Is it really so black and white...?.
-
Peace all. I have noticed that in many discussions there are problems regarding how to 'commonly' define words such as god,scripture,prophet etc...
For example a religious person might say i believe in god (a higher power.) scripture (books of wisdom.) prophets, (men of wisdom and political expertise.) and good deeds. (practical application of human justice,to create peace and harmony.)
The atheist/secular person might say i believe in a higher power (nature.) ,books of wisdom, (scientific and philosophical research.) leaders, (political reformers.) and morality. (practical application of human justice,to create peace and harmony.)My question is that,are the two sides ('atheist' and 'believer'.) really so far apart in their theories?
-
Salaamun alaikum,
EnquirerMy question is that,are the two sides ('atheist' and 'believer'.) really so far apart in their theories?
If your 'athiest' doesn't believe in the other existence, then yes it's quite far apart. It's the accountability which provides the ultimate teleological edifice for believers (at least, believers in al-quraan and judeo-christian-sunni religions). The athiest would always have to face up to the 'virtue-in-itself' absurdity.
-
Peace all. An atheist can recognise 'consequences' and be accountable/responsible for his deeds as well....I dont know of any atheists that dont recognise the power of nature,or powers outside of themselves...And atheists dont all go around believing they will never be caught for deeds/crimes they may commit...They may get 'punishments' from other humans and from nature....In the form of jail/loss of freedom or disease/suffering...
-
Yes, consequences but not ultimate consequences. Suffering for all time isn't a pleasant thought. In my view, the human being needs to engage with the inevitabilities of decline and death in order to stimulate his 'existential muscles' . It is from this that ethics is born because such a deep contemplation of being would result in discovering the true place of virtue and goodness.
-
Hello Public
I would like to add a comment to this subject
While the two groups (Believers and Atheists) look the same as described by enq, they are actually worlds apart if we consider the belief in the picture
The belief is important because this is possibly the only thing we have been created for, so to drop that possibility is indeed a silly act by those who are looking for the truth, the Quran told us many times that if you are not a believer then your good deeds will be useless in the JD, it also stressed to us many times that humans were created by God for only to worship Him, worshipping Him is achieved by two acts that can?t be separated, the deeds towards other humans and the deed towards Allah message.
But if we try to apply a bit of science unto this issue we can clearly see that the Atheists and similar are the clear cut losers
Now let?s work the chances of a believer against the chances of an atheist
Let?s also assume for argument sake that there are 4 possible religions that claim there is a God and that God is One, those religions are
- Hinduism
- Judaism
- Christianity
- Islam
Let?s now add Atheism to the above 4, each one will have a probability, let?s make all of them equal, i.e.
- Hinduism 20%
- Judaism 20%
- Christianity 20%
- Islam 20%
- Atheism 20%
I.e. there is a 20% chance for each of the above 5 probabilities to be true
All the first 4 say that there will be severe punishment for the rejectors, as well will be a generous reward for the followers
Atheism on the other hand say there is nothing after death, i.e. there is no punishment nor reward
-> Now let?s assume there is a God
The chance of a believer in any of those religions to be severely punished will be 60%
The chance of an atheist will be 80% (a clear cut loser indeed)
See, The believer is 20% better off
Now for the reward, a believer will have 20% chance
And the Atheist will have 0 chance, (a clear cut loser indeed)
-> Now if there is no God
Well, who cares about chances here?, the believer and the atheist will be safe i.e. non existents any more after death
-> If we consider the chance of a God existence is 50% then the final chances for the believer and the atheist should be
A believer will have ? * 3/5 = 3/10 = 30% chance to be punished
An atheist will have ? * 4/5 = 4/10 = 40% chance to be punished (a clear cut loser still)
See how a believer will always be in better situation based on science, LOL
The ironic note is this
If there is no god, what the hell a believer lost?, nothing for sure, he/she may even had a better life than an atheist, I mean a believer may have resources in life that enabled him/her to enjoy it better than an atheist while keeping the faith in God
Clearly a God rejector has 40% chance (10% more than a believer chance) to be humiliated bad with no chance of winning even if there is no God, they are the ultimate losers in my eyes, and for me they earned the title Dumb very well, and this sits them world apart from the believers who submitted to the One and only God
Peace all
-
Peace 'ultimate' consequences are excellent to think about....An atheist doesnt have to reject 'ultimate consequences'....However the religious/scriptural methods of determining 'ultimate consequences' are sometimes 'unscientific',unrealistic,arbitrary,illogical, and are largely based upon 'faith' or even 'blind' faith...
