Interview with an Arab atheist – Does Islam drive its youth away?
June 15th, 2007While I was in the UAE earlier this week, I conducted an interview with one of my friends who is an atheist.
So I’d like to share this interview with Adel Jalal, a 23 year old business student in Abu Dhabi.
Q: Hi Adel. Can you tell us a bit about yourself?
A: Yes. I’m Adel, a student from the UAE. I love everything about classical Arabic music and I’m addicted to Arabic literature.
Q: Interesting introduction, but I must ask, why do you stress the love of Arab culture so much?
A: I don’t hesitate to describe myself as atheist, but when you describe yourself as such here tell me the first thing that comes to your mind? Probably brainwashed, Satan worshiper, traitor.
Q: True, but that doesn’t really answer the question. Why do you boast about your love of Arab culture, specifically? I noticed that when we first discussed this, you said that you’re an atheist shortly before you tried to convince me that you’re not anti-Arab. Explain to me why you feel the need to do that?
A: Because non-Muslim Arabs are left out. We feel like we have no real space in society, especially in any intellectual field. When I say I’m atheist, people always tell me that I have become traitor. A sell-out. Someone who doesn’t know what it truly means to be “Arab.” Why? Because Arab means Muslim and Muslim means Arab? What does personal religious views have to do with my culture, my past, my identity? An Arab, this is something I am. This is something I take much pride in. Why do people attach my personal opinions to who I am, to my nationality? Does being Arab mean being intellectually identical to every other Arab out there?
Q: Hey, who’s the one asking the questions?! Kidding. I’m very interested in what you’re saying, especially about the left out part, in fact I previously interviewed an Arab Jew who stated just that. It’s a shame really when people aren’t accepting of differences, be it political or religious. So tell me, were you born a Muslim?
A: Yes and raised a Muslim. To be honest this is what drove me against religions.
Q: What do you mean?
A: I mean that religion is everything to a person. Especially when you strictly practice it, it quickly consumes everything you have. If you don’t honestly believe in any religion then you shouldn’t identify yourself as a believer of any religion.
Q: So your choice of being a Muslim has much to do with socialization rather than Islam itself?
A: Precisely. I have a problem with any existing religion that people are forced into. In any normal society there should be a choice, and whatever that choice is, it needs to be respected.
Q: What about Islam? When people learn that you are an ex-Muslim, do they ever imply that you’re anti-Muslim too?
A: Yes even though the connection for me isn’t really there. For a lot of ex-Muslims you will see that they have a major problem with Islam itself most likely due to the societies they live in. My reasons aren’t Islam, in fact I have a bigger problem with Christianity than Islam, and I have no problem with being in a Muslim culture and living around Muslims or being a part of a Muslim family. But I have a problem when someone is offended with my decision of not being a Muslim, and in the Arab world this is a huge problem as I’m sure you know.
Q: Yes, my problem is with Islam being enforced upon people who don’t really accept it but don’t have the balls to say “I don’t want this religion and I don’t respect it.”
A: Exactly and this is what our youth faces today, fear. If they say it they are damned to Hell by not only their families and friends but by society as a whole.
Q: Look at the case of Kareem Amer for example.
A: Yes it’s indeed a very discouraging example of the risks we face if we publicly state anything our society disagrees with.
Q: And that’s exactly why a group of us Muslims are fighting for Kareem despite what he said about Islam … and his main supporters represent Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Mauritania, and Morocco, so it’s Muslims from all over the Arab world fighting for Kareem. It doesn’t mean we agree with him, it just means that we need to allow these ideas to be stated without people facing harsh consequences, especially a prison sentence!
A: I agree but it’s going to take years for anyone to be really convinced of that. Remember that most Muslims think it’s their duty to silence or kill these types of people; “Kafirs.”
Q: Most Muslims? Come on.
A: Okay, a lot of them.
Q: This is a new generation going through all kinds of experiences… this is the best time ever to start fighting for not only our rights but the rights of others within our communities. Minorities in Arab countries go through a lot and it’s unacceptable. We should be the ones condemning this injustice.
A: Arab Baha’is, now this is a minority that I truly feel for. You know the Baha’i faith is considered a “bullshit religion” here. Most people don’t know what it really is, so throughout the region they lack the most basic rights because people consider them infidels. I think their case in certain countries are worse than that of Jews or Christians.
Q: What do you think about that?
A: I think anyone who attacks others for being different aren’t confident enough to deal with intellectual and religious challenges.
Q: What’s the difference being “careless” and “atheist?” I meet so many people who call themselves atheist when they really mean that they don’t subscribe to any other religion.
A: Yes, for the past two years I used to describe myself as agnostic until I realized that I strongly disbelieve in the existence of any God as there is no real evidence, which is what led me to become an atheist. Religions are all mythical. This is the argument that usually offends others… but I don’t have anything against their views! I’m just saying what I believe and people here go crazy about it.
Q: Yes the problem with us Muslims is that many of us are very emotionally attached… so weird. I’m over-defensive but not obsessively so. My arguments are also entirely emotional and not factual which is really retarded.
A: As long as you respect different people I have no problem with anything you choose to believe in. This level of respect and tolerance isn’t found with ease in our societies.
Q: A lot of Muslims all over the Muslim world would literally kill anyone who disagrees and then they expect progress. In my opinion this isn’t really Islam. By the way, what do you think about Koranic (real) Islam and political Islam?
A: No offense but the fact that there are so many types of Islam only proves that it’s not a real religion but rather one created simply for the sake of social control.
Q: It’s actually very hard to disagree with that when you consider countries like Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, et al, where socio-political instability is being justified as “this is what Islam wants.”
A: It’s a very sad case.
Q: Seriously I don’t get that. There are so many things here being constantly dismissed when religious leaders convince people that this is the Islam that they were born and raised to follow. If they dislike anything about you, what you’re wearing, or what your opinions are, they immediately blame you for being an infidel. And don’t even get me started on justifications of rape.
A: I know, it’s like I can see your hair and I’m very tempted to rape you. Islam gives me that right, it told you to wear a hijab and you didn’t! Now I can rape you and Allah will understand. Heh.
Q: Actually, this is an existing mentality. You find this argument all over. Is it really our fault when men claim they can’t control their raging desires to have sex with any woman who shows her face or hell, even HANDS?
A: My girlfriend is Japanese and she tells me that this same idea exists in their culture too, which is also very male dominant. Of course this is with Geishas, not with hijab. As you know Geishas paint their faces white, and if a man sees a trace of her real skin color, this is considered very tempting! I was surprised when she told me. Whenever we discuss these things it’s really amazing how many similarities we have.
Q: Which goes to show how culture and society aren’t entirely representative of religion.
A: The problem with us is that censorship created a different culture. Even if the government gives you rights to practice any religion freely you will still find trouble fitting in especially if you’re an insider. Like I said with me being an Arab, I feel like I lost 99% of my identity because I’m not Muslim. I know the situation is different in Lebanon and Jordan where non-Muslim Arabs are accepted but with me in the Gulf it’s really different.
Q: Yes Bahrain is the same way. There are many atheists and agnostics here, in Saudi Arabia, in Kuwait, and the Iranians I meet are almost never attached to religion. Many do describe themselves as atheists too as they are strongly against all forms of religion especially if it’s enforced upon them. This is what drives people away from Islam – nobody likes to be forced to believe anything.
A: You will be surprised as to how many people are like me here and feel the way I do but don’t feel comfortable enough sharing these ideas.
Q: And you share them quite comfortably, you even quickly agreed to do this interview, why?
A: To show everyone that Arabs aren’t really what most people say we are especially with regards to our youth. Atheism, converts, apostasy, these are all considered big taboos that’s why we don’t talk about it. People fail to understand us and who we really are when we fail to discuss these things publicly and securely. Everyone thinks we’re so oppressed and that we easily fall for religion or that we are comfortable with our societal and cultural restrictions, but we are so diverse here. Arabs should never be defined as Muslims. We’re all different and fellow Arabs need to learn how to respect this difference instead of trying to make everyone else think the way they do.
Q: Do you find Islam to be a problem that leads to our societal restrictions?
A: Well, a lot of religious Muslims are decent and understand the importance of living in a free and tolerant society. I know that Islam is not our problem. Politics is our weakness and Islam is just an excuse that many of our governments successfully get away with.
Q: Finally, do you consider yourself typical, as in an average young Arab with these types of views?
A: I’m average in every other way except maybe mentally. Well, kind of. A lot of young Arabs like me don’t follow the path of Islam. We only think it’s not average because people don’t talk about it, but it’s so average.
Q: By “don’t follow the path of Islam” you mean they drink alcohol, eat pork, have premarital sex, and do the opposite of what the Koran asks for right?
A: Haha yes.
Q: Hey I’m Bahraini, trust me I know what you mean.
A: It’s ironic isn’t it?
Q: I would say hypocritical, but only if these people still claim to be Muslims… which many do. But if you do all that without subscribing to this religion then why not? Go ahead. And agreeing with you, this lifestyle shouldn’t make anyone less of an Arab. It shouldn’t have anything to do with being an Arab.
A: I actually refuse to drink, have sex before marriage, or eat pork, even if I am not a Muslim anymore. I think it is part of me growing up. But these are decisions that I personally made and am very comfortable with.
Q: Okay Adel, it’s been great talking to you as usual. Thanks for this interview.
A: You’re welcome.
Loading ...
Loading...
lets divide the content of this interview in 4 branches: philosophical, political, socio-political, social.
1st: philosophical:
strongly disputed…. needs too many sites like mideastyouth to speak about it and analyze this concept properly.
2nd: political
very true.
3rd: socio-political
the main idea of this layer is about tolerance which should be established in Muslim societies in order to prepare a proper framework for making a progress.
4th: social
for this man(/woman), the conflict between trying to preserve his(/her) Arab identity while not being a muslim, is his(/her) major debate.
these true evidences (Lebanon and Jordan) reveal that being Arab is not necessarily correlated to being a muslim. this is the special case of Arabs vs. Islam; but in some other socities (like Tibetans?) this principle may not be applied. Pay attention!
*****
just a question: why do we have to pay attention to the situation of Atheists? just because they do exist?
I think there is a somehow more important issue here: indeed several other ‘Unusual’ groups of people do exist in muslim countries, but this special group, called ‘Atheists’, are of a higher importance,
why?
indeed, I think that Atheism does not follow a philosophical approach. people who accept this idea, do it because they dont like Islam. very few men/women (if any) convert of Islam for they find it baseless.
then we may claim that this movement is the strongest objection to the Socio-Political norms of muslim societies (what we may call as an Islamic Order). the same way, they are under highest pressures in the current Muslim Systems.
now, I say that Atheists may not be able to defend the philosophical basis of their claims, even may not be able to justify their social roles, and may bring some political conflicts, but they must be supported enough to make a challenge to the prevailing Extermism of Islamic Order.
ty
I read the interview but didn’t have time to read the first comment (Mohammed’s). I will and then, if I have questions I will ask them . For now there is one question in ths interview that rings in my head because I asked myself many times that very question: “What’s the difference being “careless†and “atheist?†I have plenty of examples of people who are atheists (do not believe in the existence of G_d) yet are highly ethical human beings, perhaps more human than many others. They are very much engaged in doing good in the world, they attach themselves to good causes and are careful and respectful in how they approach others. For some time I found that paradoxical, but then it became a liberating thought. They are still believers — in the sense that they have a set of clear values they believe in, in general, values that support life and peace. My German neighbour is such an example. He is a scientist and an atheist. On the other hand, he worked for the Peace Corps, he adopted a handicapped child and is married to a woman who is beautiful on the inside only
Mohammad M says:
“now, I say that Atheists may not be able to defend the philosophical basis of their claims,”
An atheist doesn’t have to defend the philosophical basis of their claims because the only claim they make is disbelief.
Does some who claims disbelief in Santa Claus or unicorns have to defend their disbelief? It is up to the one making the claim for the existence of a supreme being to offer evidence of the truty of that claim. If the evidence is offered and examined and the evidence falls short, then disbelief must continue until better evidence is offered.
Unfortunately for believers, in the entire history of mankind, none of the evidence offered has stood up to close scrutiny.
To continue answering the question ‘What’s the difference between being careless and being atheist?” I will say that many atheists are believers in universal values such as fairness, freedom, love, respect, tolerance, truth… and that many atheists take a philosophical – rational approach to problems rather than a religious one. I am not taking parts here, rather I am stating the obvious.
Does Islam (any religion for that matter) drive its youth away? Away from what? Away from Islam? Away from the identity of the Arab world?! Away from tradition? Away from future? Away where — in which direction?
These questions are as complex as the one raised earlier: Is Islam compatible with democracy?
Are we (in general or we-Muslims) afraid of globalization? Do we fear loosing IT (whatever the it might be)? And why?
I will launch another question here and enlarge the perspective (successfully or not remains to be seen). According to many scientists and political analysts as well as to common sense, Globalization and a certain loss or re-interpretation of identity is inevitable in today’s world. Fostering hybrid identities seems to be more helpful. Below are the attributes of what Howard Gardner (leading Harvard researcher) sees as being prerequisite for preparing students (people in general) for this (the 21-st) century:
Understanding of global systems
Capacity to think analytically and creatively across disciplines
Ability to tackle problems and issues that do not respect disciplinary boundaries
Knowledge of and ability to interact civilly and productively with individuals from quite different cultural backgrounds — both within one’s own society and across the planet
Knowledge of and respect for one’s own cultural tradition(s)
Fostering hybrid or blended identities
Fostering of tolerance
(Howard Garner, in Globalization 2004)
Now, put Islam in this perspective. If this is where we are going anyway, is Islam or the way Muslims approach Islam helping or hindering its youth ?
