Ants defeat atheism

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
{1}Ahh, then we have a physically impossible situation. I claim to be muslim, and I think its un-Islamic to be a suicide bomber. Mohammad Atta claimed to be a muslim and thought it was fine. Thus, according to you Islam must both claim suicide bombing is good and bad at the same time (or at least in the same scripture) - and that is physically impossible.

People can pervert science too (OP of this very thread - Sorry Rifat bro) based on their "interpretation" of it.



If valid, that point would suffice alone. If they were content in merely "being and letting others be" they wouldn't mention the untruth that religion is causative with violence. I'm not calling all atheists out on this, many if not most are perfectly friendly folks. But Sam Harris exemplifies the "missionary" type.



{2}That quote is ridiculous...if good people do evil, they aren't good people. Not to mention that in the absence of a moral code, there is no such thing as "good" and "evil" to begin with.

{1)Like all scripture, the Quran is open to interpretation. No one scholar has the final mandate on what a verse may or may not mean. How else do you explain the myriad of sects within Islam? Is it a physical impossibility that Shias and Sunnis exist, then? Do they point at each other and scream "You're wrong and a physical impossibility and thus I must destroy you?!" - Oh, my bad, yes, they do do that.

{2} As the story goes, Abraham almost slaughtered his son because God said so. Was that good or an evil thing to do? Going by the fact that even threatening to kill a child is punishable by law in most countries, let us say that it was an evil thing to do. But religion makes him a shining example of piety and devoutness. That's how "good people do evil."

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by Sohel NR
Disagree. Atheism also has an organized component with its own set of beliefs and evangelical activities. That being said, there are many atheists who do not follow those club rules just as there are theists who don't.

How do you define deity? In the broader conceptual sense, or the narrow sense defined by atheists or some theists for that matter? Why is one more philosophically valid than the other? Can they even be seriously compared without a common denominator or a common definition of "reason" at this age of discrete mathematics, the uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics?

Certain things are unsolvable matters of individual choice, and incredibly complex circumstances that lead to us making those choices.

But then, what is a "Religion" defined as?

Lol, then we are quibbling over semantics, really. Then it doesn't even matter if atheism is a religion or not.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Point taken.



But, you have admit that "burden of proof" is a cop-out used by atheists.Should that be an issue? Is someone on trial? Was a crime committed? Don't like it, leave it. That should be enough.

The atheist allegation that God does NOT exist is just as unproven scientifically as the one that God does exist. Remember, it only takes one thing to disprove something. IMO, only the agnostic/skeptic can claim real bragging rights here as he/she leaves all options open.

Except "not liking it" usually means getting my head chopped off. "not liking it" means being ostracized. "not liking it" means getting denied civil rights. Religion is not as passive as you're making it out to be. It affects people in very real, deep ways.

An atheist never claims "god does NOT exist." They claim the existence of a God is not falsifiable. There's a HUGE, HUGE difference. The existence or non-existence of a God can NEVER be proven/disproven, just like you can't prove or disprove to me the existence of unicorns or santa claus.

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
What would this religious education look like, according to you? Should it sort of be a hodge-podge of all religions and their claims studied in a comparative fashion?

I agree with what Dawkins says in this video: ...

I know that Harvard, UC Berkeley and Oxford have exceptional comparative religion programs that include traditional religious scholarship. I'm sure educators can create an appropriately balanced comparative religion curriculum for the public school systems as a part of its human history and diversity education.

Harvard, Oxford and a host of other top institutions are all divinity/parochial schools BTW. Being divinity/parochial did't stop them from making the key scientific inventions of our day. UVA was the first non-Parochial school in US history BTW.

Dawkins isn't saying anything we haven't heard for 14 centuries, so sorry, not impressed. You're free to follow any guy and his cult as you please and justify your behavior using whatever rationale you choose, or what kind of lens you see things through. Doesn't matter to me either way bro.

Anyway, I do like Dawkins and his passionate and sophisticated arguments even when I disagree with them. I just have issues with his narrow knowledge of what his fighting against, and the use of science to fight that battle. I fight Marxists, Biblebelters and Salafist theocrats also but without oversimplifying the immense theosophical complexities at hand like a know-it-all or a metaphorical god. Only intolerance bothers me and yes, my religious beliefs inspired by the Quran have everything to do with that.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by Zunaid
[It always amazes me when a profoundly poor OP often leads to an erudite and intelligent discussion onan Internet forum. Too often the reverse is true]

If I were not in the throes of a bad fever, I would have jumped in but EQ has articulated very wellmy views in his last paragraph.

