did you think of God as a man type figure too? I didn't grow up with that either, I grew up thinking of God as a non-human sort of "Force" or "Power" that pervades everywhere and behind everything, that can inspire anything, animals, cells, animating them, moving them, making them do whatever they do, which can understand and respond to communications and communicate back through the reality in any way, from a whispering voice, a realization, something you suddenly see, basically anything anywhere inside or out was in its control and could be used by it to do whatever it wants. I have the feeling that, a lot of people grow up with an impression that God is a man, or they think of Jesus who is a man as well, and basically very few or practically no one grows up thinking of God as Science The Force.

So like, when I think of evolution, formation, development, transformation, reproduction, cellular shaping, disease, mutation, all that stuff, it just means God to me, and God isn't some thing separate out in my mind who like a Wizard is waving around invisible fingers and making it happen, but the Evolution itself, that forming action, or aging action, is God directly manipulating the scene or progress in my view, like a pressure or radiation or from the inside as well as the outside and all around it. One could even say that God and Time could be called synonymous in my view or God and Change or any of that.

I think you did well rejecting ideas that were just silly and senseless, but you may also be missing out on the benefits and sensations involved with believing in a God that is entirely compatible with and in accord with Nature and what you see right before your eyes and Science, a Science which given a source, an intelligence, which can give one a sense of some advantage or assistance even if such is just the illusion the belief provides, it can give a little extra opening for relief from anxiety and other things in some way possibly.

What I've found though, is that it seems very difficult or generally impossible in many cases to ever get past whatever formed during the childhood in association with certain words or notions like "God". That whoever grew up thinking of a man-god and reading the Bible seems almost practically doomed. Its better seeming even when kids grow up Atheists or are spared ever reading that book or being made to think God = Man or that Science is in conflict rather than the proof of an amazing power apparent to all at work.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Excellent. So that's the exact point the earliest Islamic theologians believed in the madrasathal medinath al munawwarah. Its not me, but the earliest school of thought in the Islamic tradition. This is very well known to Muslims.

But that's the whole problem. Why do these anti islamic apologists take some ahadith for their polemics but reject others saying "I dont care"? DO they go through the meticulous methodology you have quoted above?

Thats the whole point of the post.

They don't, and I have to say, in my view, or from my experience, most Muslims do not describe or have a clear method of differentiating between true and false hadithes either. So, then the anti islamic apologists, take any hadith that supports their interest.

I think, the answer is, if a hadith's subject is found in the Quran, and is not in conflict with Quran, it should be treated as a guiding hadith. Otherwise it a false hadith.

So, then, let's say if the anti islamic apologists, quote a false hadith to suit their view, a Muslim can disprove that, by showing the hadith is false, since it is not compatible with Quran.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay. So lets say Muslims are "literalists". How does that justify a non-muslim addressed in the OP?

You seem to have invented the non-Muslim in the OP, so you're really the only one that can speak to his motives and justifications.

 

[firedragon]

They don't, and I have to say, in my view, or from my experience, most Muslims do not describe or have a clear method of differentiating between true and false hadithes either. So, then the anti islamic apologists, take any hadith that supports their interest.

So what you are saying is its okay to exploit a weakness though in your you know that this may not be historical fact?

I think, the answer is, if a hadith's subject is found in the Quran, and is not in conflict with Quran, it should be treated as a guiding hadith. Otherwise it a false hadith.

So, then, let's say if the anti islamic apologists, quote a false hadith to suit their view, a Muslim can disprove that, by showing the hadith is false, since it is not compatible with Quran.

Obviously.

But this type of people are being disingenuous. So you think that argument will work? No way.

 

[firedragon]

You seem to have invented the non-Muslim in the OP, so you're really the only one that can speak to his motives and justifications.

Well, I understand that you would think I invented, its your right to have an opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I understand that you would think I invented, its your right to have an opinion.

You've given me no reason to think anything else, despite being asked.

 

[Nakosis]

So you believe, that Muslims believe, that all the ahadith are "Holy"? Do Muslims believe ahadith books are all "Holy Books"? Please do make me understand.

I think that would depend on the Muslim. Generally, I ask so as to understand their position.

 

[Altfish]

You don't need religion as such.

But what about this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
What is your position on that?