[...] (from Bahrain) at Mideast Youth posted an interview with a 23-year-old Arab [...]
And I promised to loook up Mohammed’s comment. I see a lot of false or circular lines of debate. For instance, he says “tolerance should be established in Muslim societies in order to prepare a proper framework for making a progress”. Tolerance should be established in Muslim societies (among different Muslim groups) AND outside of these societies (linking Muslims to the parts of the world, to other belief systems and ways of being! This is true tolerance, otherwise you guys are in stinky water (your own jiuce one might say
Also along the same line drawen above, when Mohammed says: ” why do we have to pay attention to the situation of Atheists? just because they do exist?” The answer is YES, Mohammed, because they exist. This reason is plenty! Otherwise, the world of difference will look at you and say: why do we have to pay attention to Mohammed — just because he exists? Or why do we have to pay attention to Muslims, just because they exist?
Mohammad,
Who pays ’special’ attention to atheists? Not only are they largely ignored, they are constantly in danger. You can’t publicly announce that you are an atheist without facing the major consequences in return. And do they not have rights? Shall we forget that they exist? Shall we pay no attention to what they are going through?
I disagree that we have “bigger problems” to worry about.
My friend is being accused of being a traitor and of losing his identity simply because of a personal choice he made concerning his belief system. Should I ignore his problems instead of addressing it and pointing out what many young people in our society are going through?
If we ignore it – and if we claim that we have “bigger problems” – then these problems will not only continue, but they will get bigger. I posted this here to make others aware of what many young Arab minds are really thinking. Taboos, fear, and censorship makes it impossible for us to be able to fully discuss this.
Lamer said:
suppose that we accept a God as an omni-potent, omni-scient, omni-present creature(?) who created ‘The Being’. now, if we accept that he has his own ‘Ethical Code’ (descended to us by His Prophets), we must follow that, or we will be punished both here and there (next world).
on the other hand, those who don’t agree to 1st condition (deny his existence: Atheists) or the 2nd (dont accept that he has his own Ethical Code), don’t accept a Divine Ethics and develop their own Ethics. they may strongly believe in the equality of human kinds and other principles of this kind, which will make them ‘More Humane’, as you mentioned (compared with those who say that they believe in religion, justice and equality, but don’t practice it that much).
Yes! I’ve seen some examples of these people.
now, what is the difference between these 2 kinds of codes?
those who believe in Gofd, like muslims, have some Static Principles which will never change: Homosexuality is not acceptable, abortion must be allowed just in very few cases (if any),….
those who develop a Mundane Ethical Code, base it mostly on 2 principles: “Inalienable Human Rights” and “Democracy”: there are some rights that everybidy should be granted with, and there are regulations that should be determined through democracy. this way, Gay Marriages may be illegal right now in a nation (illegal is equal to something which is forbidden by this Mundane Ethical Code), and legal after 20 years, and again turn illegal after 40 years.
*****
Infidel57 said:
aha! the very common start-point of a discussion about God and his existence, is exactly what you said. who must take the burden of proof?
lets consider 2 approaches:
1- belief in statement A == disbelief in statement ~A (not A)
then, if you disbelieve in statement A, you must prove that ~A is true: you must believe in ~A.
lets make it clearer: I say that I believe in the existence of Unicorns. you say that there is No unicorn at all. Neither I have any proof for my statement, nor do you. then the only reasonable conclusion is that: we dont know exactly if any unicorn does exist.
note: sometimes there are evidences that support a statement. in these cases, those who want to reject it, are under higher pressure. some say that there are enough evidences about the existence of God. some others say: no, there are enough evidences to show that there is no God! a logical approach requires bith sides to bring their proofs.
2- Kurt Godel proved a statement in Math which it implies that in every system of logics, there are True Statements which can never be proved.
pay attention plz.
my question: while there are true things which can never be proved, why do require me to bring proof for every belief of mine?
there are lots of other approaches which will nuliify this claim of Atheists that “we dont have to prove anything”.
Esra’a: I reviewd my comment; it seems that I was approving of ur idea. they must be taken care of. when did I sau that “we have bigger problems”? I stressed out that their roles is vital to our society.
Did I say else?
Oh, yeah. This is, in my opinion, the most childish remark in Mohammed’s text. He says “I think that Atheism does not follow a philosophical approach. people who accept this idea, do it because they dont like Islam.” As if all there is in the world is Islam or Mohammed’s view of the world. It is how a young child typically approaches problems and tries to deal with adversity — be denying it. Whatever happens contrary to his desires is because people (the teacher for instance) don’t like him.
Sorry, I must have misunderstood. It’s because I was confused with this statement you made earlier:
My misunderstanding, sorry.
Ooops, this is going too fast! I’ve just seen Mohammed’s latest comments.
Mohammed, I was simply trying to play a bit further with Esra’a question: ” What is the difference between being careless and being an atheist?” and showing that some atheists can be care-ful, ethical creatures (just like some Muslims can be careless and unethical, yet still think that they abide by the Koranic code of ethics — take extrenists as an example).
I might have misunderstood what you were saying… I am sure though I do not agree with the logic of punshment that you bring here. You said that “we must follow that (the Divine Code of Ethics), or we will be punished both here and there (next world).” You see, to me this isn’t TRUE BELIEF, this is FEAR OF G_D. I am not saying fear isn’t constructive sometimes, but most of the time it is an act of cowardice, not an act of true belief in God’s commendments.
And yes, I think that human laws evolve, and that humans evolve, learn, and that their understanding evolves. I am not sure about gay marriages and gay people adopting children. On the other hand I do acknowledge their existence (not only in our times but throughout history), and that’s enough of a reason to pay attention to them too. You see, in my religion, our prophet said one thing, the most important of all: LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR. What if my neighbour is gay, Muslim, Arab or atheist?
Oh, and what you said “Those who believe in God, like muslims, have some Static Principles which will never change: Homosexuality is not acceptable, abortion must be allowed just in very few cases (if any),….” Well, maybe this answers Esra’a’s question? Does Islam drives its youth away? Maybe this youthy is incompatible with Islam? Do you believe that Mohammed ?!
By G_d, Mohammed, what do you prefer right now, a Muslim extremist like Abu Rafi (see new forum regarding the situation in Gaza who says : “the warriors of The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) are true believing Muslims who are fearless and whose goal is victory or martyrdom; the latter being preferable to the former because death unites the person with their Beloved GOD (ALLAH) and those who die fighting in defense of Islam get many blessings in the hereafter.” or do you prefer a harmless atheist whom you as a believer can oppose without repecusions whenever it pleases you? Who would you prefer as your neighbour? Your neighbour Muslim extremist or your neighbour atheist?
By G_d, Mohammed, what do you prefer right now, a Muslim extremist like Abu Rafi (who just said in another forum: “the warriors of The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) are true believing Muslims who are fearless and whose goal is victory or martyrdom; the latter being preferable to the former because death unites the person with their Beloved GOD (ALLAH) and those who die fighting in defense of Islam get many blessings in the hereafter.” or do you prefer a harmless atheist whom you as a believer can oppose without repecusions whenever it pleases you? Who would you prefer as your neighbour? Your neighbour Muslim extremist or your neighbour Arab atheist?
Which draws me back to the principle “LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR.” What if my neighbour is gay, Muslim, Arab or atheist? But what if he is an extremist?!
See, that’s the point where I have to draw a line and say I am bot divine, therefore I don’t have to love my neighbour, I can be intolerant …to intolerance.
Lamer said:
then u didnt get the meaning. Muslims should learn to tolerate others (and get used to it), and this means ‘establishment of tolerance in Muslim societies’.
by ‘Muslim Society’ I mean a society like Iran, UAE, Bahrain, etc., in which Muslims take the majority and indeed there are other minorities, including Atheists. all the members of muslim societies should learn that principle.
*****
Lamer said:
I do accept that they (Atheists) should be taken into account because they do exist. but there are reasons that we must take them into account More than other minorities. got it? it was my point.
*****
Lamer said:
we are not speaking of philosophy professors in Harvard or grand biologists who say that either there is no evidence for the existence of God or all the proofs given by believers are disputed.
Note: we are speaking about those (usually) young muslims who turn toward Atheism (average Atheists in muslim societies). I want to know exactly how much time an average atheist of this kind spends reading debates concerning the subject of God? learning the very elementary discussions about God, long before you get to the point of the claim that “I have found proper philosophical basis to reject any possible God” takes years if not decades. yes! they convert to Atheism, just because they are not comfortable with Islam. just a feeling, and sometimes Pseudo-Scientific claims.
*****
Lamer said:
read it again. it was just a conditional sentence: if you accept a God (an omni-potent, omni-scient, omni-present creature who created “The Being”), and if we accept that he has his own “Ethical Code” (descended to us by His Prophets), [the Code tells us that] we must follow it, or we will be punished.
*****
Lamer asked:
very clear: the one who is not trying to stop me practicing what I believe in! if that arab atheist tries to prevent me praticing my own religion, I prefer No Neighbour at all!
Esra’a:
I got the root of ur confusion. um, my mistake.
I said:
I meant that I really think “they are of a higher importance”. after it, I was trying to justify my view: Why are they of a higher importance?
sorry!
I’ll add one more to this, the fact that there are more than one religion and millions of gods in the world also backup what was suggested by Jalal.
Atheist disbelief in god, that’s all. Nothing more to it and don’t make it more.
Ethics and morality has nothing to do with god or religion. Ethics and morality were infused into religion based on the ethics and morality of the times. For most cases the basic morality and ethics are common among most of the religions of the world, but when you take the next step, you will see that they are not the same and in many cases, they contradict and clash with one another.
That’s why stoning people to death nowadays is a big no no or marrying a 8 year old and even. Polygamy and polyandry are also considered immoral nowadays but weren’t in the past.
That is correct, but you are forgetting that the conclusion is always right. Therefore we assume the unproven statements are also true based on that.
Also math is objective, god is subjective, you simply can’t compare them both.
You don’t’ convert to atheism, it’s not a religion. You just stop believing in god or any super natural being, that’s all.
Also most “atheists†are actually agnostic and not atheists.
To Mohammad M.
It is always up to those making the assertion to provide evidence of that assertion.
“lets make it clearer: I say that I believe in the existence of Unicorns. you say that there is No unicorn at all. Neither I have any proof for my statement, nor do you. then the only reasonable conclusion is that: we dont know exactly if any unicorn does exist.”
This an incorrect statement of the question. If you say that you believe in Unicorns, I would be skeptical of your beliefs. But skepticism is a provisional condition, contingent of your providing evidence.
And I can’t really believe that you believe what you say. Otherwise, you would have to go around disproving all the things in which you don’t believe including the divinity of Jesus, the reincarnation of Rev. Moon as the reincarnation of Jesus, the assertion of Joseph Smith that he got the Book of Morman by looking in a hat, etc.
I am atheistic about all of these things, and I suspect, if you are honest, that you are too. So why should you are I have to go to the trouble of disproving such ridiculous claims.
However, my skepticism is provisional contingent on evidence which would hold up to careful examination. Provide this, and I would convert.
Mohammed, your points are much clearer now.
I was amuzed by your comment about the neighbour who would try to stop you from practicing your beliefs. ‘No Neighbour at all’ is not possible, I am afraid — unless you are alone on an island. You eluded my question and did not answer whether you preferred`the extremist guy who prays with you and thyen goes and kills others in the name of Islam or the harmless atheist who might ocasionally ask insidious questions.
Don’t forget to think about yourself as a neighbour to others! You should be careful not to stop others from practicing their beliefs either — unless they’re crooks and abusers and then, instead of relying on Judgement Day you act as a good citizen and alarm the police (supposedly the police is not corrupt either and works under clear laws against abuse — see why human laws voted in parliament are important)?.
In my opinion, you failed to prove WHY atheists are more important than other ‘unusual’ groups within Muslim societies. You are basically saying that they threaten the believers with their views or that they do not have a ‘good enough’ basis for refuting religion? Do they have to have a philosophical view crafted over many years or are they entitled to their lived experiences within a Muslim society as a good enough basis for their choice? People do not ‘convert’ to atheism. Atheists give up religion, that’s all. And by doing that, they don’t harm anybody. Many atheists are atheists not so much because they dislike Islam but because they believe more the answers offered by science. You don’t have to be a Harvard scientist to believe in the benefits of science or the benefits of suspending any breligious belief when you want to answer questions. “Little people” or young people are entitled to scientific methods as well. Again, I have trouble seeing why you see atheists as being more important than Jews, Christians or Bushists, of women without full rights recognized, of gay people existent within Muslim societies and of anybody (group) that is different than the regular Muslim within a Muslim society.
Bushists
— I meant to say Budhist and Hindu-s, but perhaps Bush-ist too…:) 
Asra’a:
Start another site or an extended forum to discuss about God. then, I may be able to show how disputed these claims are: not necessarily wrong, just disputed!
and about Atheist’s disbelief in God: an Atheist believes that there is no God. this belief needs proof. just in this point, most of them say: “we didnt say there is no god. we almost know nothing about it”, and then, they are Agnostics, as u said.
about Godel’s statement: it was just an example (a very strong example of course) of those disputes. pay attention:
got it?
Finally, about ‘converting to Atheism’: it probably was not a proper use of this verb. ok. they change their attitude, or they stop believing in something they used to believe, etc.
Mohammed said: “Finally, about ‘converting to Atheism’: it probably was not a proper use of this verb. ok. they change their attitude, or they stop believing in something they used to believe, etc.”
But my dear Mohammed, by this logic, all people are born atheists. You are born without such beliefs (any beliefs for that matter; you are just born with unidentified needs) and then others teach you what do believe, then you believe what you are taught, then you learn to question or suspend belief…and eventually you learn to think critically — that’s all we can do really.
Lamer said:
in this case, an atheist neighbour is better!
*****
Lamer added:
I don’t want to prove that Atheists are really more important. its just my own opinion.
let me clarify it even more: Average Atheists in muslim socities dont give up on religion because they have found enough evidences or proofs that Religion is baseless, but they stop believing in God (and consequently any religion) mostly cuz of their feeling: they are not comfortable with God/religion.
then, I conclude that religion has failed to prepare a good society/atmosphere/practices/principles/etc =>this special practice of religion prevailing in our societies is not able to meet all the needs of average people, and some of them decide to give up on religion.
aha! this is the point: Atheists bring a very important Alarm: the religion (in which we believe as Muslims) has failed to make a good society. if the society was relieving enough, they wouldnt give up on God.
Got it?
*****
to Infidel57:
Do you reject any possible God and say: there is no room for a God in the world at all? (I)
or you say: I don’t know if there is a God, but I find your proofs disputed? (II)
these 2 approaches are completely different. what I said was about those who claim the (II), not (I).
To believe in statement A (ie. A is true), you need to have some proof for it.
To disbelieve in statement A (ie. A is wrong), again you need to have some proof for your claim.
consider this example:
I believe that sun is a real object out there. somebody says that: “No, its just an imaginary creature”. who must bring the proof for his statment? me or that person? I think: Both. if he fails, doesnt mean that I win, and if I fail, doesnt mean that he wins.
Dear Lamer:
u hit the nail on the head!
I dont know why you people continue these discussions, but to me, its just as a mean to practice what I am learning: Philosophy.
and why did I choose philosophy? cuz I enjoy ir! just this, and nothing more. the ‘Critical Thinking’ u mentioned above is my fun. be sure that I dont want to convert any Atheist to Islam or any other religion!
lol to Bushists…
Mohammad, that was actually my comment, I was logged into Esra’a’s account when i posted it hahaha and forgot to logout
I will actually debate you based on Godel’s incompleteness theorems, but for that you tell me what is/are your axiom(s) and what is your theorem.
Be careful what you give me.
And also the axioms in Godel’s theory generally deal with arithmetic and basic logic, because those are the only thing that can never be proven, hence your entire argument is based on this, but everyone know by heart that 1+1 is 2 because of our logical perceptions.
Also the statement should never contradict. That’s another key element to Godel’s theory. If the statement contradicts, then Godel’s theory can’t be used.
And you using the incompleteness theorems is flawed because your axiom and theorem has already overlapped one another creating contradiction.
Keep this in mind while you answer me.
You say God exist. Then I have to ask you, what god you are talking about? If you say there is only one god, then that’s a contradiction, because there are millions of gods. So again be careful about your axioms and your theorem is. And you have address all the issues in the theorem, otherwise it’s an incomplete theorem and contradictions will occur.
But the fact that the sun is out there and we can all see it and science proved it.
I reject god as a real entity. That’s all, I don’t give a rats ass about the other things that are attached to he/she/it. And this seem to be the problem with people who have something to say about atheists. We don’t’ give a damn about the things that are attached to god. Until god shows up before me and say I am god and look I am going to bring peace to this world and does it, I’ll not believe or even think about god. But when this happens then I will accept god as a real entity and not just believe, but accept him/her/it as a real thing.
And I see no different between atheists and theists in term of morality or ethics. A theist need someone to tell them what to do and an atheist can determine what he/she needs to do by themselves. Both makes mistake, we are humans. That’s that.
getting engaged with ‘Algebra’ & ‘Mathematical Analysis’ has taught me enough about how I should deal with Math statements.
either very foggy or very silly. why is it a contradiction? be careful what you give me!
and, I will answer to your debate. read that simple argument (repeat it here) and let me know how you think about it:
be careful what you give me!
Jina, sorry to interrupt the flow — Mohammed you have to answer him first (I wouldn’t be able to because I already hate math
Then, I have another anoying question raised by your stetement, Mohammed: “Atheists bring a very important Alarm: the religion (in which we believe as Muslims) has failed to make a good society. if the society was relieving enough, they wouldnt give up on God.” Is this why you believe atheists are more important than other ‘minorities’ or margins within Muslim societies? Because they question the functionality and legitimacy of the mainstream? Because by their very existence they are subversive?
Godel theory needs axioms and theorem, you didn’t provide any, but used it. So I will ignore that aspect of your argument.
It’s a contradiction because there are millions of gods and not just one, what part about the countless gods on this world is foggy to you?
And that argument is flawed because you haven’t provided your axioms and the theorems regards to Godel’s theory.
And the conclusion in your argument, which I assume is that god exist is subjective and not objective like a conclusion in a mathematical equation and it has no axioms that can be derived logically like arithmetic or basic logic; therefore, Godel’s theory doesn’t work unless you provide these things.
If you want to have a serious debate don’t use the words silly to denegrade a person’s argument, because that will turn this thread into a shit thread.
Answer the question, if you don’t, then you can not use the thoery as your proving point.
Jina:
simply you dont get what I say, either my problem in sending the message or yours in receiving.
suppose a very general Statemnet like A. belief in A means that you think A is true. for this, you must have proof.
now conseider this statement:
A: there is no other human-like being in other planets all around the world.
those who believe in this statement, must prove it. those who dont, must refute it (by showing another planet which has human-like beings). very simple. refuting the A is equal to proving ~A.
now conseider this other one:
A: God can never exist.
you must prove it.
B: I dont know if a God exists. if it comes up and shows him/her/it-self, I will accept. if not, I wont.
this statement doesnt need any proof. simply it doesnt state any sharp idea.
Oh, Jina said (”You say God exists. Then I have to ask you, what god you are talking about? If you say there is only one god, then that’s a contradiction, because there are millions of gods.”) I don’t see anything wrong with his argument. What’s wrong with it, Mohammed? To me, it is as true as the proven existence of the sun. There are millions of people out there who believe in God right now and who are not Muslim — not to count the Muslims themselves (and don’t tell me your God is the same with the god of a crazy extremist). Throughout the history of humanity there have been numarous gods that people believed in– in fact Joseph Campbell and Mircea Eliade who are arguably the leading mythologists of our times have shown common threads among religions (in addition to their differences) and have shown that the great religions of the world are not only based on Ancient mythology but are part of mythology themselves. With these being said, I do not refute the existence of God, nor our need to believe in something beyond ourselves, nor can I dismiss the impecable logic of atheists. If anything, I think we should\embrace each other and shut up for a change.
because god is yet to be defined and you claim that there are countless gods in the world.
first define the God, then bring your proof for countless Gods, then if you prove that there are countless gods, there wont be a God. no contradiction will happen. LNC (;aw of non-contradictions) supports it, cuz its the basis of every logical system.
and about Axioms and Theorems: Suppose any axiom you may want. it will constitute a logical system. in that logical system, there will be True Statements which can never be proven.
Actually, as a writer and as a poetry lover, I believe in the god of writing.
Seriously!
“because god is yet to be defined…” Yes, I subscribe to this view, Mohammed. I love it! That’s why we’re still here and the questions about god are still haunting us.
“when sun is in the sky, it is day. and sun is always in the sky, then it is always day. but sometimes it is night, then it is not always day => contradiction”
No. this is not contradiction. if you had defined the meaning of ’sky’ and its limit precisely, there would have been no contradiction.
now:
Yes, I say that God exists and there is only 1 of him/her/it. you say that thre are millions of Gods? maybe, but only one God fits in my definition of God. got it? a god with that definition, is unique, I claim. if you prove that there are 2 or more of him which all of them satisfy that Definition, then, there is 2 or more God, not 1 God, and there is no contradiction again.
pay attention
For the sake of the argument: What if my belief is that God is multiple? I mean, that God accomodates multiplicity? That God calls himself ‘We’ rather than ‘I’?
That God is Unknown, and radical and the epithomy of freedom, of creation, that God is beyong logic and beyond philosophy, that God reveals themselves in writing? That God is on the side of the Unconscious? That God can only be expressed as a negation? That God is not…this and that? That God isn’t?
And because God isn’t, I (and the world) can be?
That God lies somehow in contraditiction and in paradox? That God is beyond langauge?
no problem.
this is your claim which may be true.
do u want to propose a proof for it? or just evidences?
the only thing Im now focusing on, is the subject of the “proof” (how can we prove? can we prove every true statement? in an argument, who must prove?), not this or that claimed proof.
Lamer!
what you were doing in your last comments, was: making a beautiful game with words. maybe the God of Writers is inspiring you!
I choose Life and poetry anytime over deadening proofs and overexplanations. But that is a matter of choice. I am not sure what you are looking for, Mohammed. If you’ve found God, look no more and don’t be bothered by atheists. If you haven’t…then be like all of us-Hamlets forever pondering the question “To Be or Not To Be”.
Sorry, Mohammed I didn’t see your last comment. I don’t believe in the God of Writers, I believe in the power of writing to reveal…unknown (and sometimes paradoxical) truths.
Lamer: dont think that Im seeking for true answers in philosophy. Philosophy itself is a game, a very amusing game, for me.
contemplating over these subjects let me get happy! the same thing Poetry does to you. its just a matter of choice!
when I was studying math as my 2nd major in university, I used to really enjoy very complicated problems of Algebra. they may never have any application, but I enjoy them. just this.
To Mohammad:
“To believe in statement A (ie. A is true), you need to have some proof for it.
To disbelieve in statement A (ie. A is wrong), again you need to have some proof for your claim.”
Again, you misstate the argument. I need no proof to not believe in someone’s claim. Disbelief is provisional. If you make some absurd claim (a sky fairy is looking over us) and then back it up with evidence that stands up to scrutiny, then I would be forced to accept your claim as true.
But as it stands, in the 10 thousand years of human civilization, theists have offered their evidence, but when it has been examined, this evidence just doesn’t hold up. So, it is not evidence at all.
All you have to do is study the different arguments for the existence of god — the cosmological, the ontological, the teleological, etc, and you can see that they have been offerred and have been refuted.
There is no evidence. Everything religious peolple believe is based on faith and wishful thinking. I offer as evidence the refutation of all the arguments and theists inability to come up with anything new.
If you have any such evidence, offer it up for examination. If it will hold up, I will convert.
to Infidel57:
1st: really sorry that you cant understand (I) and (II) (check it again and ask somebody for help).
2nd: some approaches suggest that philosophy in its depth is not able to prove anything. indeed, just those proofs driven from pure definitions are valid (example: 2=1+!, 4=2+2 => 4=1+1+1+1 : a proof tha driven from pure definition).
this way, philosophy as a tool is unable to show any reality. pay attention.
3rd: a jewish philospher called Spinosa and a shia muslim philosopher called Mulla Sadra: they share a semi-similar view about world. right now, Im trying to read and understand what they have said. it seems really interesting. lets make an appointment for 2017, and then I may be able to bring a beautiful argument.
good luck
to Infidel57:
4th: and you said about evidences of the existence of God. lets consider the subject of Miracles.
Question: based on current view about God, can any miracle prove the existence of God?
my Answer: No. there is no miracle which may be able to prove the existence of God.
you may ask why. a brief intro: if I bring a miracle, you want me to repeat it in order to ensure that there is no trick within it. then, when I repeat the same action for several times, you can say: “ok! now we understand that everytime you shake your hand, sun’s light disappears. but sorry, it doesnt prove anything. your hand may have such an effect in the world due to unknown physical forces. no place for God, sorry”.
some say that there is no way to prove the existence of God through miracles; then Stop asking evidences, cuz you wont accept any, even the most wonderful ones!
Mohammed, just out of curiosity, since you’ve mentioned Spinoza…what draws you to his work? And what contemporary (post-modern) philosophers did you have access to?
You guys might be interested in this website.
Mulla Sadra and his Transcendent Theosophy is really famous in Iran; on the other hand, there is a kind of similarity between Sadra and Spinoza; then, its interesting for me.
and about contemporary philosophy: Im a very elementary student of philosophy… now am trying to read more and more… from contemporary philosophy, Cognitive Sciences (known aslo as ‘philosophy of mind’) is the most attractive branch… the root of AI (artificial intelligence)….
if you are interested, chech the ‘an introduction to philosophical analysis’ by John Hospers…. a great hand book of philosophy!
[...] with Arab Atheist Jump to Comments Middle East Youth website contains an interview with Adel Jalal, a 23 year old business student in Abu [...]
Mohammad M.
I understand I & II perfectly. I understand that you are trying to change the definition of atheism to fit your argument, and I am not going for it.
Atheism is simply the absence of belief, and you are being extremely hypocritical in trying to change that definition and putting the burden of proof on the non believer. Why hypocritical? Because you would never accept that burden when faced with with a Hindu proclaiming belief in Vishnu or a Christian claiming the divinity of Jesus.
We would both be in agreement of dismissing these absurditities as well as the thousands of other deities, demons, devils, spirits imagined throughout human history. I could list a thousand of these, including the deity in which you believe, and we would be in agreement on 999 of them.
Are you going to accept the burden of proof for the nonexistence of these deities? I think not.
God either exist, or he/she doesn’t. As for miracles, let’s face it — there is a huge industry in Christianity (and probably Islam and Hinduism too) exploiting the gullible with supposed miracles. We have Jesus appearing on tortillas, weeping virgin statutes, etc. When examined, all of these “miracles” are either a result of natural causes or fraud.
Knowing this, why wouldn’t I be skeptical about a miracle you produced? After all, we have illusionists who can seemingly make an elephant disappear before our eyes.
However, there is a solution to this. There is an organization called the James Randi Educational Foundation which offers $1 million to anyone who can prove any paranormal event. They have a website at:
http://www.randi.org/
If you can collect this $1 million with your miracle, I will convert, go on a holy war and collect my 72 virgins in paradise.
It’s not 72 anymore.
We ran out.
That’s not a definition. That’s an interpretation of the Quoran that is demonstrated daily by the followers of Islam. Don’t feel sorry for me. Feel sorry for the brainwashed dolts who are devoid of rational thought and who actually believe this crap.
I’m sure that there are some edifying aspects of Islam, but unfortunately, religion sinks to its lowest common denomenator, fundamentalism, not just in Islam but in Christianity, Hinduism, etc. It seems that mean-spirited narrowmindedness has a greater appeal that acceptance and tolerance.
I offer into evidence 9/11 and the tens and thousands of suicide bombers walking around just waiting for their turn and the anemic response by “moderate” Islamists to the nutjobs.
“Religion poisons everthing,” as Hitchins points out.
Hi, I am an American atheist and while it can be sometimes a little difficult for an atheist living in a western “secular-christian” society, I empathize with the minorities in the middle-east. I understand that it can be almost impossible to live as a minority (especially an atheist) in the arab / muslim regions of the world. This difference (I believe) exists for 2 reasons: (A) the US has over 200 years of consistent secular government where we enjoy a basic mandate that everyone can believe whatever one wants to, but religion and the government shall never have anything to do with each other “separation of church and state” and; (B) in some nations of the middle-east those who really have power do so because they can manipulate the masses because of weak, or non-existent democracies and the mosque is not separated from the state. Those who oppose the freedom of religion have a reason, that being they might not be able to control and dictate their will in such freedom. Winston Churchill said “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” and nothing is quite as powerful as religious leadership in an area where ‘faith’ may be all one has! Why is America a ‘good’ model? Simply because, while we may have some problems and there is no such thing as perfection, no one has the right to dictate religion to any other here and it is a serious crime for any person to attack another because of their religion or race (hate crimes). There are also ‘anti-discriminatory’ laws (equal opportunity) against not serving, selling, renting or employing people because of his/her race, religion, sex, age, national origin or disability.
As Winston Churchill also said “Democracy is the worst form of government, but it is the best we currently have”! And to quote Karl Marx “Religion is the opiate of the masses”!
Infidel57:
unfortunately you are not familiar with the very elementary basis of logic/philosophy. since I think that no other person follows this discussion anymore but those interested to the topic, I am going to repeat what you failed to understand. come with me, step by step:
I ask you:
1) Do you believe that there is no God at all?
2) Do you believe that believers’ proofs for the existence of God are all flawed and disputed?
for sure, you will say ‘yes’ to 2nd question, and there is no problem till now, and you don’t have to prove anything. yes, you are right. most of these proofs as Ive seen till now, are flawed.
but the main debate is about your answer to the 1st question: if you say that you believe that ‘there is no God at all’, you must prove your statement. you may ask why? lets consider this example to find ‘why’.
suppose that we enter a cave together and find few things there: a spoon, a notebook, etc. I say: “I believe that somebody has been here”. but you say: “no, you are wrong. wind has brought all these things here”. then, I try to find enough evidences to show that somebody has been here, but I fail. ok. now, when I fail to prove that somebody has been here, is it enough reason for you to say: “haha! see! I told you. my claim got proved. there has been nobody here at all”?
Frankly, NO. you must prove your own claim.
=> if somebody says that ‘there is 1 (or more) God(s)’ he/she must bring a proof. if somebody says that ‘there is no God’, he/she also must bring his proof.
*****
about miracles and that James Randi organization:
you didnt consider what I said about miracles. there is no way to prove the existence of God by miracles, even by very original ones.
suppose that I show you something very ‘paranormal’. you want to ensure that this is not a fraud, true? then, I must repeat it in a very controleed environment many times, true? then, you will claim that this may be the result of an unknown source of power, or unknown natural phenomena, yet unknown but will be discovered in future.
suppose that I bring an oracle for you, somebody who can predict the future exactly. does it prove the existence of something supernatural? not at all. (you will say that) its due to very natural events, yet unknown.
suppose that I bring sombody who can read others’ minds. does it prove anything? no. there may be a kind of electromagnetic coupling between this man’s mind and others’, which its exact technique is yet unknown.
and, and, and. nobody is supposed to get that prize, not because there is no miracle, but because the definition behind that prize is obsolete: either fraud, or due to natural causes! if it is not fraud, it is for sure due to natural causes.
there is a simple solution here: Suggest me a possible miracle that you will accept as paranormal, and you will never make scientific excuses or suggest possible natural justifications to reject it!
*****
about 9/11:
read this article:
Human Bombs: Rethinking Religion and Terror
http://mit.edu/cis/pdf/argo_audit_4.06.pdf
by Nichole Argo
it will show you a better understanding of human bombs and terrors. though I admit that religion works as a catalyzer for these activities, they are mostly due to social causes not religious ones.
*****
Joshua:
True!!
Infidel57, you do realize that most of the victims of suicide bombings happen to be muslim, right? And no, suicide bombings since the 1980’s haven’t even reached 2,000 yet.
Human Bombs: Rethinking Religion and Terror:
http://mit.edu/cis/pdf/argo_audit_4.06.pdf
Mohamed M., thanks for the link. I have been studying the subject of suicide bombings since 9/11, and couldn’t agree more with that link. I suggest you to read Robert Pape’s “Dying To Win”, another great research on suicide bombings.
Guys,
I will ask very naive and possibly false questions. If you find them illogical, pass.
I do not understand why atheists have to disprove the existence of God. God is none of their concern. Or is it? I am assuming the position of an atheist: Why does one have to disprove something that doesn’t exist in the first place?
If we were all atheists would we ever be asked to prove the inexistence of…something inexistent?
If we were all theists would we still have to prove the existence of God?
Is an atheist someone who defines him/herself in opposition to a theist ? or rather, a theist is someone who defines himself in opposition to an atheist?
Can a theist actually exist without an atheist? Can an atheist exist without the knowldege of the existence of a theist? Can these ways of understanding exist without each other?
And finally, why do we need to prove (or disprove) something like God? What are the benefits and pitfalls of engaging in such a discussion? (actually infidel57 kinda answered it…)
I tried the link suggested by Mohammed and it doesn’t work. Any suggestions?
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says::”if somebody says that ‘there is 1 (or more) God(s)’ he/she must bring a proof. if somebody says that ‘there is no God’, he/she also must bring his proof.”
Well not really. It depends how strongly they hold their atheism. But let us suppose that in any one case we find no evidence of God. Suppose I just blasphemed and nothing happened to me. Now if I was hit by lightening that would be evidence of God. But I won’t be. In fact if we reiterate this experiment any number of times, suppose we desecrate the odd Quran in Cuba and produce a lot of porn in California and generally do a lot of things that annoy God and nothing happens. That suggests that God does not exist. Massive induction amounts to proof. There is nothing in Nature or History that even suggests that God exists. Therefore it is not an unreasonable assumption that He does not. Just as no one has ever seen a Unicorn, no one has ever seen God. Or at least no reliable reports exist. If someone reported a unicorn for the first time we might give them the benefit of the doubt. But not by now.
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says::”there is no way to prove the existence of God by miracles, even by very original ones.”
If a miracle occurred that could not be explained any other way but God, that would be an excellent proof of God. But as we all know, miracles do not happen. The Universe exists exactly as if there was no God.
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says::”there is a simple solution here: Suggest me a possible miracle that you will accept as paranormal, and you will never make scientific excuses or suggest possible natural justifications to reject it!”
God allegedly appears to all sorts of people. He appeared to St Paul. He sent an angel to talk to Muhammed. If God did any of those things to me I’d believe.
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says::”though I admit that religion works as a catalyzer for these activities, they are mostly due to social causes not religious ones.”
Except they do not. Christians in East Timor suffered vastly more than the Palestinians ever have. They did not carry out one suicide bombing. It is not oppression and it is not poverty. It is ideology.
This:
http://www.usip.org/pubs/working_papers/wp1.pdf
shows that the more Muslims support Islam in politics, the more they support terrorism.
SSD Says:”you do realize that most of the victims of suicide bombings happen to be muslim, right? And no, suicide bombings since the 1980’s haven’t even reached 2,000 yet.”
Except 9-11. That reached 2,000. And as it happens not only don’t I know that, I find that very hard to believe. It depends, of course, on what you mean by “Muslim” in that some Muslims in Iraq are killing people they do no think are Muslims but the rest of us do.
SSD Says:”I suggest you to read Robert Pape’s “Dying To Winâ€, another great research on suicide bombings.”
Except terribly naive. Britain has been hit by domestic suicide bombers. Others have gone to Israel to die. Iraq is full of non-Iraqis would-be suicide bombers. Dozens of attempted suicide attacks have been broken up from Britain to Canada and beyond. Pape is simply wrong.
The existance of GOD or not is yet to be proven! religions have tried to prove his/her/its existance through miracles, as you have mentioned above these miracles do not prove the existance of GOD!
Science cannot always explain miracles or the super natural that is why they are called SUPER NATURAL.. actually.. with all the progress and technology mankind has reached.. we are still considered ignorant at many levels..
Some say science has proven that GOD actually exists.. (Islam thinks so..)
We as humans have both mind and spirit.. you can’t focus on one without the other, I believe that many who have focused on the mind (sciences) are searching to fulfill the spiritual side.. if believing in the entity of GOD helps in self fullfilment so be it!
when a human is cornered and reaches extreme levels of dispair, agony and misery he/she would love to believe in miracles.. in God to redeem hope in life again.. and that is when we are reminded of God most of the time.. when we are in need for a sign a miracle that things will get better..
A very close friend of mine believes that he is GOD, I am GOD and so are you.. We are all GOD.. if believing in this hypothesis makes him whole.. in his own spirit and mind.. why not?
Believe in what ever makes you more complete..
Rasha mentioned “a human (who) is cornered and reaches extreme levels of dispair, agony and misery” — actually, this situation is the ultimate test of the existence of something beyond one’s self . Of course, atheists would consider any ‘miracles’, any sudden help, any oustanding encounters with outstanding people mere coincidences. I actually have plenty of examples of coincidences that happened to me or to others in situations of extreme tension or need. I had witnesses who were atheists, observed what happened and called them ‘happy accidents’. And I met believers who have experienced similar things in similar ways and called them ‘divine acts”.
Rasha, there is only one problem with your statement: “A very close friend of mine believes that he is GOD, I am GOD and so are you.. We are all GOD.. if believing in this hypothesis makes him whole.. in his own spirit and mind.. why not?” Why not? If one believes he is God and acts like an extremist, or takes himself as immortal and commits suicide, than no thanks.
That person who believes we are all GOD thinks so because we as individuals have the power of making choices, these choices will pave the path for our lives, it is my choice, strength and weakness that lead me to where I am today.. this statement has many flaws because there are so many who do not actually have full control over their own lives.. where they are today is as a result of choices, luck and a surrounding manipulative environment..
Do you think of GOD as an extremist or aggressive as you have pointed in your last sentence?
I look at God as forgiving, nurturing and loving..
Actually what comes to mind.. however shocking this may be is (the wahabi’s are gonna get me for this.. but it is just a thought.. not a belief!) God resembles a woman, a goddess.. who gives birth to the human being, she nurtures, loves and takes care of her child.. eventually she will let go.. let him/her find their way in life (the Goddess is always there for help and guidance but she lets her children grow and develop forming their own beings and identities)
In the end, Religion is a personal matter.. a personal choice.. as long as NO harm, hate or violence is carried out in the name of God.
In these situations lamer when a person goes through a shock in life waiting and praying for a savior or some kind of miracle to take all the pain away.. it is when this person gets disappointed and crushed due to lack of the super natural (miracle) he/she becomes cynical and doubt the presence of God. True believers vs. extremists also surface many times at that point of life (sickness/death..etc)
to Lamer:
the main idea is that if you believe in a statement (either ‘God exists’ or ‘no God exists at all’) you must bring your proof. otherwise, this belief won’t be a rational one.
let me confess: I think that there is a God, but I don’t have any precise undisputed proof for his existence!
when we don’t have any proof for either the existence of God or the other side, most rational idea about God will be this one: we don’t know if there is a God.
(and, that link works. check the homepage of Nicole Argo: http://web.mit.edu/polisci/students/nargo/nargo.html)
*****
to HeiGou:
thanks to God (if he exists!) you got/knew the root of discussion.
few points about your argument:
1- if Atheists prefer to believe that no God exists while they dont have any proof for it, let them do it. no problem! like me: I prefer to think that a unique exists, but I dont have any proof for either his existence or his uniqueness.
2- Massive induction never amounts to proof. if you are patient enough, check the history of Goldbach’s conjecture. there are too many stories of this kind in Math. statements which were supposed true for decades or even centuries, and nobody found any couterexample, and finally somebody proved that they are wrong. and also, vice versa!
3- what you say about the evidences of God’s existence is somehow one-sided. Biologists check the history of Human kind: some of them conclude that Evolution can be the sole cause; some of them finally subscribe to Intelligent design. or, for example, you can apply the Causation to the Origin of the universe, and it will amount to a contradiction. and, and, and. there is not an agreement that Current Evidences support this side or that. unfortunately, this is the weakness of induction, even a massive one. we can not agree on putting this or that evidence on this or that side.
4- you said: “If a miracle occurred that could not be explained any other way but God, that would be an excellent proof of God.” I said that when we consider any miracle or unusal event, we can say that “there might be some natural causes behind it, yet unknown”. Hospers in his book (an intro to philosophical analysis) brings a very useful argument about causality which can be applied to this discussion.
5- you said: “God allegedly appears to all sorts of people. He appeared to St Paul. He sent an angel to talk to Muhammed. If God did any of those things to me I’d believe.” suppose that one night you feel somehow asleep, then somebody calls upon you while you don’t see anybody, then you feel that you are ascending in the air, then you here that tomorrow Iran will attack Israel by Nukes and will destroy these 3 cities and 1234567 people will die, 765432 of them innocents, then it happens exactly as you have heard. I still claim that it wont amount to a proof (or even an evidence) for God’s existence.
6- the same way a kind of religion may work as a catalyzer in terrorist activities, another religion or ideology may work as a barrier to these kinds of operations. but I still support this idea that in most of the cases of terrorist (particualrly: suicide) attacks, we must seek for a soical cause.
*****
to Lamer: your last comment was a great one. your description of Dual Interpretations of same events, was excellent.
Guys,
Everyone here brought in arguments tracing the benefits and the pitfalls of both belief and disbelief in G_d. Disbelief can be rational. Belief (in G_d) can only be intuitive and provisional.
I think that if the idea of the existence of G_d is to be functional, then it better be a more integrated view that takes into account the fact that we are all connected, that we are all parts of a whole, that barriers of any kind, especially those raised by religions can be surmounted one day (sooner I hope), that interfaith is what we should strive for and that we all embrace a more compassionate, more nurturing view of the world — all this while acknowledging and profoundly respecting difference. In that sense, Rasha’s view is much more sustainable than the ‘heroic’ masculine agressive apocalyptic view of someone like Abu Rafi. And atheistic views are neutral.
Belief in G_d is a private matter. Like Love and intimacy (love is irrational and highly intuitive). It can be discussed (’confessed’ and questioned) among friends and family perhaps. Belief is not rational, Mohammed, it can’t be. You may consider it rational only because it is based on history and literature (the history and literature of that particluar belief) and on personal experiences (but those too are contextualized, they happen within a certain system of beliefs and as a result of belief). Do we really need to prove the existence of G_d ?! It’s an enormity at most and ridiculous at least.
I don’t understand why people, entire regimes for that matter want to make a point out of religion, impose it en masse, manipulate and rule on religious basis. I find it obscene! And I am using a very precise word here. On the other hand I have a hard time understanding why we need to advertise our private beliefs, why we feel the urge to wear certain clothes, certain symbols to show off, show big time that we are Muslims or Christians or whatever. If it’s cultural enjoyment, that’s a different matter, but if it carries this vein of propaganda and advertisement of difference (look, I’m special, I’m the real one), then it’s plain aggressive and disconsiderate.
I said it earlier: atheists are neutral. I think religious people should tone it down while keeping the faith alive inside their hearts. Whatever one does in the world better be an affirmative act (an act of belief) without an obsessive preocupation for personal reward here or in the hereafter. Religious zeal is sick and sickening. Salvation is a symbolic act that happens INSIDE one’s self not OUTSIDE. You want salvation outside? Befriend one another and start thinking about ecologically sustainable environments. Otherwise we will all die of heat and progress (industrial progress) will soon be a sad joke.
I know it’s off the subject but I will be leaving soon. Esra’a, what I don’t see on this site is more discussion about ecological matters. I see a sort of deep ecology of mind going on (that’s essential, by the way), but no open articles or questions about sustainable natural environments. Can this be discussed in the context of the Arab culture somehow? There is no education and no sensitivity to this issue here in Saudi — am I wrong? I’d be interested to hear what happens in Bahrain, UAE, but also in non-Arab parts of the Middle East!
Good Bye until later!
Sorry if this gets posted twice. There’s something wrong with the connection.
Guys,
Everyone here brought in arguments tracing the benefits and the pitfalls of both belief and disbelief in G_d. Disbelief can be rational. Belief (in G_d) can only be intuitive and provisional, in my view.
I think that if the idea of the existence of G_d is to be functional, then it better be a more integrated view that takes into account the fact that we are all connected, that we are all parts of a whole, that barriers of any kind, especially those raised by religions can be surmounted one day (sooner I hope), that interfaith is what we should strive for and that we all embrace a more compassionate, more nurturing view of the world — all this while acknowledging and profoundly respecting difference. In that sense, Rasha’s view is much more sustainable than the ‘heroic’ masculine agressive apocalyptic view of someone like Abu Rafi. And atheistic views are neutral.
Belief in G_d is a private matter. Like Love and intimacy (love is irrational and highly intuitive). It can be discussed (’confessed’ and questioned) among friends and family perhaps. Belief is not rational, Mohammed, it can’t be. You may consider it rational only because it is based on history and literature (the history and literature of that particluar belief) and on personal experiences (but those too are contextualized, they happen within a certain system of beliefs and as a result of belief). Do we really need to prove the existence of G_d ?! It’s an enormity at most and ridiculous at least.
I don’t understand why people, entire regimes for that matter want to make a point out of religion, impose it en masse, manipulate and rule on religious basis. I find it obscene! And I am using a very precise word here. On the other hand I have a hard time understanding why we need to advertise our private beliefs, why we feel the urge to wear certain clothes, certain symbols to show off, show big time that we are Muslims or Christians or whatever. If it’s cultural enjoyment, that’s a different matter, but if it carries this vein of propaganda and advertisement of difference (look, I’m special, I’m the real one), then it’s plain aggressive and disconsiderate.
I said it earlier: atheists are neutral. I think religious people should tone it down while keeping the faith alive inside their hearts. Whatever one does in the world better be an affirmative act (an act of belief) without an obsessive preocupation for personal reward here or in the hereafter. Religious zeal is sick and sickening. Salvation is a symbolic act that happens INSIDE one’s self not OUTSIDE. You want salvation outside? Befriend one another and start thinking about ecologically sustainable environments. Otherwise we will all die of heat and progress (industrial progress) will soon be a sad joke.
I know it’s off the subject but I will be leaving soon. Esra’a, what I don’t see on this site is more discussion about ecological matters. I see a sort of deep ecology of mind going on (that’s essential, by the way), but no open articles or questions about sustainable natural environments. Can this be discussed in the context of the Arab culture somehow? There is no education and no sensitivity to this issue here in Saudi — am I wrong? I’d be interested to hear what happens in Bahrain, UAE, but also in non-Arab parts of the Middle East!
Good Bye until later!
Oh, yeah instead of this awfully long statement “Whatever one does in the world better be an affirmative act (an act of belief) without an obsessive preocupation for personal reward here or in the hereafter.”, I was in fact looking for three words:
BE OF SERVICE!
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”if Atheists prefer to believe that no God exists while they dont have any proof for it, let them do it. no problem! like me: I prefer to think that a unique exists, but I dont have any proof for either his existence or his uniqueness.”
Well as long as we all agree to let each other believe whatever we want, there is no problem. To quote some Arab woman, you can believe in stones as long as you don’t throw them at me. The real issue here is what the original article says – some people think it is their religious duty to murder atheists. The problems for “the unique” don’t go away though. More importantly, it is scientifically superfluous. The Universe is as it is exactly as if there was no God. God is a hypothesis that science has no need of.
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”Massive induction never amounts to proof. if you are patient enough, check the history of Goldbach’s conjecture. there are too many stories of this kind in Math. statements which were supposed true for decades or even centuries, and nobody found any couterexample, and finally somebody proved that they are wrong. and also, vice versa!
”
Well Goldbach’s conjecture isn’t the example I’d use. The Four Color Map problem is. That was “proven” using massive induction on a computer. No human could hope to do it. There has long been an argument whether induction is a valid form of proof. I’d say that it is certainly grounds for leaning one way rather than another. God may exist. If He does, He may be the Muslim God. Or not. There are an infinite number of possibilities. The simplest explanation (which is the most reasonable according to Occam’s Razor) is that God does not exist.
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”what you say about the evidences of God’s existence is somehow one-sided. Biologists check the history of Human kind: some of them conclude that Evolution can be the sole cause; some of them finally subscribe to Intelligent design.”
I don’t know of any scientists who subscribe to Intelligent design. Those that do are not doing so for scientific reasons. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. For religious reasons you can doubt it, but I don’t think there has been a good scientific case for doing so for at least 100 years.
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”or, for example, you can apply the Causation to the Origin of the universe, and it will amount to a contradiction. and, and, and. there is not an agreement that Current Evidences support this side or that. unfortunately, this is the weakness of induction, even a massive one. we can not agree on putting this or that evidence on this or that side.”
You mean you claim that every object has a Cause and hence God must exist? I have to say that is not a very convincing argument to me. What caused God? Besides, Space and Time are two aspects of the same thing. Before the Big Bang there was no Space and hence no Time. So there was nothing before the Big Bang and no time for it to take place in. I would not argue the strong atheist case (we know there is no God) but I’d say that enough induction has been done so that we should accept the weak atheist case (we have no reason to think that God exists) and certainly the agnostic case (if God(s) exists we know nothing about Him/Her/Them).
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”I said that when we consider any miracle or unusal event, we can say that “there might be some natural causes behind it, yet unknownâ€.”
We can indeed. The best example I can think of is Pulsars. When they were discovered by Jocelyn Bell Burnell their origin was joking referred to as LGM – intelligent alien life – but the underlying assumption was that they had to be natural.
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”I still claim that it wont amount to a proof (or even an evidence) for God’s existence.”
Well in a formal sense perhaps but I’d still be convinced myself.
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”the same way a kind of religion may work as a catalyzer in terrorist activities, another religion or ideology may work as a barrier to these kinds of operations. but I still support this idea that in most of the cases of terrorist (particualrly: suicide) attacks, we must seek for a soical cause.”
I’d like to think it is the case because you can do something about social cases, but I don’t think it is true. I think the evidence is clearly that some kinds of religion cause terrorism and some kinds do not. You can see how depressing this is because the only policy that might work is Sharon’s Wall applied to the entire world.
Rasha (Saudi Arabia) Says:”I look at God as forgiving, nurturing and loving..
Actually what comes to mind.. however shocking this may be is (the wahabi’s are gonna get me for this.. but it is just a thought.. not a belief!) God resembles a woman, a goddess.. who gives birth to the human being, she nurtures, loves and takes care of her child.. eventually she will let go.. let him/her find their way in life (the Goddess is always there for help and guidance but she lets her children grow and develop forming their own beings and identities)”
Hmmm. I think that the Christian Churches have gone through a process of “feminization”. When they were powerful and persecuted people, they saw God as a stern, unforgiving male figure. Now they cannot compel and have to persuade so God is getting more and more “understanding” and hence female all the time. Perhaps Saudi Arabia is going through the same process? As we come to understand and sympathise with the pain of others, we come to find a God that does not harsh and unappealing. Obviously large parts of the Middle East do not yet sympathise with the pain of others, but they seem to be moving that way just as the rest of us are. That, surely, is a mark of civilization.
Rasha (Saudi Arabia) Says:”In the end, Religion is a personal matter.. a personal choice.. as long as NO harm, hate or violence is carried out in the name of God.”
Sure but how often is that the case? Muslim fundamentalists tell me all the time that since 9-11 the number of converts to Islam has grown. I doubt it myself but it would be depressing if it were true. It is good to see that the Hamas spin-off, CAIR, is collapsing in the US because of a lack of members and financial support. They have lost something like 90 percent of their members since 9-11. If it is true then perhaps all religions will come to see that hate and violence is counter-productive? But first their “believers” must have a choice.
HeiGou
it is true what you say, that “the Christian Churches have gone through a process of “feminization†and there is a lot more public recognition of Mary as a central inspirational figure. The thing is, at the core of Christianity (New Testament) is Christ’s message of love and compassion and that is a very ‘feminine’ view, if I may put it this way. I will venture to trust that the Koran (not its prescriptive parts, but its poetic core) has an integrated, open view (that can be subsumed as ‘feminine’ — pls. don’t understand it as strictly related to women though). Jewish people have the Shekina’ and a very powerful and beautiful repersentation of the feminine.
The process of feminization or rather reconnection with our feminine side happens everywhere, HeiGou. Outside religion, ‘iIt started with the women’s liberatation movement in the US and in France, went through a very raw form where women were basically fighting for their rights AGAINST men, and now that kind of feminism is pase, and both women and men are tuning into more relational and connected ways of approaching reailty, and that is considered a mother-like, more feminine framework.
HeiGou says: “Obviously large parts of the Middle East do not yet sympathise with the pain of others, but they seem to be moving that way just as the rest of us are. That, surely, is a mark of civilization. ”
We better take care and make sure we don’t give birth to a monster! 
‘Civilazation’ by the way was not achieved peacefully. Civilazation is a very masculine term grounded in separation from ‘mother nature’ and in the idea of superiority of the (male Western) conquerer over the ‘native’ or, in the case of Ancient Greece (where it comes from) on the superiority of the Athenians over the Barbarians. I suggest that you browse through a famous book of French feminism, history and psychoanalysis written by Julia Kristeva called “Strangers to Ourselves” to see how ‘women’, Barbarians, Arabs and anything marginal to a male dominated civilization has been considered subversive, inferior or simply strange throughout the ‘history of civilization”.
I think we all are on the verge of something new and different, of something strange, just like an expectant mother
And what if we give birth to a child that turns out gay?
You know what? Whatever it may be, the world of tomorrow, I just want one thing: extremes, yes, but no extremists. 
And what if we give birth to a child that turns out gay?
You know what? Whatever it may be, the world of tomorrow, I just want one thing: extremes, yes, but no extremists. 
And what if we lose the child? We will be childless. And what if we sacrifice the mothers (women in general)? We will be motherless.
OH, what’s wrong with my connection, I am becoming an echo of myself ?!!!!
Anyway, just wanted to express my agreement with HeiGou when he said “perhaps all religions will come to see that hate and violence is counter-productive? But first their “believers†must have a choice.” Well said.
Lamer, what’s wrong with gay people?
Nothing (unless they turn gay due to previous abuse). In principle nothing. That was exactly my point. It was a joke intended at those (still so many) who frown at gay people. I have gay friends and I had an excellent professor during grad school who was gay. I find gay parades hilarious though and I don’t think they are that helpful….but in the end it’s just a celebration of difference. When a gay person says “I am proud”, to me, it’s the same tone of a Musllim (or Christian) who says “I am a proud Muslim”. It all speaks about previous oppression and previous low self-esteem.
I have to point out something: I take people as individuals, and not so much according to their religious, sexual or whatever orientation. A gay person can be as crappy as anybody else who is crappy — but that’s not becuase s/he is gay. It’s a character fault.
HeiGou:
just 4 points:
1) u said: “The universe is as it is exactly as if there was no God. God is a hypothesis that science has no need of.” but remember that most of the scientific problems have not been solved yet. yes, scientist strongly hope that they might some day find enough data to support a ‘world without God’, but today is not that day.
2) massive induction never amounts to proof. in the case of “four color theorem“, computers were used to check finite cases of possible counter-examples. induction in a very special case can be an exact proof, and that can not be applied to this discussion. but you are true that induction “is certainly grounds for leaning one way rather than another.”
3) I didnt want to prove the existence of God by that use of causation. it was just an example: when we apply General Causality to the origin of universe, it produces a contradiction. then, General Causality is not true, and consequently there are things or events (1 or more) which have no certain cause. as I know, there is no proper justification for this phenomenon.
4) terrorism and its relation with religion, needs a separate discussion.
5) the same way I (prefer to) believe in God, I believe in the Free Will he granted the human kinds with. indeed, everybody must have the right to choose, even to choose that there is no God. they should never be denied of their basic rights in society.
6) to Lamer: Belief can be rational. and when u ask thet “Do we really need to prove the existence of God?”, I say that I feel that I need to be sure whether he exists or not.
Good Luck All
Oh, and about the gay professor. He had been in a long-term relationship with his partner and he was so crushed by his partner’s fight with cancer, that during my last year, he took a sabbatical just to be with his lover. He was/is a VERY decent gentle man, a wonderful caring teacher, an outstanding artist and a loving person.
[...] Intervista con un ateo arabo (Mideast Youth) [...]
Here I see Muhamad from Iran is very much engazed in god and prophet business. Thousands of prophets delivered thousands
of messages from thousands of gods. Now let us scrutinise the
self proclaimed prophets.
Zakariya ar Razi(865-925), one of the greatest free thinker mankind ever produced. He was one of the great physician of
all times. He is the author of medical encyclopedia Al-Hawi. Let
us see what he commented about so called prophets.
“All men are by nature equal and equally endowed with the faculty of reason that must not be disparaged in favour of blind faith; reason further enables men to perceive scientific truths in an immediate way. The prophets—these billy goats with long beards, as Ar Razi disdainfully describes them—cannot claim any intellectual or spiritual superiority. These billy goats pretend to come with a message from God, all the while exhausting themselves in spouting their lies, and imposing on the masses blind obedience to the “words of the master.” The miracles of the prophets are impostures, based on trickery, or the stories regarding them are lies. The falseness of what all the prophets say is evident in the fact that they contradict one another: one affirms what the other denies, and yet each claims to be the sole depository of the truth; thus the New Testament contradicts the Torah, the Koran the New Testament. As for the Koran, it is but an assorted mixture of ‘absurd and inconsistent fables,’ which has ridiculously been judged inimitable, when, in fact, its language, style, and its much-vaunted ‘eloquence’ are far from being faultless. Custom, tradition, and intellectual laziness lead men to follow their religious leaders blindly. Religions have been the sole cause of the bloody wars that have ravaged mankind. Religions have also been resolutely hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research. The so-called holy scriptures are worthless and have done more harm than good, whereas the writings of the ancients like Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, and Hippocrates have rendered much greater service to humanity.â€
“The people who gather round the religious leaders are either feeble-minded, or they are women and adolescents. Religion stifles truth and fosters enmity. If a book in itself constitutes a demonstration that it is true revelation, the treatises of geometry, astronomy, medicine and logic can justify such a claim much better than the Quranâ€.
What a great mind, great thinker. By birth he was a muslim and
Arab.
You and your Razi are both sexist!
Proof? “The people who gather round the religious leaders are either feeble-minded, or they are women and adolescents.”
Other than that, Halim, I agree that philosophy is a safer way than religion. And so is science.
But what do you do with science in the absence of ethics and empathy, a thing that initially all religions were trying to do (civilise people). You get an Einstein who discoveres atomic power and then you get a power-driven democratically chosen president willing to ‘test’ it on Japan.
Lamer: though I am an advocate of religion here (probably the only one?!), you should consider the fact that Ethics can do exist without religion. there are too many examples, either individually (like what u mentioned) or systematically.
I know: Ethics is a branch of philosophy.
I am not trying to debunk religion and I said science and philosophy may be ’safer’, not better. Hm, I have to think a bit why I said that…but my mintes here are counted.
Listen, I will give the example of a state (a country) that promoted exclusively science and materialist philosophy: the case of Communist USSR and other other countries in the Communist block (Romania, for instance). To the point that people were punished for going to church — most did though and because churches were considered historical monuments and part of the Patrimony, they remained open. This happened in countries with a long Christian tradition. Instead of icons and representations of saints what do you think was out there in your nose all the time? The picture of the Communist dictator. I must say, after having lived under such a regime for a number of years, I can attest to its lack of ’soul’, real care, respect and empathy for its people. Marxism and the scientific revolution, that’s all we were hearing about. Marxism is good only in capitalist democratic socities such as France. It helps raising class consciousness and fosters critical thinking but it doesn’t work as a ‘regime’ . And so is the ’scientific revolution’ if you turn it iknto a ‘religion’. Halim should keep his dictatorial drive to himself. And he shouldn’t forget the Renaissance in the Muslim world — when Muslim Arab scholars transalted Greek philosophy texts for the entire Arab world that included many non-Arab, non-Muslim areas. He shouldn’t forget what Christians did either when for instance Jesuit and Dominican monks and nuns established great educational centers and taught science to generations of Christian kids. He should not forget men in prison who regret their crimes and who turn to Allah or receive Christ in their souls in the most private and most wonderful way. So, science is great but the depth of the human soul especially in such heavy times need something that science alone cannot offer: LOVE.
just to mention he was Iranian if lamer is not gonna think I am racist:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhazes
No, leila. I think you are a patriot. And I think every nation should prise its intellectuals, its artists, its thinkers. Just don’t sasy they are better than others of equal stature just because they are Iranian, ok?
Bye to all of you! I have to go and meet Rasha and Wafa in a nice cafe doentown Riyadh! And this is REAL!
out of Reality (either in a downtown cafe or elsewhere), Love is the only thing for which there is no proof, but almost everybody has a personal experience of it, and it is Good and Delicious in almost every case, even when it is painful!
Surrendered!
Surrender, what else can one do? Give? Not the gift that takes away but the gift that gives of itself?
Love can be nurturing, but it can also be devouring (love kills the ego). Stay away from narcissists, maniacs and from father-figures who claim to “know it all.” I guess atheists would be a safe bet?
Kiddin’. I had a great time with Saudi Rasha, right here in the heart of Riyadh. The town was suddently beautiful filled as it was with beautiful women in black .
They are the Arab scholers. The religeon they inherrited by birth
had nothing to do with their contribution to the different field of
human endeavour. In their thoughts, deeds and philosophy they
defied the religeous teaching as total garbage. Even if they would born in the family of other faith or no faith system, it would make no difference. The knowledge they contributed by placing reason over revealation. It is the ploy of dogmatic believer to glorify particular religeon for someone’s achievement.
In this business muslims are at the forefront.
Thousands of He-gods and she-gods was invented by thousands
of mortals from time immemorial. Muslim god Allah was picked up
by Muhammad from the pantheon of pagan gods statued in kaba temple. The religeon brought immense suffering to mankind since
masculin god started to speak, sending messages, forcing mortals to worship and follow his orders under threat. Prior to the
advent of monotheism all gods were deaf and dumb. They issued no dictatorial order to worship and follow. So there was no war for religeous supremacy.
“It is the ploy of dogmatic believer to glorify particular religeon for someone’s achievement.”
Now that’s an excellent point.And I hope we were not talking about dogmas here.
On the same logic, it is the ploy of an enraged atheist to argue that all the bad stuff comes from religion. After all, there are plenty of philosophers from Plato to Kant and going through Spinoza (who believed God is Nature, by the way) who did not dismiss that easily the idea of God. Scientists put this idea under brakets, some dismiss it simply because it doesn’t help in scientific research. But at the poetic heart of things there is always a mistery and Einstein himself recognized it when he said:
” The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenatrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties – this knowledge, this feeling… that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself amoung profoundly religious men.” — Albert Einstein
Halim said: “It is the ploy of dogmatic believer to glorify particular religeon for someone’s achievement.”
Now that’s a good point. And I hope we are not talking about dogma-s here.
By the same logic however, you cannot blame everything that gows wrong in the world on religion (particularly Islam) either…because then, your thinking would be quite dogmatic.
Scientists put the idea of God under brakets because they are concerned with the natural world and because they strive to be unbiased when they conduct research.
Perhaps Einstein understood better what lies at the heart of the human heart than you understand right now?
“The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenatrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties – this knowledge, this feeling… that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself amoung profoundly religious men.” — Albert Einstein
Halim says: “masculin god started to speak, sending messages, forcing mortals to worship and follow his orders under threat.”
Hm…I wonder if this was a translation and if it was meant to civilise people at a time of great confusion and dispersion, of tribal wars and lack of direction … rather than threaten them… Just a random thought.
As a woman and a free thinker I do have problems with the HE/HIM address in the Bible but I learned to juggle with this notion and to try to see beyond it. Anyway, religion is not my turf; people and their struggles are and so are the misteries that bond people of very different cultures together.
By the way, I am learning to differentiate between Islam and Islamicism on this site.
Back to Einstein’s quote.
I feel safe and secure with the concept of god and religeon of Einstein. At least his god is not forcing me to worship,consume halal food, slit the throat of apostate like Abdel karim, join in jihad to expand his kingdom of rein.
What a lovely god. Atheists will be tempted to follow and worship
his god. What’s about you lamar?
lamer Says:”there is a lot more public recognition of Mary as a central inspirational figure.”
I doubt that Mary has changed much or increased in her importance in the RCC. After all, she is the anti-woman figure. Not really a woman at all but a misogynistic male’s view of what women ought to be.
lamer Says:I will venture to trust that the Koran (not its prescriptive parts, but its poetic core) has an integrated, open view (that can be subsumed as ‘feminine’”
Why do you think that? Why do you think that the “poetic” bits (which I assume means “the bits that White leftists like”) is the core and not the prescriptive bits?
lamer Says:It started with the women’s liberatation movement in the US and in France, went through a very raw form where women were basically fighting for their rights AGAINST men, and now that kind of feminism is pase, and both women and men are tuning into more relational and connected ways of approaching reailty, and that is considered a mother-like, more feminine framework.”
Well this is not relevant to anything much but I would disagree with that. Feminism seems to me to have gone through a denial of femininity phase where women tried to be as like men as possible, to one where they tried to be ultra-women (lesbians in fact) to one where feminism is basically dead and women are returning to traditional values. But that is just me.
lamer Says:”‘Civilazation’ by the way was not achieved peacefully.”
I doubt it but I don’t see the relevance.
lamer Says:”Civilazation is a very masculine term grounded in separation from ‘mother nature’ and in the idea of superiority of the (male Western) conquerer over the ‘native’ or, in the case of Ancient Greece (where it comes from) on the superiority of the Athenians over the Barbarians. I suggest that you browse through a famous book of French feminism, history and psychoanalysis written by Julia Kristeva called “Strangers to Ourselves†to see how ‘women’, Barbarians, Arabs and anything marginal to a male dominated civilization has been considered subversive, inferior or simply strange throughout the ‘history of civilizationâ€.”
Actually that just looks like pop-Marxist psychoanalytic nonsense. Mother nature? Nature is as often represented as male and wild as female. Indeed the Greeks represented nature with Bacchus. The era of Mother Nature is the period of nature being tame. No one thinks of the jungle or the desert being female, but the French countryside. Naturally the concept of the civilised suggests the uncivilised. That is hardly masculine but a fact of nature.
Now what the relevance of all this is, is another question.
Since I chose that particular quote, I subscribe to it. There are many other similar notions written by mystics from very different religions. I just think that if we need to worship, we’d better worship in silence (the prayer of the heart) or in the silence of writing — the kind of intimate inspirational writing that for instance Rumi (Sufi mystic and poet) delivers into the world.
For the rest, God bless the atheists. They’re down to earth, practical beings and much of the world’s matters lie on their shoulders.
Sorry, didn’t see HeiGou’s comment. My previous reply was for Halim.
OK, HeiGou, you know it better babe, you know it all. It seems to me that you are highly judgemental. You seem to assume that I am Marxist, leftist, White, a confused feminist or perhaps woman who makes irrelevant remarks. And before you hasten to equivalate Julia Kristeva’s writing with “pop-Marxist psychoanalytic nonsense”, read her. Read Helene Cixous as well, read Jacques Derrida or the critique of mass-production and mass-seduction in the writings of Baudrillard and decide whether you can associate such figures with any pop-. And before you speak for women, tell us please, are you a woman? Cause that would come as a surprise for me.
You doubt that civilization was not achieved peacefully. One minor example: didn’t civilized French, English and Spaniards decimate (or almost) the native-Americans? Didn’t they look down at their rituals and ways of living? Didn’t Christian missionaries civilize them by replacing their language and identity with something….more civilized? There are native-Americans in Canada (I spoke with many) who go through a huge loss (their language) and through such a heavy identity struggle that most turned to alcohol in those stupid rezervations that civilized people deemed them worthy of. Of course Canada is trying to repair such mistakes and created `the state of Nunavut for matives, giving back some land and some recognition to civilized uncivilized.
In the long run, yes, the world got more civilized and progressed in all directions, even to the point of ecological failure, and that is a repecution of civilzation as well.
All I am saying here is that “Civilization’ is a heavy term that is not devoid of contradictions. It’s been overused by those who claim to ‘have it’ and to ‘know it all’. Whenever one frowns and looks down at another culture using the word ‘uncivilized’, we should draw an alarm bell. Arabs are uncivilized, for sure because they eat rice with their hands and sit on their rugs in the dust of the desert, right?
Of course, I often wish that everybody was as civilized as … Switzerland and Sweeden, to give but two examples. But the world offers a huge diversity. And right now, other than peace and respect, preserving diversity is all I care about.
To answer your comment on Christian Mary, I think that the fact the Christian church praises openly Mary is a step in a direction that I do not venture to guess now. People make the faith, so it is their need, their desire. In fact there was an interesting article in TIME magazine (March 2005) called ‘Hail Mary’ and bringing devote Western Christians as well as priests to talk about this change. You say that Mary is “Not really a woman at all but a misogynistic male’s view of what women ought to be.”
To a certain extent you are right. But Mary is the figure of a girl — and that’s part of any woman’s history. She is also a maternal figure and impersonates the mother and also the mother who looses her child. I am not reducing women to these sides only but some of those who go through this process certainly can find strength in a figure like Mary. I am not going to be the one who denies the experience of girlhood and maternity from women, maybe you do? This is not all women are, of course. Do men prefer them in these positions? We don’t care`that much anymore. I for one do not care what men prefer when it comes to women. I guess they prefer a mother-like figure at home and a wild woman outside. And women can be comfortably both. I do believe that motherhood is at the core of a women’s experience though, that it is an essential part of how women experience themselves and others (because we are traveresed by the other, we bear the other within ourselves physically and then we take care of the other and let go of “it” eventually and that always is felt as a loss.)
Anyway, my point is that the figure of Mary is but one figure of feminity who deserves attention.
Now, what in the world were we discussing? Atheists? Religious dogmatism? Civilization? Women’s issues? The Arab world. By the way, where are you living, HeiGou?
lamer Says:”And before you hasten to equivalate Julia Kristeva’s writing with “pop-Marxist psychoanalytic nonsenseâ€, read her. Read Helene Cixous as well, read Jacques Derrida or the critique of mass-production and mass-seduction in the writings of Baudrillard and decide whether you can associate such figures with any pop-. And before you speak for women, tell us please, are you a woman? Cause that would come as a surprise for me.”
OK. I apologise for the “pop”.
Since when did I claim to speak for anyone but myself?
lamer Says:”You doubt that civilization was not achieved peacefully. One minor example: didn’t civilized French, English and Spaniards decimate (or almost) the native-Americans?”
Perhaps they did. But civilisation was not created where the decimation was going on, nor by the people doing it. It was being created in Europe. Building an Empire and creating a civilisation are not precisely the same thing.
lamer Says:”In the long run, yes, the world got more civilized and progressed in all directions, even to the point of ecological failure, and that is a repecution of civilzation as well.”
There is no evidence of ecological failure, and of course it is science that makes us aware of that fact. Look at the environmental devastation and ecological collapsed caused by the concentration on goat herding in the Muslim Mediterranean world. They were not aware of it because they lacked the scientists to tell them.
lamer Says:”All I am saying here is that “Civilization’ is a heavy term that is not devoid of contradictions.”
Well, OK. I don’t see anyone disputing it.
lamer Says:”Arabs are uncivilized, for sure because they eat rice with their hands and sit on their rugs in the dust of the desert, right?”
I don’t see anyone making that claim either. But a lot of Arabs who either behead people on the internet or watch them or support them are highly uncivilised and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.
lamer Says:”But the world offers a huge diversity. And right now, other than peace and respect, preserving diversity is all I care about.”
Even if that means preserving barbarity? If you could prevent all Female Genital Mutilation tomorrow would you or would you preserve it in the interests of diversity?
lamer Says:”But Mary is the figure of a girl — and that’s part of any woman’s history.”
She is a statue of a female figure. I don’t see how that is part of anyone’s history.
lamer Says:”She is also a maternal figure and impersonates the mother and also the mother who looses her child.”
Well that part is true but she is a very unusual Mother who looses her child.
lamer Says:”I do believe that motherhood is at the core of a women’s experience though, that it is an essential part of how women experience themselves and others”
Except that the Virgin Mary denies the essential first step on that path – sex.
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”remember that most of the scientific problems have not been solved yet. yes, scientist strongly hope that they might some day find enough data to support a ‘world without God’, but today is not that day.”
Most problems? Well the number of potential problems is probably infinite. So far religion has done little but impede scientists in solving any problems at all. Some scientists might like to find evidence of God, but I think those tiny minority will be waiting for a long time. They may also find proof of God’s non-existence. Who knows? What is for sure is that science is slowly restricting the area of religion all the time. Sensible religions no long make any claims scientists can check. That indicates an attitude towards the confidence of the religious in their own claims.
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”massive induction never amounts to proof. in the case of “four color theorem“, computers were used to check finite cases of possible counter-examples. induction in a very special case can be an exact proof, and that can not be applied to this discussion. but you are true that induction “is certainly grounds for leaning one way rather than another.—
In formal terms, these days, it may not. I don’t know. The four color proof relied on the checking of a lot of possible examples. Induction is perhaps not the right word as I don’t mean the mathematical use of that term.
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”the same way I (prefer to) believe in God, I believe in the Free Will he granted the human kinds with. indeed, everybody must have the right to choose, even to choose that there is no God. they should never be denied of their basic rights in society.”
How do you reconcile that with being a Muslim though? Surely there is no Free Will in Islam in that God knows and has decided what you are going to do?
But let’s hope we can all agree that atheists like anyone else should not be deprived of their basic rights, such as their life, simply because of what they believe.
“Except that the Virgin Mary denies the essential first step on that path – sex.” LOL!
But maybe, just maybe, sex can accommodate the notion of spirituality too? Sex as in interpenetration and union. Maybe the mind is virgin when a radical thought enters it? Maybe a mind can be so humble and devoid of ego drives that a radical thought of extreme beauty can lie there and bring a new world to life? Maybe the Immaculate Conception can be interpreted in many ways, while still remaining a mystery in a world of obsessive unveiling and obscene truths? My mind is not that immaculate to be able to deliver echumenical mysteries. But if they unveil themselves in the hearts of so many people, I am not going to be the one ripping them apart. That’s exactly why I cannot hit a Muslim in the heart. The only problem I see appears when people forget about the fact that religious truths are symbolic. When one fails to see Islam or Israel as an inner land, then…check the massacres out.
“She is a statue of a female figure. I don’t see how that is part of anyone’s history.” LOL! And yet civilization is built upon statues, commemorative monuments, emblems, heroical figures, all the excess called ‘culture’.
“Even if that means preserving barbarity? If you could prevent all Female Genital Mutilation tomorrow would you or would you preserve it in the interests of diversity?” THANKS FOR SAYING THIS! I talked a lot about abuse in previous fora and I would never claim that diversity should accomodate abuse and crimes of any kind.
For the rest, I kinda agree with what you’re saying.
Here’s a few more insightful quotes from Mr. Einstein:
“It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.” — Albert Einstein
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” — Albert Einstein
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” — Albert Einstein
Lamer:
you are going through some sorts of debated I have no idea of! sorry if I cant get along with you. indeed, I was very eager to be a companion of yours.
HeiGou:
Thanks to God (if he exists) we are now very close to an agreement.
just few points, again:
1) you said:
this is your interpretation of the current status/ongoing efforts. it may not be true. a believer may interpret it as getting closer to the ultimate point of surrender. though Im not an expert of this field, recommend you to check the current situation of ‘free will’, ‘causation’ (and, ‘things or events which dont have any cause’), ‘origin of the universe’, ‘certainity’, etc.
I think chances are that one day scientists end up as finding that there cant be any scientific discription/justification for some of these phenomenons, or even prove that science can’t justify a materialist view at all, even if it tries several milleniums.
2) you said:
your quote is somehow ambiguous: I consider 2 possible meanings (I) and (II)
(I) you might mean that there is not such a thing like ‘free will’ in Islam, and due to the fact that God knows what we are going to do, we can not disobey it at all, and we must follow ‘what god knows formerly’, then we are not able to ‘choose’ freely.
if it was what you meant, you should know that there is a very huge body of debates over this subject in Islam’s history. indeed some branches believe that there is not a ‘free will’ and we all are forced to follow what is prescibed for us. some others claim the other side, and bring some arguments to support their own idea. discussing this subject needs a separate room.
(II) though the (I) is more probably what u meant, I consider the 2nd option which is: how can I tolerate others disobeying God as a muslim? and the answer is clear. then, plz set what you meant.
3) (where are you from? chinese, japanese, etc?)
[...] with a Middle Eastern Atheist MidEast Youth conducted an interview with Arabic Atheist to pose the question: “Is Islam driving its youth [...]
I think HeiGou was refering to the idea of free will as in free choice (even the choice of not believing in God, as you said).
How do you reconciliate free choice with being Muslim? How can you be Muslim and wonder whether God exists or not?
What does being Muslim mean to you?
Does being Muslim accomodate the idea of being tolerant to atheists?
Gosh, I hope this doesn’t sound like an attack. It’s just that very open “I wonder…” attitude, at least on my side.
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”this is your interpretation of the current status/ongoing efforts. it may not be true. a believer may interpret it as getting closer to the ultimate point of surrender. though Im not an expert of this field, recommend you to check the current situation of ‘free will’, ‘causation’ (and, ‘things or events which dont have any cause’), ‘origin of the universe’, ‘certainity’, etc.”
I think it is the only reasonable interpretation of the current status. Certainly it is the case in the West. Issues such as Free will may have problems, but causation is a hands down victory to the scientists as is origins of the Universe. Certainty is an interesting one but as much as theologians and philosophers discuss such things (as with free will) it is the scientists who have put hard evidence on the table.
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”I think chances are that one day scientists end up as finding that there cant be any scientific discription/justification for some of these phenomenons, or even prove that science can’t justify a materialist view at all, even if it tries several milleniums.”
That would be a miracle. However there this is not the case at the present nor is there any sign that it is likely to be the case in the foreseeable future. So God remains an unnecessary postulate for science. I think God will remain so but you never know.
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”(I) you might mean that there is not such a thing like ‘free will’ in Islam, and due to the fact that God knows what we are going to do, we can not disobey it at all, and we must follow ‘what god knows formerly’, then we are not able to ‘choose’ freely.”
Yes that is what I meant.
Mohammad M. (Iran) Says:”if it was what you meant, you should know that there is a very huge body of debates over this subject in Islam’s history. indeed some branches believe that there is not a ‘free will’ and we all are forced to follow what is prescibed for us. some others claim the other side, and bring some arguments to support their own idea. discussing this subject needs a separate room.”
I am dimly aware of the debate in Islamic history and it seems to me that the “no free will” school has won hands down. It is a logical consequence of God being all knowing. Islam takes this to an extreme. May I ask if you think you can do something other than what God decided in the moment of creating the Universe what you were going to do? Can you surprise Him?
This just in on the news. Iran has got its shorts in a knot because Salman Rushdie’s knighthood. How can anyone defend these intellectually challenged pissants?
The fatwah is till on. Respect Islamic leaders? Not now, not ever.
What does knighthood has to do with intellectuality? Knighthood is the symbol of oppression. It represent 400 years of slavery and subjection to some of us.
I agree 100 percent with the stupidity of the knighthood thing. It’s the intellectual poverty of those who want to kill those with which the disagree to which I am referring. Sorry, I thought that was clear.
infidel57 Says:”This just in on the news. Iran has got its shorts in a knot because Salman Rushdie’s knighthood. How can anyone defend these intellectually challenged pissants? The fatwah is till on. Respect Islamic leaders? Not now, not ever.”
If I were a paranoid person, or at least more paranoid than I am, I might think that they are doing it deliberately to wind the Iranians up.
Jina Says:”What does knighthood has to do with intellectuality? Knighthood is the symbol of oppression. It represent 400 years of slavery and subjection to some of us.”
Well no. I think it represents the successful teaching of hate and general anti-Western feeling. It has nothing to do with slavery or subjection and if it did, the British Empire would still be preferable (or at worst equal to) Muslim rule in Spain. I don’t hear many people complaining about that. Let it go.
infidel57 Says:”It’s the intellectual poverty of those who want to kill those with which the disagree to which I am referring.”
Ahh but the original article has a comment by an Arab atheist pointing out that some Muslims think it is their religious duty to murder him. When does this become an example of the banality of evil? Are we all so bored by this we no longer get outraged by the suggestion? What is to be said about the intellectual poverty of people who find words on the page offensive and worthy of death but laud suicide bombers and beheaders? Ahmadinejad finally stopped using euphemisms the other day and explicitly condemned Jews, Christians (not extremists among same) Judaism and Christianity. Anyone hear a word of complaint? Which American Senator used to talk of defining depravity down?
HeiGou:
ok! I must admit that I already dont have any answer for what you (and many others) claim about the satus of ‘free will’ in Islam and how we can justify/rationally support it. indeed Ive read too many original resources of muslim scholars about it, and my conclusion till now is that the main arguments of Free-Willers is useful just for those who believe in the religion and God, not for disbelievers. (you know what they say: since the God promises heaven and hell for good- and bad-doers, then one can conclude that we are granted with free-will, cuz the otherwise, either reward or punishment for those who have not the right to choose would be meaningless/unfair).
on the other hand, I think you have the same problem with certainity, isn’t it so? do you believe in certainity or not? both yes and no lead to the problem of having 1/more thing/things which has/have no special cause. and how the science is able to justify such a thing? I dont know if there is any.
and, I asked where you are from, plz?
Lamer:
if we really believe that God granted us with ‘free will’ and ‘freedom to choose’, and he created the heaven and hell for good- and bad-doers, then we must let everybody to choose between goodness and badness. otherwise, God’s grant (free will) and creations (heaven and hell) would be meaningless.
there are too many other ideas from Quran which support this idea that everybody must be allowed to choose, while the goodness and badness are frankly distinguished.
[...] Esra’a of MideastYouth recently interviewed an Arab athiest about being Arab and athiest: Q: Which goes to show how culture and society aren’t entirely representative of religion. A: The problem with us is that censorship created a different culture. Even if the government gives you rights to practice any religion freely you will still find trouble fitting in especially if you’re an insider. Like I said with me being an Arab, I feel like I lost 99% of my identity because I’m not Muslim. I know the situation is different in Lebanon and Jordan where non-Muslim Arabs are accepted but with me in the Gulf it’s really different. [...]
Hi Esra’a
I’m going to post the Italian translation (thanks to Antonella!) of this interview on http://www.dalMondo.info.
Thanks for it, it’s really interesting.
All the best
[...] Was wondering whether to start a new thread or not but thought, what the hey – it can go here… this interview of muslim turned atheist makes fascinating reading – well worth it. feel free to comment. Theres hope for [...]
presence of Allah proof for atheists
PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH (SWT) TO AN ATHEIST
by Dr. Zakir Naik
CONGRATULATING AN ATHEIST
Normally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to
congratulate him and say, ” My special congratulations to you”,
because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief –
he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu,
because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world
are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on
the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses
his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or
qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be
logical to him.
My Muslim brothers may question me, “Zakir, why are you congratulating
an atheist?” The reason that I am congratulating an atheist is because
he agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed,
‘La ilaaha’ – meaning ‘there is no God’. So half my job is already
done; now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT ALLAH’ which I
shall do Insha Allah. With others (who are not atheists) I have to
first remove from their minds the wrong concept of God they may have
and then put the correct concept of one true God.
LOGICAL CONCEPT OF GOD
My first question to the atheist will be: “What is the definition of
God?” For a person to say there is no God, he should know what is the
meaning of God. If I hold a book and say that ‘this is a pen’, for the
opposite person to say, ‘it is not a pen’, he should know what is the
definition of a pen, even if he does not know nor is able to recognise
or identify the object I am holding in my hand. For him to say this is
not a pen, he should at least know what a pen means. Similarly for an
atheist to say ‘there is no God’, he should at least know the concept
of God. His concept of God would be derived from the surroundings in
which he lives. The god that a large number of people worship has got
human qualities – therefore he does not believe in such a god.
Similarly a Muslim too does not and should not believe in such false
gods.
If a non-Muslim believes that Islam is a merciless religion with
something to do with terrorism; a religion which does not give rights
to women; a religion which contradicts science; in his limited sense
that non-Muslim is correct to reject such Islam. The problem is he has
a wrong picture of Islam. Even I reject such a false picture of Islam,
but at the same time, it becomes my duty as a Muslim to present the
correct picture of Islam to that non-Muslim i.e. Islam is a merciful
religion, it gives equal rights to the women, it is not incompatible
with logic, reason and science; if I present the correct facts about
Islam, that non-Muslim may Inshallah accept Islam.
Similarly the atheist rejects the false gods and the duty of every
Muslim is to present the correct concept of God which he shall Insha
Allah not refuse.
(You may refer to my article, ‘Concept of God in Islam’, for more
details)
QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE
The methods of proving the existence of God with usage of the material
provided in the ‘Concept of God in Islam’ to an atheist may satisfy
some but not all.
Many atheists demand a scientific proof for the existence of God. I
agree that today is the age of science and technology. Let us use
scientific knowledge to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. to prove
the existence of God and simultaneously prove that the Qur’an is a
revelation of God.
If a new object or a machine, which no one in the world has ever seen
or heard of before, is shown to an atheist or any person and then a
question is asked, ” Who is the first person who will be able to
provide details of the mechanism of this unknown object? After little
bit of thinking, he will reply, ‘the creator of that object.’ Some may
say ‘the producer’ while others may say ‘the manufacturer.’ What ever
answer the person gives, keep it in your mind, the answer will always
be either the creator, the producer, the manufacturer or some what of
the same meaning, i.e. the person who has made it or created it. Don’t
grapple with words, whatever answer he gives, the meaning will be
same, therefore accept it.
SCIENTIFIC FACTS MENTIONED IN THE QUR’AN: for details on this subject
please refer to my book, ‘THE QUR’AN AND MODERN SCIENCE – COMPATIBLE
OR INCOMPATIBLE?
THEORY OF PROBABILITY
In mathematics there is a theory known as ‘Theory of Probability’. If
you have two options, out of which one is right, and one is wrong, the
chances that you will chose the right one is half, i.e. one out of the
two will be correct. You have 50% chances of being correct. Similarly
if you toss a coin the chances that your guess will be correct is 50%
(1 out of 2) i.e. 1/2. If you toss a coin the second time, the chances
that you will be correct in the second toss is again 50% i.e. half.
But the chances that you will be correct in both the tosses is half
multiplied by half (1/2 x 1/2) which is equal to 1/4 i.e. 50% of 50%
which is equal to 25%. If you toss a coin the third time, chances that
you will be correct all three times is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2) that is 1/8
or 50% of 50% of 50% that is 12½%.
A dice has got six sides. If you throw a dice and guess any number
between 1 to 6, the chances that your guess will be correct is 1/6. If
you throw the dice the second time, the chances that your guess will
be correct in both the throws is (1/6 x 1/6) which is equal to 1/36.
If you throw the dice the third time, the chances that all your three
guesses are correct is (1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6) is equal to 1/216 that is
less than 0.5 %.
Let us apply this theory of probability to the Qur’an, and assume that
a person has guessed all the information that is mentioned in the
Qur’an which was unknown at that time. Let us discuss the probability
of all the guesses being simultaneously correct.
At the time when the Qur’an was revealed, people thought the world was
flat, there are several other options for the shape of the earth. It
could be triangular, it could be quadrangular, pentagonal, hexagonal,
heptagonal, octagonal, spherical, etc. Lets assume there are about 30
different options for the shape of the earth. The Qur’an rightly says
it is spherical, if it was a guess the chances of the guess being
correct is 1/30.
The light of the moon can be its own light or a reflected light. The
Qur’an rightly says it is a reflected light. If it is a guess, the
chances that it will be correct is 1/2 and the probability that both
the guesses i.e the earth is spherical and the light of the moon is
reflected light is 1/30 x 1/2 = 1/60.
Further, the Qur’an also mentions every living thing is made of water.
Every living thing can be made up of either wood, stone, copper,
aluminum, steel, silver, gold, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, oil, water,
cement, concrete, etc. The options are say about 10,000. The Qur’an
rightly says that everything is made up of water. If it is a guess,
the chances that it will be correct is 1/10,000 and the probability of
all the three guesses i.e. the earth is spherical, light of moon is
reflected light and everything is created from water being correct is
1/30 x 1/2 x 1/10,000 = 1/60,000 which is equal to about .0017%.
The Qur’an speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men
at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .
0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the
hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them
being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single
wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses
without a single mistake, which itself is sufficient to prove to a
logical person that the origin of the Qur’an is Divine.
CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QUR’AN
The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned
all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered,
is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any
person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able
to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the ‘CREATOR’, the
producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents. In
the English language He is ‘God’, or more appropriate in the Arabic
language, ‘ALLAH’.
QUR’AN IS A BOOK OF SIGNS AND NOT SCIENCE
Let me remind you that the Qur’an is not a book of Science, ‘S-C-I-E-N-
C-E’ but a book of Signs ‘S-I-G-N-S’ i.e. a book of ayaats. The Qur’an
contains more than 6,000 ayaats, i.e. ’signs’, out of which more than
a thousand speak about Science. I am not trying to prove that the
Qur’an is the word of God using scientific knowledge as a yard stick
because any yardstick is supposed to be more superior than what is
being checked or verified. For us Muslims the Qur’an is the Furqan
i.e. criteria to judge right from wrong and the ultimate yardstick
which is more superior to scientific knowledge.
But for an educated man who is an atheist, scientific knowledge is the
ultimate test which he believes in. We do know that science many a
times takes ‘U’ turns, therefore I have restricted the examples only
to scientific facts which have sufficient proof and evidence and not
scientific theories based on assumptions. Using the ultimate yardstick
of the atheist, I am trying to prove to him that the Qur’an is the
word of God and it contains the scientific knowledge which is his
yardstick which was discovered recently, while the Qur’an was revealed
1400 year ago. At the end of the discussion, we both come to the same
conclusion that God though superior to science, is not incompatible
with it.
SCIENCE IS ELIMINATING MODELS OF GOD BUT NOT GOD
Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little
knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of
science makes him a believer in God. Scientists today are eliminating
models of God, but they are not eliminating God. If you translate this
into Arabic, it is La illaha illal la, There is no god, (god with a
small ‘g’ that is fake god) but God (with a capital ‘G’).
Surah Fussilat:
“Soon We will show them our signs in the (farthest) regions (of the
earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that
this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all
things?”
[Al-Quran 41:53]
Ok lets go back a bit further in time to the beliefs of the ancient
Egyptians. They were sold on the same tales that Abrehamic religions like
christianity and islam push up to the present day, exept for one caveat,
that is you need you physical body to be preserved to attain immortalty.
The ordinary Egyptian had no chance of this due to expence, while the ruling
classes were able to afford magnificent tombs to preserve their bodies as
mummies which these are at the present day a magnet to thousands of tourist.
In its time the Egyptian book of the dead was a way to survive the afterlife
and in common with its more modern spin offs like the bible and koran could
prove quite expensive to achieve immortality.
Until some god actually shows its face, perhaps we as human beings are
better off not building pyramids of either stone or politics.
[...] with an Arab atheist, Part II Author: Esra’a (Bahrain) – October 6, 2007 Our previous interview with an Arab atheist from the UAE sparked a lot of great discussions. This time I’m interviewing an Arab atheist [...]
i’m not brave to enough to be an atheist…. i’m reading alot of books about it … but i’m kind of agnostic & agnostism these days…
As a Canadian atheist, I am impressed to read this interview. It gives me hope in the youth of the Middle East. The news always covers the negative events, and all the crazy people. I wish all rational, peaceful Muslims success in reducing the power of the corrupt, the violent, and the evil who live among them. I also wish that all atheists had the confidence to just state bluntly that they do not believe in any gods, and that they follow no religion. This isn’t always easy . . . in Bahrain or here in Canada! Atheism won’t end all our problems and our wars, but it would take away the thing that does the most to cause them – religion.
Against christianity and islam.Anarchy now!Its very good tosee people to disagree with the relegions that are responsible for the death of a lot of people!
al-qur’an will bring us to the edge of our thought Muhammad pbh was just a mechine that creator does choses to receive and to delver to every thing; I’m sure
As an atheist New Zealander, I want to echo Drew’s sentiments.
I really believe that this work is as important as that of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr, and could be equally liberating for Arab societies!
Great to see this flower blooming in the desert
PS. Is it hard getting things done when you have to pray so often?