Is the fever affecting how you press your "space" key? :P

Get well soon, doc.

[Zunaid]

Originally Posted by Sohel NR

Dawkins in't saying anything we haven't heard for 14 centuries, sorry not impressed. You're free to follow any guy and his cult as you please and justify your behavior using whatever rationale you choose. Doesn't matter to me either way bro.

That's a cop out response.

You're free to follow any god and his cult as you please and justify your behavior using whatever rationale you choose. Doesn't matter to me either way bro.

^^ See what I did there?

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
{1)Like all scripture, the Quran is open to interpretation. No one scholar has the final mandate on what a verse may or may not mean. How else do you explain the myriad of sects within Islam? Is it a physical impossibility that Shias and Sunnis exist, then? Do they point at each other and scream "You're wrong and a physical impossibility and thus I must destroy you?!" - Oh, my bad, yes, they do do that.

Right but you said religion is dictated by the follower's actions...a horrible error of causality. Muhammad's teachings couldn't possibly be determined by my iftar of porkchops and cognac! Religion inspires only that which it teaches. Just because interpretations exist doesn't mean that all can be reasonably included within the fold of religion x. SOME grey area exists, yes. Where and who draws the line you might ask. The line may not be so definite. So while we may not be able to distinguish weather a "sunni" or a "shia" is a proper muslim, we can surmise that a Orthodox Rabbi or Sam Harris is not.

{2} As the story goes, Abraham almost slaughtered his son because God said so. Was that good or an evil thing to do? Going by the fact that even threatening to kill a child is punishable by law in most countries, let us say that it was an evil thing to do. But religion makes him a shining example of piety and devoutness. That's how "good people do evil."

From a purely scientific point of view...you are wrong. Two possibilities and two possibilities only. Abraham - if he even existed to begin with - Abraham was either commanded by God to slaughter his son, or he had a brief psychotic episode. If it was the former, he is "good" because he obeyed God, who by defintion must be good Himself. If the latter than Abraham is innocent by reason of mental illness or defect is still "good" because no one has control over the imbalance of chemicals in their brains.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by Sohel NR

You're free to follow any guy and his cult as you please and justify your behavior using whatever rationale you choose. Doesn't matter to me either way bro.

Funny; out of context, this sounds like exactly what I sometimes tell fundies, lol. Except for the last part, of course. As I told al-Furqaan before, a lot of religious cult-following does affect me alongside others.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Zunaid
That's a cop out response.

You're free to follow any god and his cult as you please and justify your behavior using whatever rationale you choose. Doesn't matter to me either way bro.

^^ See what I did there?

Doc bhai, I didn't think that was a cop-out response any more than Steve Weinberg's internally contradicting quote. Judging from Sohel bhai's left-of-center political leanings, I wouldn't believe it if he could disagree withyour flipparoo of his statement.

[Zunaid]

Why must God by definition be good?

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
[1]Right but you said religion is dictated by the follower's actions...a horrible error of causality. Muhammad's teachings couldn't possibly be determined by my iftar of porkchops and cognac! Religion inspires only that which it teaches. Just because interpretations exist doesn't mean that all can be reasonably included within the fold of religion x. SOME grey area exists, yes. Where and who draws the line you might ask. The line may not be so definite. So while we may not be able to distinguish weather a "sunni" or a "shia" is a proper muslim, we can surmise that a Orthodox Rabbi or Sam Harris is not.



[2]From a purely scientific point of view...you are wrong. Two possibilities and two possibilities only. Abraham - if he even existed to begin with - Abraham was either commanded by God to slaughter his son, or he had a brief psychotic episode. If it was the former, he is "good" because he obeyed God, who by defintion must be good Himself. If the latter than Abraham is innocent by reason of mental illness or defect is still "good" because no one has control over the imbalance of chemicals in their brains.

[1] and violence is not one of those issues not demarcated by a thick line was my point. The Prophet engaged in it, the Quran seems to advocate it at times - so outside morality aside, a devout Muslim COULD choose to interpret these as an indication that violence is allowed. Just because it may conflict with YOUR morality doesn't mean it is wrong in someone else's interpretation of Islam.

[2] I am not sure how you can start a sentence with "From a purely scientific point of view..." and then, with a straight face (I assume, here) say "commanded by God to slaughter his son." Also, the whole "God is good by definition" belief is EXACTLY why religion can lead to evil things. "Good" by WHAT moral definition of "Good"? Hitler was the moral definition of good for many Nazis, fyi. Even the Quranic Pharaoh had followers who claimed he was righteous.