I think people are entitled to live their lives with whatever 'probability factors' they deem rational and moral...It is said that 33% of marriages in the UK (or possibly more.) end up in divorce....Does this mean a person shouldnt even try to get married,because of 'supposedly' unfavourable statistics...?
And when someone actually shows strong PRACTICAL evidence for eternal damnation,then i will take more note...
What if god instead of punishing us eternally,just said 'go back to the world and make amends for the bad you have done'.....Why isnt that probable...? -
Peace
However the religious/scriptural methods of determining 'ultimate consequences' are sometimes 'unscientific',unrealistic,arbitrary,illogical, and are largely based upon 'faith' or even 'blind' faith...
You really think so?
I tend to disagree very much.When e.g you look at al-qur'?n 50/30 you see hell revealing its character as an everconsuming, always hungry and never satisfied entity.
I would say that it is highly logical that people who devote all their life to satisfiyng their selfish hungers and to consummation will - when the subjectivity of this life ends and they face objective truth - end up in an everconsuming and hungering state as well.Has few to do with blind faith, just is what is observable in everday reality for us.
People who give themselves to selfish desires tend to fall into them more and more, making this state firmer with every day.Now you will probably say that not every selfdescribed atheist is someone who only lives for selfish desires.
I would agree.
But not everyone who puts on thelabel of atheist really is a denyer of divine truth. Just as not everyone putting on the label of muslim is a confirmer of divine truth.
Labels can sometimes be misleading here.The true denier of divine truth reveals himself in his non existent confidences and how from that his actions flow, I?d say.
Someone with no confidence in any eternal value and responsibility of good constructive deeds will also only act good in an arbitrary way.
That makes his few good deeds quite meaningless, unfortunately.Regards,
Leyla
-
Peace 'ultimate' consequences are excellent to think about....An atheist doesnt have to reject 'ultimate consequences'....
The athiests i've met and whose writings i've read think we just lose consciousness ala Terminator 2's moment of destruction when we die. I dunno about the athiests you've met.
However the religious/scriptural methods of determining 'ultimate consequences' are sometimes 'unscientific',unrealistic,arbitrary,illogical, and are largely based upon 'faith' or even 'blind' faith...
What you consider as 'science' is information based upon the measurements of given conditions. Science therefore by definition cannot be counted upon to yield information about an existence from which it cannot obtain data. So 'unscientific' may not be a bad attribute after all.
I speak for al-quraan when I say that it relies upon a system of verification of its information based upon signs. One who enters its process is thus taken through an 'observation' ride which instills in him an ever-increasing sense of belief of al-quraan's assertions.
I think people are entitled to live their lives with whatever 'probability factors' they deem rational and moral...
Ok.
It is said that 33% of marriages in the UK (or possibly more.) end up in divorce....Does this mean a person shouldnt even try to get married,because of 'supposedly' unfavourable statistics...?
How does this analogy relate back to our discussion?
And when someone actually shows strong PRACTICAL evidence for eternal damnation,then i will take more note...
It's a pity you prefer to rely on someone else. You will experience decline and death, regardless of whether this someone gives practical evidence or not.
What if god instead of punishing us eternally,just said 'go back to the world and make amends for the bad you have done'.....Why isnt that probable...?
Given the relatively miniscule reports of this phenomena despite the fact that it actually does take place in the world, it is this improbable to me.
-
Peace leyla. I agree with many of the points you make in your post...I did state that SOMETIMES scriptural/religious methods of determining 'ultimate consequences' are illogical,arbitrary etc...Your method seemingly carries some verification with reality,which makes it much more valid...And to be honest you seem to be agreeing with me,that its not soo black and white as labels,or atheist vs believer suggests...
I have much less problem with people who use the scriptures to expand their knowledge and morality by cross-referencing the book with real-life experiences,and real verifications...as opposed to 'blind' or irrational beliefs and/or excuses/justifications for unrealistic dogmas,unverified prejudices,harmful rituals,and illusions. -
EnquirerI have much less problem with people who use the scriptures to expand their knowledge and morality by cross-referencing the book with real-life experiences,and real verifications...
Sadly, it was you who assumed al-quraan didn't propose something similar. Your interpretations of it were yielding a very traditional outlook, unfounded in al-quraan itself.
as opposed to 'blind' or irrational beliefs and/or excuses/justifications for unrealistic dogmas,unverified prejudices,harmful rituals,and illusions.
Please don't think you're above dogmas, prejudices and illusions. For a long time now, you've been extolling the virtues of science and secularism without wanting to analyse the structural make-up of the two. Aren't those dogma and prejudices? Didn't you create illusions for yourself?
-
Peace mquran. I agree with many of your points in your last two posts on this thread.(not all.)
And no,i am not above dogmas and illusions myself,either....I may have been extolling the virtues of 'secularism' and 'science' to some degree,but i am not saying those 'systems' are perfect or 'absolute' for every context...Also we can 'measure' how good these systems are by seeing them at work practically in the real world...
How can we ascertain the real-world effectiveness of the 'complete quranic system',if we dont have any real concrete examples of such a system?...If you think we do have some practical,real-life examples of quranic systems,then please show me them... -
.Peace mquran. I agree with many of your points in your last two posts on this thread.(not all.)
Ok.
And no,i am not above dogmas and illusions myself,either....I may have been extolling the virtues of 'secularism' and 'science' to some degree,but i am not saying those 'systems' are perfect or 'absolute' for every context...
It would be difficult indeed to given the results both have yielded. Science is a tool appropriated by man to interact more efficiently with his world. When it's taken to be beyond that and expected to define the human being, it will not work well.
Also we can 'measure' how good these systems are by seeing them at work practically in the real world...
Agreed, although the benchmarks set may differ. To me, a society without want is certainly part of the ideal, but if it's content to the point of opulence and doesn't reach beyond itself and extend its resources to societies with want, then that society would be triggering God's doom (to use Layth's terminology).
How can we ascertain the real-world effectiveness of the 'complete quranic system',if we dont have any real concrete examples of such a system?...If you think we do have some practical,real-life examples of quranic systems,then please show me them...
That's a fair question and here is my answer Al-quraan requires a direct experience of reality in order to verify and participate in its system. For example, it asserts that if we help those mentioned (the poor, orphans etc), Allah will help us. I can only relate this back to my experiences with people I know who are very generous. These people I see are without want themselves and are often leading full lives. In order for you to verify my words, you must do so yourself (if you havent already done so) and when you do, the signs will be disclosed in the hadith of your life.
-
Peace mquran. An excellent post...I agree that the method of verification by reality/personal experience is very,very useful...
Do you think that a person could come to similiar ideas in agreement with 'quranic' morality,without actually reading/knowing the quran at all? -
Peace mquran. An excellent post...I agree that the method of verification by reality/personal experience is very,very useful...
And undeniable.
Do you think that a person could come to similiar ideas in agreement with 'quranic' morality,without actually reading/knowing the quran at all?
You've asked this before and I either answered or interjected a 'yes'. Al-quraan is tafseel (if you like, a 'what's what' of al-kitaab (10/37). Al-kitaab is the write of humankind in the world. No one can ever escape this writ as surely as no one can escape being human. It'd be best described as a journey. If you need to get point A, you can do so with trial and error or ask people you know or read what people wrote. People who seek guidance from al-quraan are trying to get the details from the one who made the journey.
-
Peace mquran. Once again i agree with a lot of your post....What is it that we differ on?
-
peace enquirer, all
This thread kind of relates to your "are beliefs more important than actions" topic.
There are many people who think they believe in God, but don't. They think they are doing good, but they really aren't. So what people think their beliefs are aren't necessarily their beliefs. True Beliefs are recognized in people's actions.
I agree with you about athiests. A lot of times, people are saying the same thing in (sometimes very) different ways, but the beliefs are the same. You can call GOD whatever you want, but the GOD remains the same.
-
Peace phoenix. I agree almost totally with your post...
I wouldnt go as far as to say that people who claim belief in god dont believe....I just think that their beliefs are sometimes 'skewed' or mistaken...Apart from that point,it would be nice if people had as much tolerance/broad-mindedness as yourself/idolfree etc...,as this would enable us to view humanity as a single 'umma' and not de-humanise or 'brand' others.....People can change,even if their beliefs/dogmas are illogical...And in no way should we 'mistreat' people 'unjustly', because of differences in theoretical opinions,or even different but not harmful behaviours... -
peace enquirer,
I agree.
I don't think just because people don't believe in God they are rejectors because unless they go against the truth, they do believe in God. confused
And people who are willing to change aren't rejectors at all, they are truth seekers.