I agree, but religion cannot claim to be moral.
I love the arts, music, books, theatre, etc
I do not believe (not sure that's the right term) in the supernatural - give me proof that it exists and I'll change my mind

 

[Altfish]

I just find it interesting that a lot of people grew up with a sort of conflict going on between science and religion, but I didn't, my whole family was science oriented since my mother is a physician/medical doctor, my sister was a biology major, I had all sorts of science books since I was little, all my relatives were in medicine or sciences, my grandparents were engineers and stuff like that, architects and whatever, math was all over, biological sciences, technology, and all these things meshed perfectly with my beliefs about God. God was believed to be the creator of all these sciences inspired in the human beings, who gave humans all this technology and intelligence and put them to work at it, whose guidance led to all these advances, who knows all the secrets of the sciences, and that Science was the Truth created by God who was revealing it to people and making them figure it out bit by bit, and had told them things ahead of time even, but not in the Bible. I only read the Bible much later on in comparison to my exposure to the Qur'an, which seemed to me to have a fondness for learning, science, and the biological, as it talked about things that were generally hidden from sight, like it talked about things hidden by the outer flesh going on inside the womb, or it talked about things deep in space that people don't regularly see, or things covered in time like the stages of Earth's development and evolution, and evolution even, how the human beings that exist now and all the other creatures developed in the sea and come from the water. It is funny even that such a book is in the hands of practically cave-men who are imitating Christians now with their resistance to science at times, when they hold a book that tells people to travel and observe and study and learn and seek knowledge, and that knowledge only confirms the amazing and novel things that God has created.

The Bible, when I finally did read it, was absolute trash in my opinion in comparison, and yeah, didn't seem very focused on science, since the science it did seem to mention was not very sound or good or couldn't be matched up easily or well to what seemed to really be going on.

I grew up with science, and continue to believe in science, and even consider Science a potential name for God. Science, The Scientist.

When you were young, did you think of God as a man type figure too? I didn't grow up with that either, I grew up thinking of God as a non-human sort of "Force" or "Power" that pervades everywhere and behind everything, that can inspire anything, animals, cells, animating them, moving them, making them do whatever they do, which can understand and respond to communications and communicate back through the reality in any way, from a whispering voice, a realization, something you suddenly see, basically anything anywhere inside or out was in its control and could be used by it to do whatever it wants. I have the feeling that, a lot of people grow up with an impression that God is a man, or they think of Jesus who is a man as well, and basically very few or practically no one grows up thinking of God as Science The Force.

So like, when I think of evolution, formation, development, transformation, reproduction, cellular shaping, disease, mutation, all that stuff, it just means God to me, and God isn't some thing separate out in my mind who like a Wizard is waving around invisible fingers and making it happen, but the Evolution itself, that forming action, or aging action, is God directly manipulating the scene or progress in my view, like a pressure or radiation or from the inside as well as the outside and all around it. One could even say that God and Time could be called synonymous in my view or God and Change or any of that.

I think you did well rejecting ideas that were just silly and senseless, but you may also be missing out on the benefits and sensations involved with believing in a God that is entirely compatible with and in accord with Nature and what you see right before your eyes and Science, a Science which given a source, an intelligence, which can give one a sense of some advantage or assistance even if such is just the illusion the belief provides, it can give a little extra opening for relief from anxiety and other things in some way possibly.

What I've found though, is that it seems very difficult or generally impossible in many cases to ever get past whatever formed during the childhood in association with certain words or notions like "God". That whoever grew up thinking of a man-god and reading the Bible seems almost practically doomed. Its better seeming even when kids grow up Atheists or are spared ever reading that book or being made to think God = Man or that Science is in conflict rather than the proof of an amazing power apparent to all at work.

I never thought of it as a conflict.
I was brought up (mainly by school) to believe a god existed. That was through infant and junior schools; I was not given an alternative. Then I reached senior school and religion became more and more irrelevant.
I can understand your "God is responsible for..." type of belief. BUT I always come back to this question....
Where did god come from? I have never received a satisfactory answer to that question. He/she just seems like an irrelevant insert into the universes story

 

[firedragon]

You've given me no reason to think anything else, despite being asked.

Im sorry if I missed one of your posts. What did you ask?