Ants defeat atheism

[Rifat]

This is a two minute video, a reminder, If any one have any doubts, they should remove doubts, come to certainty and clarity.

[al Furqaan]

Quite interesting. We will have to wait to see if that is extended to other insects, like bees for example.

[indianx]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Quite interesting. We will have to wait to see if that is extended to other insects, like bees for example.

It's just a form of stridulation, which has been observed among many, many insects and other animals. It's basically moving two body parts against each other to generate sounds and vibratory signals.

[Electrequiem]

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by indianx
It's just a form of stridulation, which has been observed among many, many insects and other animals. It's basically moving two body parts against each other to generate sounds and vibratory signals.

to your signature bro!

[Zunaid]

Reading the subject header, I had visions of an army of ants marching to vanquish all infidels. Ironic that someone is using he bigoted Faux News channel broadcast in support of Islam.

[Electrequiem]

If belief in Islam is now hinged on whether scientists confirm that ants can communicate or not, then I am worried about the mental state of the ummah.

Ashraful Makhlukaat, indeed.

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by Zunaid
Reading the subject header, I had visions of an army of ants marching to vanquish all infidels. Ironic that someone is using he bigoted Faux News channel broadcast in support of Islam.

On a more serious note, Imam Al-Ghazzali, may GOD rest his great soul in peace, explained faith as a light GOD puts inside our hearts. Those who nurture that light see overwhelming evidence of His existence in the beauty and the sheer majesty of of the natural world with all of its unraveling mysteries. Those who do not are the skeptics and will always be skeptical.

He was of the opinion that because knowledge itself is always evolving as that beauty and sheer majesty is unraveled through the erudite sciences and the arts, it is unreasonable to either prove or disprove the existence of GOD using the reason of the day. The focus instead for a believer should be on purification of the soul by being good and doing good simply because it is pleasing to GOD.

Guys like Richard Dawkins and Harun Yahiya, as much as I truly appreciate the dialectal and rhetorical elegance of their respective arguments, are using science and reason to propagate a sociopolitical agenda and ultimately address an issue that is better addressed within an exegetical framework. Scientific observation being decontextualized and modified to fit and justify a preexisting belief or hypothesis is intellectually dishonest and has very little merit as "proof" IMHO.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by Sohel NR


On a more serious note, Imam Al-Ghazzali, may GOD rest his great soul in peace, explained faith as a light GOD puts inside our hearts. Those who nurture the light, see overwhelming evidence of His existence in the beauty and the sheer majesty of of the natural world with all of its unraveling mysteries. Those who do not are the skeptics and will always be skeptical.

He was of the opinion that because knowledge itself is always evolving as that beauty and sheer majesty is unraveled through the erudite sciences and the arts, it is unreasonable to either prove or disprove the existence of GOD using the reason of the day. The focus instead for a believer should be on purification of the soul by being good and doing good simply because it is pleasing to GOD.

There is a sizable number of academics/historians who allege that al-Ghazzali and his teachings are partly responsible for the demise of the flourishing scientific progress during the Golden Age of Islam. What are your thoughts on that?

Also, what socio-political agenda is Richard Dawkins promoting?

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
There is a sizable number of academics/historians who allege that al-Ghazzali and his teachings are partly responsible for the demise of the flourishing scientific progress during the Golden Age of Islam. What are your thoughts on that?

Also, what socio-political agenda is Richard Dawkins promoting?

That's utter, orientalist crap if you ask me. Ottoman and Mughal periods created the other "Golden Age" or Islamic Renaissance those guys never talk about.

One can always read Al-Ghazzali, and read legitimate Ghazzali scholars to discover Al-Ghazzali for themselves. Sheikh Abdal Hakim Murad, a formidable Al-Ghazzali scholar, has most of his own Al-Ghazzali lectures on Youtube.

Both Dawkins and Yahiya have their respective sociopolitical agenda because they actively advocate public education policies based on their belief. I like what Jefferson, may GOD rest his soul in peace, had to say about the separation of religion and state. He said that only such separation can keep religion free of the corrupting influences of state and politics, and keep state and politics away from religious controversies. Very different from the European model where the religion of atheism under the guise of scientific reason must eradicate traditional religion.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by Sohel NR
That's utter, orientalist crap if you ask me. Ottoman and Mughal periods created the Islamic renaissance those guys never talk about.

One can always read Al-Ghazzali, and read legitimate Ghazzali scholars to discover Ghazzali for themselves.

Both Dawkins and Yahiya have their respective sociopolitical agenda because they actively advocate public education policies based on their belief.

I've been meaning to read Incoherence of the Philosophers for a while now. I guess that will help me more in crafting an opinion.

IMO, Dawkins is advocating for public school education to focus on only what is empirically proven through science. Keeping religion and religious myths out of public education is a good idea, wouldn't you agree? Harun Yahia, on the other hand, wants his creationism being taught alongside the science of evolution. Why should his creationist myth have precedence over the other religious/cultural creationism myths? Sure - Dawkins has an agenda and that is to keep religion out of school. He doesn't mind creationism being taught in churches/mosques/temples. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I like what Jefferson, may GOD rest his soul in peace, had to say about the separation of religion and state. He said that only such separation can keep religion free of the corrupting influences of state and politics, and keep state and politics away from religious controversies. Very different from the European model where the religion of atheism under the guise of scientific reason must eradicate traditional religion.

Atheism is not a religion, and neither is it out to eradicate traditional religion (unless "eradication" means preventing the traditional religions to force-feed others their beliefs).

[Sohel]

Also, Al-Ghazzali was a scientist himself and a VERY strong exponent of science for its own sake. He had issues with conflating science and faith. Just read his stuff if anyone's interested:

http://www.ghazali.org/

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
I've been meaning to read Incoherence of the Philosophers for a while now. I guess that will help me more in crafting an opinion.

IMO, Dawkins is advocating for public school education to focus on only what is empirically proven through science. Keeping religion and religious myths out of public education is a good idea, wouldn't you agree? Harun Yahia, on the other hand, wants his creationism being taught alongside the science of evolution. Why should his creationist myth have precedence over the other religious/cultural creationism myths? Sure - Dawkins has an agenda and that is to keep religion out of school. He doesn't mind creationism being taught in churches/mosques/temples. I don't see anything wrong with that.

There are countries where such separation exists by law, and they have advocacy groups that protect the letter and and the spirit of the law. Adding an extra layer by actually advocating atheism in the name "scientific proof" is as bad as the attempt to use "scientific proof" to to promote a religious agenda. Religion(s), meaning ALL religions should be taught separately in public schools as a part of our history and heritage as human beings, covering multiple perspectives including religious ones.

Atheism (as well as other "isms") is very much a religion, a reactionary one at that because it exists in reaction not response to particular expressions of theism, in the sense that it follows a particular credal formula which separates it from others, and organizes itself to add to its flock. In Atheism, GOD, defined according to Atheists, is replaced by the ego and "scientific proof" as absolute truths. Anything outside that belief system is considered dangerous and stupid. They have their own rituals, methodological premises and thoughtpolicing. I see no substantial or conceptual difference between organized atheism and religious Salafism in all religions and ideologies.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Sohel NR


On a more serious note, Imam Al-Ghazzali, may GOD rest his great soul in peace, explained faith as a light GOD puts inside our hearts. Those who nurture that light see overwhelming evidence of His existence in the beauty and the sheer majesty of of the natural world with all of its unraveling mysteries. Those who do not are the skeptics and will always be skeptical.

He was of the opinion that because knowledge itself is always evolving as that beauty and sheer majesty is unraveled through the erudite sciences and the arts, it is unreasonable to either prove or disprove the existence of GOD using the reason of the day. The focus instead for a believer should be on purification of the soul by being good and doing good simply because it is pleasing to GOD.

Guys like Richard Dawkins and Harun Yahiya, as much as I truly appreciate the dialectal and rhetorical elegance of their respective arguments, are using science and reason to propagate a sociopolitical agenda and ultimately address an issue that is better addressed within an exegetical framework. Scientific observation being decontextualized and modified to fit and justify a preexisting belief or hypothesis is intellectually dishonest and has very little merit as "proof" IMHO.

Top post, brother!

What I dislike about fellows like Dawkins - and admittedly I haven't read much of his work, so perhaps I should use the example of Sam Harris (The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation) with whom I am a bit more familiar. Men such as these are just as guilty of intellectual and rhetorical dishonesty because their central claim is that religion causes people to kill, maim, and hurt each other. Firstly, that is false because NOT a single religion teaches violence or intentional harm towards others with the exception of Satanic cults. Secondly, this violates scientific-academic principles - the guiding light of atheists, btw - since anthropology states as a fact that religion is part of a social hierarchy that CREATES order and differentiates human beings from chimpanzees. Thirdly, and most heinous, is the implication or blatant claim that in the absence of religion humanity would be all at peace with each other.

Notice, I am not saying it was Stalin's atheism that inspired him to kill millions in the gulag - an argument used by Harris and his ilk - but pointing out that Stalin's atheism DID NOT prevent him for killing, a point admitted by atheists usually.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by Sohel NR
There are countries where such separation exists by law, and advocacy groups that protect the letter and and the spirit of the law. Adding an extra layer by actually advocating atheism in the name "scientific proof" is as bad as the attempt to use "scientific proof" to to promote a religious agenda. Religion(s), meaning ALL religions should be taught separately in public schools as a part of our history and heritage as human beings, covering multiple perspectives including religious ones.

Are you saying that teaching the scientific proof in the theory of evolution is akin to advocating atheism?

I agree - school curricula SHOULD include religious studies from a historical perspective. But they must NOT be taught as science, because they most definitely are not. That is what Dawkins and his like are advocating. There are no secret Atheist agenda to eradicate religion, but if teaching science in schools happens to erode faith, then that's a matter that should be addressed by mosques/temples/churches/synagogues.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Top post, brother!

What I dislike about fellows like Dawkins - and admittedly I haven't read much of his work, so perhaps I should use the example of Sam Harris (The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation) with whom I am a bit more familiar. Men such as these are just as guilty of intellectual and rhetorical dishonesty because their central claim is that religion causes people to kill, maim, and hurt each other. Firstly, that is false because NOT a single religion teaches violence or intentional harm towards others with the exception of Satanic cults. Secondly, this violates scientific-academic principles - the guiding light of atheists, btw - since anthropology states as a fact that religion is part of a social hierarchy that CREATES order and differentiates human beings from chimpanzees. Thirdly, and most heinous, is the implication or blatant claim that in the absence of religion humanity would be all at peace with each other.

Notice, I am not saying it was Stalin's atheism that inspired him to kill millions in the gulag - an argument used by Harris and his ilk - but pointing out that Stalin's atheism DID NOT prevent him for killing, a point admitted by atheists usually.

What a religion teaches is reflected by how the followers act. If ones who commit intentional harm and propagate violence can find a religious justification for their actions (As most have) - what makes their interpretations WRONG? You can't just point a finger at a suicide bomber and say "oh he's a bad Muslim." He had enough conviction in what he believed in religiously to sacrifice his life - so try and tell him that "religion doesn't teach violence."

And no - that's not their CENTRAL claim. Their central claim is just that the idea of traditional religion and belief in the supernatural is unfounded and irrational.

Your bit about Stalin not being prevented from killing due to his atheism reminds me of this quote by Steven Weinberg:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
Atheism is not a religion,

Atheism is a "religion". If different religions can be as diverse as they are and be called religions, why not atheism? Remember that traditional Buddhism (Gautama never spoke of any diety) doesn't believe in a god(s), and its a "religion". Atheism is still a belief that can't be proven. Agnosticism/skepticism could skirt that definition because it says "I don't know" or "I don't care" or "I can't know, so I don't care". Atheism says "I know God doesn't exist". For example as of now, we don't have any proof that electrons are composed of smaller particles, as an "atheist" I'd have to say no proof, therefore sub-electronic matter doesn't exist.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Atheism is a "religion". If different religions can be as diverse as they are and be called religions, why not atheism? Remember that traditional Buddhism (Gautama never spoke of any diety) doesn't believe in a god(s), and its a "religion". Atheism is still a belief that can't be proven. Agnosticism/skepticism could skirt that definition because it says "I don't know" or "I don't care" or "I can't know, so I don't care". Atheism says "I know God doesn't exist". For example as of now, we don't have any proof that electrons are composed of smaller particles, as an "atheist" I'd have to say no proof, therefore sub-electronic matter doesn't exist.

A "religion" is typically defined as something that has a ritualized and formal code-of-belief. Atheism doesn't have that. It's just a bunch of people who are devoid of belief in a deity (and the deity itself is being asserted, WITHOUT evidence, by theists aka the burden of proof is on them). If atheism is a religion, then "off" is a TV channel. Think about it.

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
Are you saying that teaching the scientific proof in the theory of evolution is akin to advocating atheism?

No, of course not.

I agree - school curricula SHOULD include religious studies from a historical perspective. But they must NOT be taught as science, because they most definitely are not. That is what Dawkins and his like are advocating. There are no secret Atheist agenda to eradicate religion, but if teaching science in schools happens to erode faith, then that's a matter that should be addressed by mosques/temples/churches/synagogues.

Religion and science are two separate subjects which should never be conflated, no matter what the religious view, theistic or atheistic, of science happens to be.

Dawkins and his groups advocate much more than that. I suggest you visit his website and explore their agenda in detail. They only want their own perspective on religion once it is taught in public schools. I believe that all perspectives, including religious ones, should be a part of the learning.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
What a religion teaches is reflected by how the followers act.

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.

And no - that's not their CENTRAL claim. Their central claim is just that the idea of traditional religion and belief in the supernatural is unfounded and irrational.

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.

Your bit about Stalin not being prevented from killing due to his atheism reminds me of this quote by Steven Weinberg:

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.

[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.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by Sohel NR
Dawkins and his groups advocate much more than that. I suggest you visit his website and explore their agenda in detail. They only want their own perspective on religion once it is taught in public schools. I believe that all perspectives, including religious ones, should be a part of the learning.

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:

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
A "religion" is typically defined as something that has a ritualized and formal code-of-belief. Atheism doesn't have that. It's just a bunch of people who are devoid of belief in a deity (and the deity itself is being asserted, WITHOUT evidence, by theists aka the burden of proof is on them). If atheism is a religion, then "off" is a TV channel. Think about it.

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.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
A "religion" is typically defined as something that has a ritualized and formal code-of-belief...If atheism is a religion, then "off" is a TV channel. Think about it.

Point taken.

Atheism doesn't have that. It's just a bunch of people who are devoid of belief in a deity (and the deity itself is being asserted, WITHOUT evidence, by theists aka the burden of proof is on them).

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.

[al Furqaan]

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.

Thats true. Using EQ's TV analogy, perhaps atheism is more the TV being on to that "snow" channel rather being "off" since the TV in the off setting is not recieving any signal at all. In this analogy the signals being scripture for the devout, science for the not so devout.