Evil can be done by anyone - maybe unknowingly - when he sacrifices his moral standings and replaces it with the belief that someone greater, smarter, wiser, kinder than him is in charge. That's why ever-skepticism is my answer.

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
Funny; out of context, this sounds like exactly what I sometimes tell fundies, lol. Except for the last part, of course. As I told al-Furqaan before, a lot of religious cult-following does affect me alongside others.

I didn't mean to come across that way. I accept and love people in all of our human complexity, that's what I meant. Labels mean very little to me and hence are unimportant as to how I deal them

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by Sohel NR
I din't mean to come across that way. I accept and love people in all of our human complexity, that's what I meant. Labels mean very little to me and hence are unimportant as to how I deal them

Gotcha.

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by Zunaid
Why must God by definition be good?

For a Monotheist in the Judeo-Islamic tradition such as myself, the answer is simple. Because GOD says (I believe the Quran to be the actual speech of GOD) He prohibits oppression in Himself and prohibits us from being oppressive. He is the most gracious and the dispenser of grace, and gives us the choice to do the right thing free from all compulsion. If we have faith, no matter how we choose to conscious of that faith or put it in words, we will. I have the Tagore quote in my sig for a reason

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by Zunaid
That's a cop out response.

You're free to follow any god and his cult as you please and justify your behavior using whatever rationale you choose. Doesn't matter to me either way bro.

^^ See what I did there?

Of course I do. I clarified my comment in a subsequent post. I'm not impressed by what Dawkins says in the video because I've heard and read that from other sources who I find more eloquent and touching. I feel rather than making an adversarial comment on something because of secondary sources with particular agendas, people ought to explore the primary sources.

When it comes to Judaism and Islam and traditional Jewish and Islamic scholarship, they'd be pleasantly surprised with a string of "wow, I had no idea" moments.

[Zunaid]

And here we must stop. God is good because HE says so. Faith cannot be proved (or disproved). If it were possible, then it would be a matter of fact not faith.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by Zunaid
And here we must stop. God is good because HE says so. Faith cannot be proved (or disproved). If it were possible, then it would be a matter of fact not faith.

This.

Therefore, to modify al-Furqaan's comment: "God by BELIEF is good." To some, that belief leads to feeding the poor, and to some, the twin towers.

[Zunaid]

And like all net discussions on faith, we will have replayed the acute polemics that have been played for eons and will continue to do so.

This has been a good discussion - I feel the need to edit the subject or remove the brunt into a new thread. We have gone way past ants.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by Zunaid
And like all net discussions on faith, we will have replayed the acute polemics that have been played for eons and will continue to do so.

This has been a good discussion - I feel the need to edit the subject or remove the brunt into a new thread. We have gone way past ants.

Rifat opened up a can of ants.

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Judging from Sohel bhai's left-of-center political leanings ...

You and I are very similar in our political views as Americans (in my case add "former"). As Bangladeshis, I have no doubt we'll also see eye to eye once you learn the real history of this, your old country, and live, work and travel around in Bangladesh for long enough to connect to your deeper roots

I have no doubt because I know you'd have been right beside me in Mukti Bahini had both of us been old enough in 1971.

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by Zunaid
And here we must stop. God is good because HE says so. Faith cannot be proved (or disproved). If it were possible, then it would be a matter of fact not faith.

Exactly! That's what Imam Al-Ghazzali deeply delved into. That's why I posted my initial comment in this thread before Tamzid and I had the exchange on Dawkins.

[goru]

Well dammit... I saw this thread last night and did a face-palm... but realized that no one would actually seriously respond to this (not to mention that the subject is old... I wonder why OP suddenly decided to post this... is this what his local imam talked about after prayers or something? And why didn't he bother researching it a bit more first...).

But it's great that it lead to a discussion where some people's warped views of atheism and famous atheists have come out yet again (and dealt with, but I'm sure not for the last time on BC). So congrats to OP for that!

[Zunaid]

You are late to the party. Just the cleaners left.

[Electrequiem]

The early anteater gets the ant, goru.

I think I should stop with the ant crap.

[goru]

Originally Posted by Zunaid
You are late to the party. Just the cleaners left.

Yeah man... damn Electrequim for already addressing everything!

How about we turn this into a general thread about ants?

I always remember that MacGuyver ants episode when I think about how badass they are: