Support NeoGAF

[jdogmoney]

You should be aware of the fact the practicing religion=\=believing in a higher power and starting to wonder about the existence.

Imagine someone who lived alone on an Island since he were born without any outside effects. He would start to wonder about his existence as a human. I don't think he will think that he evolved, or created by anything the atheists say. The easiest thing would be believing in the existence of a higher power who brought him there. In other words, believing that something brought him to this world. People have a beginning and an end in this life. Any human would think that there is something that created this beginning. This something is automatically called Gods whether the human called "God" in words or not. You may call it chance as an atheist, so chance is your God? Or you didn't exist by something in the first place? LOL.


You think this is bullshit because you don't believe in it. At least the others are discussing and providing opinions instead of just criticizing. Anyone with this attitude should GTFO in my opinion.

We.

Don't.

HAVE A GOD.

That's why it's called atheism!

a- without
theism- belief and worship of a higher power

I am not the same as you. You believe in your heart in something I don't. We don't operate the same, and it's arrogant of you to assume we do. Hell, it's arrogant of you to lump all atheists together.

 

[Nameless]

Posting from my phone so I'll reply to your responses GT5000 and JGS tonight or in the AM(given others don't do it for me).

But I wanted to point out a profound mistake in both of your posts--You both call Atheism a belief when it is not. There is no belief involved; that's the point. Darkness is the absence of light, Cold is the absence of heat, silence is the absence of noise, atheism is the absence of a belief in gods.

The main difference between us, though, is that if solid evidence for the existence in a god or gods were given tommorow, every single rational thinking atheist would become a theist. Just like that we would believe. But despite the overwhelming amount of tangible evidence science has, and continues to provide which directly condradicts the notion of God/gods as defined by known religions, theists refuse to let go of their belief, under the banner of faith.

 

[RustyNails]

My original point is - the fear isn't entirely unfounded, while it may be largely overblown, had the language in the Qu'ran been better, there would be no need for any fear - as everyone would know there is absolutely no association with Terrorism and what have you, with Islam.

Well, there IS a reason for all the sword verses in Quran..the nascent Muslim community in 6th faced persecution, harassment and came to the brink of extinction. If the true purpose of the sword verses was to instill the fear of Islam in the minds of non-believers, then Muhammad would have killed everyone who opposed him in Mecca. The verses which deal with fighting are related to fighting back, rooting out evil from within and self defense. The battle of Badr, Muslims were outnumbered 3-1. It was 100% likely that Islam was going to stop right there in history, had the Muslims lost courage and felt weak.

 

[Kinitari]

Well, there IS a reason for all the sword verses in Quran..the nascent Muslim community in 6th faced persecution, harassment and came to the brink of extinction. If the true purpose of the sword verses was to instill the fear of Islam in the minds of non-believers, then Muhammad would have killed everyone who opposed him in Mecca. The verses which deal with fighting are related to fighting back, rooting out evil from within and self defense. The battle of Badr, Muslims were outnumbered 3-1. It was 100% likely that Islam was going to stop right there in history, had the Muslims lost courage and felt weak.

You'd think the book would be more specific then, if God didn't want there to be any confusion now.

 

[RustyNails]

The main difference between us, though, is that if solid evidence for the existence in a god or gods were given tommorow, every single rational thinking atheist would become a theist. Just like that we would believe. But despite the overwhelming amount of tangible evidence science has, and continues to provide which directly condradicts the notion of God/gods as defined by known religions, theists refuse to let go of their belief, under the banner of faith.

It honestly depends on your meaning of "solid" evidence. For some, little things in life are enough. For others, coincidences are enough. And for others, their holy books are enough.

If by "solid" you mean measurable, quantifiable and tangible evidence, then whats the point of having faith?

 

[Anaxagoras]

I can justify violence of any kind towards any group I dislike with any random religious statement. Let's use one of the more ridiculous ones, always good for some controversy: "Thou shalt not commit murder" — interpretation of some Christians: "Kill murderers".

It's surprisingly easy, really. "And God said, Let there be light, And there was light" - kill all black people because their skin is dark. You might say that is reaching, but there are actually people out there thinking along those lines. And you should in fact fear them because they are crazy as fuck.

Why is it so easy to do this? Because it's wrong, and as soon as you've got an evil agenda, you're okay with saying wrong things and mix in some rhetoric measures to make it sound right.

Fearmongering is the real issue. But I don't want to talk about that in the context of religion, mostly because a lot of people don't want to hear the truth about the true relation between religion and fearmongering, partly because it's so controversial that I won't be able to type fast enough to handle the discussion in a meaningful manner.

No, Christianity and Islam are not that similar.

Mohammed unlike Jesus was a violent man, he killed, encouraged others to so as well as joined several battles throughout his life (with the intention of peace, bush style).

Jihad is mentioned more than a 100 times in the Quran, although Jihad means struggle it doesn't mean its not violent, we all know how Hitler's strugle mein kampf ended. And the fact that there are 4 different types of Jihad doesn't make the militant jihad less aggressive.

Jihad is not a choice, its a duty for all Muslims that are capable of it, and it is called for when Muslim land is invaded and when the religion of Allah is oppressed or attacked unjustly. Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Danish cartoons, Bush calling the Iraq war a crusade, Burqa in schools?

Jihad is also rewarded in the after life, you are rewarded the highest level in heaven.

Now I know a bunch of sugar coaters are going to jump on me and tell me that I am cherry picking and taking things out of context so I will go ahead and open all the cards on the table.

''There is no compulsion in religion.'' [2:256]
That speaks of converting non muslims to Islam, and not allowing muslims to leave Islam freely.

The Jihadists around the world truly believe that what they are practicing is true Islam just like the Muslims on this forums also believe that what they are practicing is true Islam.

The Jihadists are fighting against the invasion of Muslim land by non-muslims, they believe that the innocent muslims who die in these attacks will go to heaven and get rewarded. They also do not consider nonmuslim citizens to be innocent since they are aware of what is going on and instead of stopping it they reelect the same president and party.

Jihadists believe that it is ok to kill yourself if you are going to save others by doing so, just like jumping off a boat to stop it from sinking.

Other Muslims believe that suicide is not allowed in Islam and is punished by God.
The Jihadists believe that that verse speaks of normal suicide and not dieing in God's cause.

There you have it!
There is a great difference between interpreting the Quran and going by ''Killing is forbidden'' thus we should kill those who kill.

 

[RustyNails]

You'd think the book would be more specific then, if God didn't want there to be any confusion now.

Well man, there wasn't any confusion during the early part of Islamic history. Everyone knew the details and context, but those people started dying off. Their testimonies and stories were recorded in order to provide context to verses. Some of the verses such as "Say, in the name of God one and only. God, the eternal, absolute...." need no explanation. They're pretty straight forward. But it helps to have a backstory. But some surahs begin with verses like this one: "Freedom from obligation is proclaimed from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty. " What idolators? What freedom? What treaty? Verses and surahs such as this one absolutely require context. There is no point in reading them without knowing whats going on. If you think about it, Quran is not an A-Z story book with a beginning, a middle and an end. It doesn't follow any guidelines. I always recommend this website (http://www.quranurdu.com/books/tafheem/tafheem_english/) for people interested in Quran. Every surah is broken down with proper context, hadith narration and a backstory for each and every verse.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

No, Christianity and Islam are not that similar.

Mohammed unlike Jesus was a violent man, he killed, encouraged others to so as well as joined several battles throughout his life (with the intention of peace, bush style).

Jihad is mentioned more than a 100 times in the Quran, although Jihad means struggle it doesn't mean its not violent, we all know how Hitler's strugle mein kampf ended. And the fact that there are 4 different types of Jihad doesn't make the militant jihad less aggressive.

Jihad is not a choice, its a duty for all Muslims that are capable of it, and it is called for when Muslim land is invaded and when the religion of Allah is oppressed or attacked unjustly. Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Danish cartoons, Bush calling the Iraq war a crusade, Burqa in schools?

Jihad is also rewarded in the after life, you are rewarded the highest level in heaven.

Now I know a bunch of sugar coaters are going to jump on me and tell me that I am cherry picking and taking things out of context so I will go ahead and open all the cards on the table.

''There is no compulsion in religion.'' [2:256]
That speaks of converting non muslims to Islam, and not allowing muslims to leave Islam freely.

The Jihadists around the world truly believe that what they are practicing is true Islam just like the Muslims on this forums also believe that what they are practicing is true Islam.

The Jihadists are fighting against the invasion of Muslim land by non-muslims, they believe that the innocent muslims who die in these attacks will go to heaven and get rewarded. They also do not consider nonmuslim citizens to be innocent since they are aware of what is going on and instead of stopping it they reelect the same president and party.

Jihadists believe that it is ok to kill yourself if you are going to save others by doing so, just like jumping off a boat to stop it from sinking.

Other Muslims believe that suicide is not allowed in Islam and is punished by God.
The Jihadists believe that that verse speaks of normal suicide and not dieing in God's cause.

There you have it!
There is a great difference between interpreting the Quran and going by ''Killing is forbidden'' thus we should kill those who kill.

bolded pretty much negated the rest of your post.

and unfortunately Christianity does'nt begin with Jesus(in terms of the Bible). Violence and oppression of non-christians is permitted in the Bible.

 

[Anaxagoras]

bolded pretty much negated the rest of your post.

and unfortunately Christianity does'nt begin with Jesus(in terms of the Bible). Violence and oppression of non-christians is permitted in the Bible.

why so?

 

[Mgoblue201]

Oh I see you didn't mean any harm then.....guess I overreacted again
Dogma is not necessarily a thing that is harmful, it keeps the weak off the tentations and all that, I mean that there's value to boundaries people fix for themselves (or others).

The problem with dogma is that religion isn't true. If there was an omnipotent, all-knowing god, then it would be pretty smart to trust him, right? But look at the state of religion. You have young earth creationists and theistic evolutionists. You have Tim Pawlenty and others in the government seeking to dismantle government programs because it's supposedly against the will of god and pastors like Grant Stevenson saying that it's ridiculous. You have the Westboro Baptist Church and churches with homosexual members. For every caring Christian, there is a Pat Robertson. All of these people are equally sure that they speak for the will of god.

But how do you possibly evaluate them? Everybody has their own interpretations of scripture. None of them seem any more spiritually illuminated than the other, except for maybe that which can be reasoned logically. I wouldn't call any of these people evil (except maybe the Westboro Baptist Church). They are just guessing as to what god thinks. There is no uniformity. In fact, interpretations of the will of god are remarkably similar to the opinions of the individual. It's as if...they think they're speaking for god.

Huh, you can't! or at least you can never be sure or else you know the initial conditions and with that you can actually (with great pains probably and even then is that even possible?) deduce anything at all.

If you remove the randomness you only have determinism but that's pretty much OT

My views are kind of like Einstein's. Maybe there is a first cause of the universe, something that we can say reflects the order of nature. But it is not a being in our traditional employment of the word. It is not a personal god, and it is not a god of morality. In fact, I think that it is incoherent to say that there is a god outside of time and therefore consequence and yet a god that cares about the cause and effect of our actions.

I don't know, when I meet someone I never knew before on the train. Is it God that put him on my path or is that just happenstance?
You could say that the omnipotent god would actually trigger the chance, it's not like we have the knowledge to value whether an action is 'good' or 'bad' in the grand scheme of things :-/

That seems like a very small god to me. I can see the point of the view of the fundamentalists from one perspective: at least they're committed. The people who flout medicine and leave their children to die are totally insane, but why shouldn't god do something like that if he existed? It cannot be difficult for an omnipotent being, and he is supposed to reward the faithful.

Your second part is essentially like saying that there is absolutely no way to evaluated the actions of a god (even though the prior example is one very easy way). And yet believers are so sure when god is at work.

perhaps you meant the Original Sin then?
Even though, a child's murderer will most likely hold the grudges of his father's victims, if that can happen then a sin being hold on further generations is not so different.
I'm not saying it's good bad or anything, I'm just saying I can understand why that can exists.

Yes, I meant inherited from the original sin. The entire notion is rotten to the core because it contravenes the idea of justice. As for your second point, I expect perfect justice from a perfect god, not flawed justice like a human.

Ask for sense of a god in a world of choice, lies, and masks leads to exactly what you see now. You asked for sense nature never said had it to be valid or workout in the way often desire. I wonder where people get the idea that god has a part in things when the faithful cannot point out any doctrines of their own to support a position god does moment to moment intervention on a direct level consistently. You said it best there is no real standard of evidence I'm only pointing out more so there is no definitive standard for such a belief or expectation construction with faith. Bad things happen for a reason but truth has taught me people don't like owning up to collective or personal responsibility so the buck is always passed on to the symptoms not the true causes.

Speaking as someone who was once religious, it is a very human phenomenon to construct a belief and then filter all evidence through that. Logic is employed, but it is another thing entirely to be critical. People should be challenged by counter evidence. Instead, it is usually dismissed. Religion is especially adept at this because god is built in such a way that he is mysterious (and yet somehow just knowable enough when it is convenient). Any inconsistency can be chalked up to this mysterious will. But, ironically, the believers are making god into a very small being in the process.

 

[unreon]

However, there is no doubt whatsoever that at the first chance most humans get, they will worship something. There is not a [major] culture in existence that didn't do this and it is still the majority view. Science, that "godless" bastion of all things rational and true, has even discovered the religion gene, meaning it's in our nature. Now whether that's evolution of devolution depends on your view of the matter, but it lends credence to the idea that people are born theist instincts and then work against them.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

To make such a bold statement like the above, you have to be grossly oversimplifying genetics, misquoting a scientist somewhere, or simply be retelling a line you heard from somewhere which sounds particularly fancy.

But semantics are semantics, and I'll let you carry on.

 

[wolfmat]

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

To make such a bold statement like the above, you have to be grossly oversimplifying genetics, misquoting a scientist somewhere, or simply be retelling a line you heard from somewhere which sounds particularly fancy.

But semantics are semantics, and I'll let you carry on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMAT2

Bottomline: Nothing's been found, it's a ridiculous idea in the first place, worth a sigh at the most. The guy behind it wanted to become rich, so he made some shit up and wrote a book with a nice title.

 

[unreon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[B][U]VMAT[/U][/B]2

Almost thought you named yourself after it :lol

And your final comments to VMAT are in line with my thoughts.

 

[Joel Was Right]

No, Christianity and Islam are not that similar.

Mohammed unlike Jesus was a violent man, he killed, encouraged others to so as well as joined several battles throughout his life (with the intention of peace, bush style).

Jihad is mentioned more than a 100 times in the Quran, although Jihad means struggle it doesn't mean its not violent, we all know how Hitler's strugle mein kampf ended. And the fact that there are 4 different types of Jihad doesn't make the militant jihad less aggressive.

Jihad is not a choice, its a duty for all Muslims that are capable of it, and it is called for when Muslim land is invaded and when the religion of Allah is oppressed or attacked unjustly. Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Danish cartoons, Bush calling the Iraq war a crusade, Burqa in schools?

Jihad is also rewarded in the after life, you are rewarded the highest level in heaven.

Now I know a bunch of sugar coaters are going to jump on me and tell me that I am cherry picking and taking things out of context so I will go ahead and open all the cards on the table.

''There is no compulsion in religion.'' [2:256]
That speaks of converting non muslims to Islam, and not allowing muslims to leave Islam freely.

The Jihadists around the world truly believe that what they are practicing is true Islam just like the Muslims on this forums also believe that what they are practicing is true Islam.

The Jihadists are fighting against the invasion of Muslim land by non-muslims, they believe that the innocent muslims who die in these attacks will go to heaven and get rewarded. They also do not consider nonmuslim citizens to be innocent since they are aware of what is going on and instead of stopping it they reelect the same president and party.

Jihadists believe that it is ok to kill yourself if you are going to save others by doing so, just like jumping off a boat to stop it from sinking.

Other Muslims believe that suicide is not allowed in Islam and is punished by God.
The Jihadists believe that that verse speaks of normal suicide and not dieing in God's cause.

There you have it!
There is a great difference between interpreting the Quran and going by ''Killing is forbidden'' thus we should kill those who kill.

Islam certainly does have a violent beginning, but I can't seem to understand why the focus of that violence is used to somehow separate any comparisons between faiths. If the founder of Islam was as a non-pacifist as Christ was, then that doesn't dismiss the call for violence within Biblical tradition from other prophets of God and even God himself, the ultimate moral beacon of judgement.

Truth be told, morality in religion is never black or white. I've come across other Christians, Jews and Muslims whose span of knowledge of religion comes directly from Internet blogs or Message Boards. I've met people who know only the Old Testament by name whilst highlighting verses from the Quran for criticism despite the same verses being in the Bible.

Talking about religion on the Internet is like the fanboys being given religious text published by rival consoles :lol

 

[wolfmat]

I don't think you actually have to argue with him, he uses the Jihad definition of the FOX News Network for the most part, and I suppose it's pretty hard to get beyond that if that's already stated as fact..

 

[Mgoblue201]

Human behavior is far too adaptable to be the product of any one gene since there is nothing that confers specific behavior. However, there has been some excellent work done in neuroscience for why religion always seems to be a ubiquitous or default belief. It is not a part of our nature but something that flows from our nature. For instance, mind/body duality, whether or not it is true, is something that humans intuitively grasp from an early age.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Islam certainly does have a violent beginning, but I can't seem to understand why the focus of that violence is used to somehow separate any comparisons between faiths. If the founder of Islam was as a non-pacifist as Christ was, then that doesn't dismiss the call for violence within Biblical tradition from other prophets of God and even God himself, the ultimate moral beacon of judgement.

Truth be told, morality in religion is never black or white. I've come across other Christians, Jews and Muslims whose span of knowledge of religion comes directly from Internet blogs or Message Boards. I've met people who know only the Old Testament by name whilst highlighting verses from the Quran for criticism despite the same verses being in the Bible.

Talking about religion on the Internet is like the fanboys being given religious text published by rival consoles :lol

Well you can draw similarities of course.
The reason I phrased my argument the way I did was to point out that Islam and the Quran are not as peaceful as people claim.
The reason we have terrorism and extremism is not simply because people are misinterpreting their texts.
Everything they do is in there, its mentioned over and over again and its encouraged and rewarded as well.
The difference between Muslims here and the extremists is simply that they have different understandings of who is innocent and who is not, that and the disagreement on suicide.
And no, I know what I am talking about, I have read the Quran since early childhood.

I don't think you actually have to argue with him, he uses the Jihad definition of the FOX News Network for the most part, and I suppose it's pretty hard to get beyond that if that's already stated as fact..

Jihad (pronounced /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning "struggle." In another context, Jihad means holy war.[1] Jihad appears frequently in the Qur'an and common usage as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[2][3] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural is mujahideen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

The four major categories of jihad that are recognized are Jihad against one's self (Jihad al-Nafs), Jihad of the tongue (Jihad al-lisan), Jihad of the hand (Jihad al-yad), and Jihad of the sword (Jihad as-sayf).

Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked because they have been oppressed – Allah indeed has power to grant them victory – those who have been unjustly driven from their homes, only because they said: “Our Lord is Allah”.
—Qur'an, [Qur'an 22:39]

Fox news definition you say?
:lol :lol
Do yourself a favor and read some more on Jihad.

 

[wolfmat]

Jihad (pronounced /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning "struggle." In another context, Jihad means holy war.[1] Jihad appears frequently in the Qur'an and common usage as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[2][3] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural is mujahideen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

The four major categories of jihad that are recognized are Jihad against one's self (Jihad al-Nafs), Jihad of the tongue (Jihad al-lisan), Jihad of the hand (Jihad al-yad), and Jihad of the sword (Jihad as-sayf).

Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked because they have been oppressed – Allah indeed has power to grant them victory – those who have been unjustly driven from their homes, only because they said: “Our Lord is Allah”.
—Qur'an, [Qur'an 22:39]

Fox news definition you say?
:lol :lol
Do yourself a favor and read some more on Jihad.

Granted, that is not the FOX definition.

But it explicitly says there that it's a matter of context. So it's not inherent to the religion that Jihad is understood by some as a euphemism for cutting heads off the necks of nonbelievers; it's inherent to interpretation.
That literally means the evildoers in question take the word and adjust its interpretation to specific needs.

What is war in terms of religion? What are arms? Whatever I need them to be!

Let's say I'm a theologist. It's convenient in that case to say that war could be a debate, the arms are the convincing words and sharp thoughts of one party.

Let's say I'm a terrorist leader. It's convenient in that case to say that war is the clashing of forces on the battlefield, the arms are kids with bombs strapped to their chests if necessary.

Whatever I need them to be. That's what I was saying above. What makes sense is looking at the person interpreting, then looking at who listens, then figuring out what the interpreter wants, then analyzing what he says and relating all those findings to each other.

You will surely agree that at that point, we're not talking about religion anymore; instead, we're talking about might, power, seduction, unrelated motives. We're talking politics.

This all started with the discussion about whether or not it makes sense to fear a Muslim. And I say that it doesn't. Who you should fear is the man in power, not the soldier blowing himself up. The whole thing hinges upon that man who's playing the smart guy, claiming to know what Jihad specifically is supposed to be today to make something happen. That man isn't necessarily Muslim. Look at Colin Powell's crazy accusations against Iraq at the UN, the whole WMD thing with satellite photos of supposed rocket silos and stuff. There's your war, your arms, your religious mask, your motive, your power in the shadows, all that. The same is true for any other party we're discussing here.

 

[Veidt]

No, Christianity and Islam are not that similar.

Mohammed unlike Jesus was a violent man, he killed, encouraged others to so as well as joined several battles throughout his life (with the intention of peace, bush style).

You don't know that much about the bible do you?
I suggest you read more before making such claims, because truthfully I don't want to have to pick verses from the bible and some unintentionally how offend Christians, such in the way you're doing here with Muslims.

 

[BocoDragon]

Can you divulge a bit on being an atheist Buddhist? How do you choose to be a part of what is universally seen as a religion while you're an atheist? How'd you arrive there?

May I?

The definition of religion varies but it actually does not commonly include theism!

The thing is that theistic regions are so overwhelmingly popular that they dominate our connotation to the word "religion"... but you can certainly be in a religion which has nothing to do with God or gods.

Buddhism does have:
-ideas about the nature of the self, and the nature of existing, and how we should react in accordance to this existence (which is not too different from: "there is a god. He made you. You should be reverent of this god." etc)
-a clergy with monks and nuns, and a popular lay-practice which supports this clergy
-scriptures which are highly valued and passed down over time... many of these scriptures are from long before Christ and the Bible!
-a central figure around whom the devotion is based. In this case, many perceive him as a man... but he is certainly a man with a great deal of legends surrounding him. There are even some ancient scriptures which assert an immaculate conception! (whether this is a literal truth, a teaching tool of the practice, or mere legendary junk which has piled on top of a realistic account, is up to the Buddhist. Most sects of Buddhism don't take that stuff literally.)

It's definitely a religion by most definitions, but it needn't include god.

Oh, to be sure, Buddhism has reacted to people's theistic beliefs and even coined a few gods of its own... but none of these are at the root of Buddhist practice. It was borne of Hindu culture, and so early stories featured even the great gods having something to learn from Buddhist practice. Later, many traditions such as Tibetan Buddhism and Pure Land Buddhism have their own gods and deity-Buddhas who are often understood as teaching tools.. and some do believe in them literally of course (I would say these are deviations from the root of Buddhism, but that's my bias).... and then much later as Buddhism came in contact with the west, it has appropriated God as a metaphor for "the everything" to appeal to traditional monotheists and New Age-types, much in the same way that it appropriated Hindu gods to bring Hindu believers into Buddhism. And of course, in an age of popular atheism, Buddhism is quite happy to present itself as atheistic... though certainly Buddha was no Richard Dawkins. When asked about God, he regarded it as a question not fit to be asked.. obsessing over God might be an impediment to having a clear mind.

^ That's the history lesson... I could elaborate on personal beliefs later but now's not the time... gotta make FFXIII preparations

 

[Ducarmel]

Has anybody ever heard of a church or priest that don't necessarily believe in God but believes in the idea of god.

I'm asking because I would not say I am a god fearing person but I do understand the power behind the philosophy of being a god fearing person.

So much so I was blown away when i read an article of a church not striping the priest hood of a priest who admitted he did not believe in God but still serviced the people in the church.

I always felt like an outcast when it comes to religion because I don't believe. But I can get behind the idea of God and using it as an outlet for hope, faith, togetherness, and moral discussion. Something loose and changing with the times, not rigid or rooted in tradition.

I cant really explain what I'm looking for but that's the best I can describe it.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Granted, that is not the FOX definition.

Sorry for the late reply, I have read your post shortly after you posted it but didn't have time to reply.

But it explicitly says there that it's a matter of context. So it's not inherent to the religion that Jihad is understood by some as a euphemism for cutting heads off the necks of nonbelievers; it's inherent to interpretation.
That literally means the evildoers in question take the word and adjust its interpretation to specific needs.

What is war in terms of religion? What are arms? Whatever I need them to be!

Let's say I'm a theologist. It's convenient in that case to say that war could be a debate, the arms are the convincing words and sharp thoughts of one party.

Let's say I'm a terrorist leader. It's convenient in that case to say that war is the clashing of forces on the battlefield, the arms are kids with bombs strapped to their chests if necessary.

Whatever I need them to be. That's what I was saying above. What makes sense is looking at the person interpreting, then looking at who listens, then figuring out what the interpreter wants, then analyzing what he says and relating all those findings to each other.

I would agree with you about the different interpretations of what war could mean, that is if we didn't have anything else to provide meaning and context, but unfortunately for you it is so that 'war' militant Jihad is talked about and described numerous times in the quran and the hadith.
It is enough that it is well defined and highly rewarded in Islam, it doesn't stop there. We know the names the battles, the causes, the dates, the number of participants on both sides, names of key participants, the methods, strategies and weapons used, how they started and ended, why they were won and lost?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Uhud

Mohammed is the God sent example of how a good Muslim should be, Muslims learn from the Quran and the stories and the behavior of the prophet and live act like him if they want to get closer to God.
He is the last prophet and the message that he delivered is the last message from God, a true Muslim will go back and see what Mohammad would have done and do the same when he faces difficulties.

You will surely agree that at that point, we're not talking about religion anymore; instead, we're talking about might, power, seduction, unrelated motives. We're talking politics.

The other thing that you fail to understand is that Islam is not just faith, its a way of living, it provide its own morals, culture, laws and politics and the more that you adopt of it the closer you are to God and the more you are rewarded in the after life.

This all started with the discussion about whether or not it makes sense to fear a Muslim. And I say that it doesn't. Who you should fear is the man in power, not the soldier blowing himself up. The whole thing hinges upon that man who's playing the smart guy, claiming to know what Jihad specifically is supposed to be today to make something happen. That man isn't necessarily Muslim. Look at Colin Powell's crazy accusations against Iraq at the UN, the whole WMD thing with satellite photos of supposed rocket silos and stuff. There's your war, your arms, your religious mask, your motive, your power in the shadows, all that. The same is true for any other party we're discussing here.

This to you might look like the perfect position for you to attack my views since it seems to you and others in this thread that I am Fox nwes-ifying Jihad, it would be an easy kick for you and others to just claim that I am taking things out of context, over exaggerating and spreading Islamophobia for my own agenda.

The truth is I have lived 10 years of my life in Saudi Arabia, the Muslims that you see here are westernized Muslims, their views on life and societies has changed and thus affected their interpretation and understanding of their religion.
I have lived and grown up among people who wouldn't think twice before attacking a homosexual or an apostate and if you ask them yourself they would tell you that what they are doing is right and that is what God would want them to do.
And no, I am not claiming that their understanding of Islam and its practices is the right one.
However, I do not believe that there is only one way to practice Islam, which is why I said to one of the posters who was answering questions about Islam that what he is saying is only what he believes how Islam should be practiced. Which is I guess where you thought that this argument started.
This whole thing started as an attempt by me to show one of the posters that what we consider terrorism today is not the result of simple misinterpretation of a text, it is far more complex than ''killing is forbidden'' thus we should kill those who kill.

Last but not least, I fear both the man in power and his soldier, I don't want any of them around me or my family, yes there are groups of Muslims that I fear, call it irrational fear if you will but for all I care it is justified fear.
By this, I do not mean that I fear all or the majority Muslims, my family are all Muslims and naturally I have great respect towards every single one of them no matter what religion they choose to follow.

 

[Shanadeus]

Has anybody ever heard of a church or priest that don't necessarily believe in God but believes in the idea of god.

I'm asking because I would not say I am a god fearing person but I do understand the power behind the philosophy of being a god fearing person.

So much so I was blown away when i read an article of a church not striping the priest hood of a priest who admitted he did not believe in God but still serviced the people in the church.

I always felt like an outcast when it comes to religion because I don't believe. But I can get behind the idea of God and using it as an outlet for hope, faith, togetherness, and moral discussion. Something loose and changing with the times, not rigid or rooted in tradition.

I cant really explain what I'm looking for but that's the best I can describe it.

You believe in God as an expression of the good human qualities and what we can accomplish through faith and solidarity?
That was pretty much what that priest felt, that the idea of God help us the same way the existence of God would.

 

[Anaxagoras]

You don't know that much about the bible do you?
I suggest you read more before making such claims, because truthfully I don't want to have to pick verses from the bible and some unintentionally how offend Christians, such in the way you're doing here with Muslims.

I will admit it, I haven't read the bible.
I made the mistake of considering what he claims is biblical to be so and thats why I made comparisons between Islam to what he provided. I will try to be more careful next time.

However, I still believe that Mohammed is a more violent person than Jesus and of course stand by the difference that I pointed out such as the materialistic rewards for a martyr in Islam.

 

[gutter_trash]

i'm considering going back to church after a 30 year absence;
I never was baptized yet.. what should I expect?

 

[Shanadeus]

i'm considering going back to church after a 30 year absence;
I never was baptized yet.. what should I expect?

If you're lucky, you should expect a lot of friendly people that'll love to help you into the community and are willing to answer any questions you have.
If you're unlucky, they'll be proselytizing for you, be smug and try to guilt you into becoming more religious.
As we're all humans, expect a mix of both.

 

[Veidt]

I will admit it, I haven't read the bible.
I made the mistake of considering what he claims is biblical to be so and thats why I made comparisons between Islam to what he provided. I will try to be more careful next time.

However, I still believe that Mohammed is a more violent person than Jesus and of course stand by the difference that I pointed out such as the materialistic rewards for a martyr in Islam.

Well you can most certainly believe what you want to believe.
But unlike Jesus, Muhammad had the ability to exert power and the means to defend his followers. And he conducted himself exceptionally humane both during his struggle for Islam to exist and not suffer persecution and after the eventual overshadowing of his enemies. Asking them what they would have done had they been in his position. Having them reply " We would have certainly killed you". And granting them absolution at the spot, something unheard of of a man in his position.

Now, as for Jesus. Luke 19:27"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." ( I personally do not believe Jesus to have said this, and believe Jesus and Mohammed to be of the same mindset )
Muhammad was never heard of saying such things, and when in the position to act upon his enemies, he granted them clemency. You can never objectively never know whether Jesus would have done the same had he ever been in the same position ( and I don't doubt he would, as a Muslim, but that doesn't go for you. )

 

[Ducarmel]

You believe in God as an expression of the good human qualities and what we can accomplish through faith and solidarity?
That was pretty much what that priest felt, that the idea of God help us the same way the existence of God would.

Probably that is what I'm trying to say. The thing is I'm not so sure about how I go about expressing this with other people. I fear will just get a "well you don't believe in an actual god so your a godless heathen" response.

 

[JGS]

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

To make such a bold statement like the above, you have to be grossly oversimplifying genetics, misquoting a scientist somewhere, or simply be retelling a line you heard from somewhere which sounds particularly fancy.

But semantics are semantics, and I'll let you carry on.

Hadn't seen this thread in a while.

However, I surprised you would find that funny. Are you content with thinking that people have a mystical connection with God rather than a scientific explanation?

I am officially confused. In any event, it doesn't change the fact that religious belief is far more inherrent or natural than not believng in anything...or at least you haven't disproven it. You certainly haven't added to the baby atheist theory:lol .

 

[Lucky Forward]

Now, as for Jesus. Luke 19:27"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." ( I personally do not believe Jesus to have said this, and believe Jesus and Mohammed to be of the same mindset )
Muhammad was never heard of saying such things, and when in the position to act upon his enemies, he granted them clemency. You can never objectively never know whether Jesus would have done the same had he ever been in the same position ( and I don't doubt he would, as a Muslim, but that doesn't go for you. )

Jibril, please. I'm an atheist, but I know the bible well enough to know that is a quote from a parable Jesus is telling. Here's Luke 19:11-12

http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/19_11-27.htm

While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return...

That line is spoken by the king in the story.

 

[Veidt]

Jibril, please. I'm an atheist, but I know the bible well enough to know that is a quote from a parable Jesus is telling. Here's Luke 19:11-12

http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/19_11-27.htm



That line is spoken by the king in the story.

: O
good one. Very good one. Consider me educated. I realized, now I'll probably look like an "out of context taker". :lol

aha!
But what about this!
"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matthew 10:34)
Don't worry, you can safely ignore that one. I really hate to compare religions ( nothing good comes out of it xD )

 

[Anaxagoras]

Well you can most certainly believe what you want to believe.
But unlike Jesus, Muhammad had the ability to exert power and the means to defend his followers. And he conducted himself exceptionally humane both during his struggle for Islam to exist and not suffer persecution and after the eventual overshadowing of his enemies. Asking them what they would have done had they been in his position. Having them reply " We would have certainly killed you". And granting them absolution at the spot, something unheard of of a man in his position.

Now, as for Jesus. Luke 19:27"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." ( I personally do not believe Jesus to have said this, and believe Jesus and Mohammed to be of the same mindset )
Muhammad was never heard of saying such things, and when in the position to act upon his enemies, he granted them clemency. You can never objectively never know whether Jesus would have done the same had he ever been in the same position ( and I don't doubt he would, as a Muslim, but that doesn't go for you. )

So you justify the violence by pointing out that Mohammad unlike Jesus had power, an attempt to somehow claim that if Jesus had power he would have done the same, but he didn't so we can't compare them?

You for sure can claim that the violence committed by Mohammed was justified and needed, no one would stop you from justifying that, but we all know how what he started ended.
After all, a man from God wouldn't need to resort to violence, unless God intended it to be so as a lesson for us to learn from, which unfortunately most of his followers today are walking away from.

 

[Veidt]

So you justify the violence by pointing out that Mohammad unlike Jesus had power, an attempt to somehow claim that if Jesus had power he would have done the same, but he didn't so we can't compare them?

You for sure can claim that the violence committed by Mohammed was justified and needed, no one would stop you from justifying that, but we all know how what he started ended.
After all, a man from God wouldn't need to resort to violence, unless God intended it to be so as a lesson for us to learn from, which unfortunately most of his followers today are walking away from.

Where did this whole "god only defends people by plagues or miracles" thing come into play?
A true miracle is changing the way people behave internally, by giving them an example.
A man from God is expect to handle all affairs of man, including wars.
Muhammad is the perfect example of how sword can be used for good. To defend those who can't defend themselves. Dismissing this is inconsiderate to say the least. Yes, Muhammad fought, he was battle numerous times. Yes, he bore the scars of combat over his entire body. And when he over powers them all, what does he do? He grants them absolution. And this is seen as a most honourable thing, as he fought for the people and put his life and message on the line numerous times, until he gave the people what he had promised them. Changing them from a people who buried their daughters, to men who furthered freedom of speech and other such great humanitarian progression of their time, resulting in them being written in history for ever to come. He truly practiced what he preached and put his life on the line as an example. There is seldom such a man.

You see a violent man, I see a hero.

 

[GT500]

So you justify the violence by pointing out that Mohammad unlike Jesus had power, an attempt to somehow claim that if Jesus had power he would have done the same, but he didn't so we can't compare them?

You for sure can claim that the violence committed by Mohammed was justified and needed, no one would stop you from justifying that, but we all know how what he started ended.
After all, a man from God wouldn't need to resort to violence, unless God intended it to be so as a lesson for us to learn from, which unfortunately most of his followers today are walking away from.

Don't forget that Muslims were surrounded by Quraish who were ready to attack at any moment. Fighting back is not actually violence. It is just like accusing Palestinian people today of being violent while, in fact, the are trying to protect themselves. So, I fail to see why you consider Muhammad violent. I can see that nothing but a baseless personal opinion.

Prophet Muhammad was neither violent nor a slaughter. In Badr, the Muslims were 313, while Quraish were 1000. Out of 1000, 70 were killed (in battle) and about the same number were captured by Muslims. On the Muslims side, 14 were killed. The Muslims buried those 70 after the fight (after the rest of the 1000 ran away). If prophet Muhammad was violent as you claimed, he would have killed them all. However, after they (Quraish) saw their best men killed in duels, they lost the motivation to fight. Prophet Muhammad and his followers were able to kill them all, but they let them go as they stopped fighting and that was enough.

Another thing is, after the conquest of Mecca, Prophet Muhammad asked Quraish people "What do you think I will do with you?". They said "Good, an honourable brother and an nephew". He said "Go, you are free".

He was also called the faithful and trustworthy even by his enemies who always trusted him and knew he would never break a promise or a treaty. And his enemies actually took the advantage of that and the broke the Hudaibia peace treaty. Leaving this aside, nobody would've believed him if he were a violent person or a bad person. Especially that he was alone, nobody believed his message at first and they hurt him. However, knowing Muhammad was a great man who deserves respect, people started to follow him one after another.

You are also very aware of the fact that Arabs were fighting all the time before Islam. They were living in tribes and every tribe held hostility towards the other. They were living like this and avoiding any contact with the Persians and the Romans who were united and had powerful countries. They lived in fear. Until prophet Muhammad came and put an end to this. Only a great man and a great leader can do this. Because of prophet Muhammad, their problems were gone and they became like brothers.




My point? I know you don't believe prophet Muhammad and I am not trying to preach. However, even if you don't believe his message, I just want to point out that any fair person would respect prophet Muhammad as a person if they knew what he did. I am okay with the people who don't believe and I would never interfere with their personal beliefs. However, I suggest to avoid this behaviour. I am not saying that you shouldn't post your personal opinions and thought, but your opnions and thought should reflect the truth, not what you like.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Well you can draw similarities of course.
The reason I phrased my argument the way I did was to point out that Islam and the Quran are not as peaceful as people claim.
The reason we have terrorism and extremism is not simply because people are misinterpreting their texts.
Everything they do is in there, its mentioned over and over again and its encouraged and rewarded as well.
The difference between Muslims here and the extremists is simply that they have different understandings of who is innocent and who is not, that and the disagreement on suicide.
And no, I know what I am talking about, I have read the Quran since early childhood.

Islam I think is around 1400 years old and global terrorism on this scale is what, around a decade old? People tend to draw parrells between violence done by Muslims and the origins of the Islamic faith. Yes it was violent, but then give me one Abrahamic faith that wasn't far away from violence whether it be preached, committed or enforced upon others.

Another point that is rarely mentioned is that the vast majority of victims to such terrorism have been Muslims themselves, so yet again I question the persistence some have in identifying Muslims in general terms, or their faith, as inherently violent or anymore so than any other group of people on this green Earth.

There is a verse in the Quran that says oppression is worse than murder, so it isn't surprising to see the fanaticism that has evoked the terrorism that Al-Qaeda and their sympathisers subscribe to. If anyone has ever read one of those statements released by Bin Laden, it is filled with political rhetoric. No doubt religion is used for self-comfort and the ideals of Jihad are rang loudly into the ears of those involved, but I find it either ignorant or insincere to portray one religious text (incidentally the youngest of the Abrahamic faiths) less holy than another based least of all things - violence.

If people want to question and criticise the Muslim prophet based on the violence he was involved with, some shocking I might add, then I'd like to hear their opinions on God himself.

 

[Nameless]

Islam I think is around 1400 years old and global terrorism on this scale is what, around a decade old? People tend to draw parrells between violence done by Muslims and the origins of the Islamic faith. Yes it was violent, but then give me one Abrahamic faith that wasn't far away from violence whether it be preached, committed or enforced upon others.

Another point that is rarely mentioned is that the vast majority of victims to such terrorism have been Muslims themselves, so yet again I question the persistence some have in identifying Muslims in general terms, or their faith, as inherently violent or anymore so than any other group of people on this green Earth.

There is a verse in the Quran that says oppression is worse than murder, so it isn't surprising to see the fanaticism that has evoked the terrorism that Al-Qaeda and their sympathisers subscribe to. If anyone has ever read one of those statements released by Bin Laden, it is filled with political rhetoric. No doubt religion is used for self-comfort and the ideals of Jihad are rang loudly into the ears of those involved, but I find it either ignorant or insincere to portray one religious text (incidentally the youngest of the Abrahamic faiths) less holy than another based least of all things - violence.

If people want to question and criticise the Muslim prophet based on the violence he was involved with, some shocking I might add, then I'd like to hear their opinions on God himself.

They all either promote, encourage, and/or pre-dispose people to violent activity. The Islamic faith is singled out due their fervent and often times seething display of reverence, making them an easy target. But Yahweh is no more peaceful.

And people who disagree with this, notice how questioning or offending someone's God emotes a burning response from even the most even-keeled individuals.

Violence at the behest of faith is perhaps the scariest because where does it end? There's nothing tangible there yet it's something people hold most important. I forgot who said this, but it was one of the "Four Horsemen". He recalled a conversation he had with a Bishop in where he posed the question, which I posed to someone earlier in the thread. He asked if God came to in that instant and ordered the Bishop to kill him would he do it... The Bishop's response, "Yes, I suppose I would have to." If you think about it, anyone who truly believes that their God is the creator of all, keeper of souls would pretty much have to. fucked up stuff indeed.

 

[Crag Dweller]

I don't know any Muslims in real life so its nice to read the opinions of the ones that are here. One thing that I've always wondered is, do Muslims believe everything in the Qur'an as 100% true and factual? Before "higher criticism" everything in the Bible was taken as fact, but as time went on some of the more "supernatural" stories in the Bible have instead become allegories and not meant to be taken literally. What are Muslim's stance on that as it relates to the Qur'an?

 

[jdogmoney]

Hadn't seen this thread in a while.

However, I surprised you would find that funny. Are you content with thinking that people have a mystical connection with God rather than a scientific explanation?

I am officially confused. In any event, it doesn't change the fact that religious belief is far more inherrent or natural than not believng in anything...or at least you haven't disproven it. You certainly haven't added to the baby atheist theory:lol .

Well, yeah.

Obviously.

Even a believer would say that. God is "beyond science". Any connection would also be beyond science.

And what atheist baby theory? Yes, babies are atheistic as a matter of definition. What theory?

Spoiler

Thanks to this thread, the other day I was able to explain the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Believe.

 

[JGS]

Well, yeah.

Obviously.

Even a believer would say that. God is "beyond science". Any connection would also be beyond science.

And what atheist baby theory? Yes, babies are atheistic as a matter of definition. What theory?

Spoiler

Thanks to this thread, the other day I was able to explain the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Believe.

Well, I had a discussion a few days ago.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

a·the·ist   –noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I disagree about the atheist baby. It ascribes to them an awareness they do not have. A baby does not believe in anything be it God, no god, diaper changes, Spongebob, or creamed spinach.

They are a blank slate which is not the same thing as an atheist or agnostic. It's simply an argument used to perpetuate the idea that all religious folk are brainwashed folk starting at infancy. There is stronger evidence (The history of mankind) that people gravitate to religious belief and then migrate away from it.

Babies acquire the ability to determine belief later. Early on it still does not have much to do with traditional religion. Rather they have a stronger belief in imaginary friends and/or the boogeyman. Then as they get even older they start to understand/agree with the religion of their parents or determine it's not for them.

This has been brought out in many posts in many threads from several indoctrinated Gaffers that wised up and became atheists. They must be special and everyone else was apparently too stupid to break from religion's grasp.

 

[GT500]

I don't know any Muslims in real life so its nice to read the opinions of the ones that are here. One thing that I've always wondered is, do Muslims believe everything in the Qur'an as 100% true and factual? Before "higher criticism" everything in the Bible was taken as fact, but as time went on some of the more "supernatural" stories in the Bible have instead become allegories and not meant to be taken literally. What are Muslim's stance on that as it relates to the Qur'an?

Yes, we believe that everything in the Quran is factual. And of course there are reasons. As you know, Muslims believe Muhammad's message, the final prophet and that's why his message should be valid until the Day of Judgment. We believe that Islam (which means submission to the will of God) is the message of all prophets. So basically, we don't consider Muhammad a founder of a new religion. We believe in the existence of the Torah, the Gospel, and the other scriptures and we believe what the Quran says about them, not their different versions which were written and misinterpreted by humans.

As for the "supernatural" stories, you mean miracles, right? There are miracles of the previous prophets mentioned in the Quran. They are not exactly the same as the Christians beliefs.


If you want to know what the Muslims believe about Jesus, here are some of his miracles mentioned in some parts of the Quran:
-Born without a father.
-Talked to people as a baby to prove his mother's innocence after the sons of Israel thought she was an unchaste.

Surah 19: Maryam (Mary)

16. Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.

17. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.

18. She said: "I seek refuge from thee to ((Allah)) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah."

19. He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.

20. She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"

21. He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us':It is a matter (so) decreed."

22. So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.

23. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried (in her anguish): "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!"

24. But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree): "Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee;

25. "And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee.

26. "So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to ((Allah)) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being'"

27. At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!

28. "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"

29. But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"

30. He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah. He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;

31. "And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;

32. "(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;

33. "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"!

34. Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.

35. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.

-Designed birds of clay and gave them life, cured the blind and the leper and gave life to the dead by the permission of God.
-knew what people store in their houses.
-God raised him to heaven and the Israelis didn't actually kill him.

Surah 3: 'Āli `Imrān


42. Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee- chosen thee above the women of all nations.

43. "O Mary! worship Thy Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down."

44. This is part of the tidings of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Messenger.) by inspiration: Thou wast not with them when they cast lots with arrows, as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary: Nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the point).

45. Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.

46. "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."

47. She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!

48. "And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,

49. "And (appoint him) an apostle to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah.s leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah.s leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;

50. "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.

51. "'It is Allah Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.'"

52. When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah." Said the disciples: "We are Allah.s helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.

53. "Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger. then write us down among those who bear witness."

54. And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah.

55. Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.

-They wanted more miracles in order to "satisfy their heart" and to "know they were told the truth."

Surah 5: Al-Mā'idah

111. "And behold! I inspired the disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Messenger. they said, 'We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to Allah as Muslims'".

112. Behold! the disciples, said: "O Jesus the son of Mary! can thy Lord send down to us a table set (with viands) from heaven?" Said Jesus: "Fear Allah, if ye have faith."

113. They said: "We only wish to eat thereof and satisfy our hearts, and to know that thou hast indeed told us the truth; and that we ourselves may be witnesses to the miracle."

114. Said Jesus the son of Mary: "O Allah our Lord! Send us from heaven a table set (with viands), that there may be for us - for the first and the last of us - a solemn festival and a sign from thee; and provide for our sustenance, for thou art the best Sustainer (of our needs)."

115. Allah said: "I will send it down unto you: But if any of you after that resisteth faith, I will punish him with a penalty such as I have not inflicted on any one among all the peoples."

-They thought they killed him, but God actually raised him to heaven to save him from their evil. They crossed someone else who they mistook for Jesus.

Surah 4: An-Nisā'

157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

158. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

I didn't mention every single detail and I don't remember everything at the moment. There are more details. But I assume you already know the Christian views and here are the Muslims views from the Quran. They aren't exactly the same.

We believe that Jesus didn't die and were raised to heaven. We also believe that Jesus will return again near the Day of Judgment to spread justice and to remove the corruption. In other words, Jesus will save us.

 

[Shanadeus]

post

But how do you reconcile supernatural events such as these miracles with what reality is like?
These miracles in the Qu'ran and the Bible flies against the face of reality and have never been encountered and documented outside from these texts, which we also cannot know who they were written by.

 

[GT500]

But how do you reconcile supernatural events such as these miracles with what reality is like?
These miracles in the Qu'ran and the Bible flies against the face of reality and have never been encountered and documented outside from these texts, which we also cannot know who they were written by.

Because the people who didn't believe insisted on disbelieving and ignored what happened. The Arabs called prophet Muhammad, for example, crazy, liar, poet, magician...etc and called the previous prophets all sorts of things, but why? They didn't want to believe. Why would they write about something they didn't even want to believe?

According to Muslims beliefs, the Quran is written as it was told to the prophet. We believe that it is a message from God told to prophet Muhammad by angel Gabriel. The Quran will always be the same in order to guide people until the Day of Judgment. If you didn't believe prophet Muhammad, you wouldn't believe what is written in the Quran.

The purpose of showing miracles? Regarding the miracles, imagine if we could fly or grow limbs again, for example. If we could do that normally, those things wouldn't be miracles anymore. They would be called ordinary things. However, the miracles were called miracles because they things we can't normally do. The purpose of showing miracles is to prove the prophets' truthfulness.

Why would prophet do that? A prophet is a "human" who does his duty which is spreading God's message. The message carries wisdom that any sane person would accept. Why would prophets waste their time and endanger their lives if they weren't telling the truth?

But Why didn't God send other prophets after prophet Muhammad? The Day of Judgment is near, when all people die and come back to life again to meet God. Okay, even if it is near, why isn't possible to send other prophets? God promised to keep the message (which is why he sent the prophet) until the end. The message of prophet Muhammad is still and will always be the same. Okay, why didn't God send other prophets to show us new miracles? Well, God send the prophets to deliver the message. Miracles are just to prove their truthfulness. And, honestly, if I didn't find prophet Muhammad's message good and makes sense, I wouldn't have followed it. So, I don't need miracles.

Personally, I pray everyday and I follow what the Quran says. It is not like it is going to hurt me or anything. I enjoy my life, I am happy and everything is good. I don't really care about what the others believe, but I respect the others. You ask for info and I just write it without the intention to preach or to force my beliefs into you. So, what is the point of writing this? You can choose to believe in whatever you want to believe. Why do people make such a big fuss about religion anyway? In the end, God is the one who'll punish you or reward you, not people. We should have respect for each other in this life, and then God is the one who will judge every single one of us individually in the afterlife.

 

[Crag Dweller]

Thanks for the detailed post GT. Thats the kind of insight that I was looking for. Although I'm an admitted non-believer, I find this fascinating. Again thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

 

[Sibylus]

Well, I had a discussion a few days ago.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist



I disagree about the atheist baby. It ascribes to them an awareness they do not have.

... and let's stop right there. Atheism does not exclusively require active denial in a God, it also includes "passive" disbelief. Those ignorant of a god concept thus can be considered atheistic, such as isolated tribal islanders and infants. Describing a baby as atheistic does not in any imply that they are aware of God concepts either, and those ignorant of the concept are equally capable of being called atheists because they fall under the definition.

So instead of just using a dictionary definition (come on, it's lazy evidence), why don't we acknowledge that all a human being needs to be atheistic is a mere lack of god belief (Atheos; "a" denoting absence, "theos" denoting God, so more or less "without God"). People who actively deny the existence of God are atheists because they also lack a God belief, but don't make the mistake of thinking that denial is a requirement of being an atheist. Lack, absence, of a God belief is all that is required. From there you can be agnostic, "strong", ignorant of the God concept, but at the end of the day you will still be an atheist if you lack the belief.

Further, saying that by default a human baby is atheistic is not suggesting that because this state is default that it is somehow superior (it would be equally foolish to suggest not knowing of music, language, and fun is good "because it's the default state"). It's merely an observation and can be helpful to rebut the view held by some that atheism is unnatural, weird, or bizarre. There are many untrue things said about atheism, so this observation may help to "naturalize" us in the eyes of such detractors (although nothing may help with those that look down on us as spiritually twisted or perverted).

TL;DR: Atheism does not require active comprehension of "God" as a concept. Nor does it require active denial of that concept. Absence of belief is sufficient to conform to the definition.

 

[Monocle]

Has anybody ever heard of a church or priest that don't necessarily believe in God but believes in the idea of god.

I'm asking because I would not say I am a god fearing person but I do understand the power behind the philosophy of being a god fearing person.

So much so I was blown away when i read an article of a church not striping the priest hood of a priest who admitted he did not believe in God but still serviced the people in the church.

I always felt like an outcast when it comes to religion because I don't believe. But I can get behind the idea of God and using it as an outlet for hope, faith, togetherness, and moral discussion. Something loose and changing with the times, not rigid or rooted in tradition.

I cant really explain what I'm looking for but that's the best I can describe it.

Secular humanism can give you most of that without all the superstitious baggage that comes with belonging to a religious community.

 

[jdogmoney]

[snip]

Personally, I pray everyday and I follow what the Quran says. It is not like it is going to hurt me or anything. I enjoy my life, I am happy and everything is good. I don't really care about what the others believe, but I respect the others. You ask for info and I just write it without the intention to preach or to force my beliefs into you. So, what is the point of writing this? You can choose to believe in whatever you want to believe. Why do people make such a big fuss about religion anyway? In the end, God is the one who'll punish you or reward you, not people. We should have respect for each other in this life, and then God is the one who will judge every single one of us individually in the afterlife.

Bolded for "right on, brother!"

 

[Shanadeus]

Because the people who didn't believe insisted on disbelieving and ignored what happened. The Arabs called prophet Muhammad, for example, crazy, liar, poet, magician...etc and called the previous prophets all sorts of things, but why? They didn't want to believe. Why would they write about something they didn't even want to believe?

According to Muslims beliefs, the Quran is written as it was told to the prophet. We believe that it is a message from God told to prophet Muhammad by angel Gabriel. The Quran will always be the same in order to guide people until the Day of Judgment. If you didn't believe prophet Muhammad, you wouldn't believe what is written in the Quran.

The purpose of showing miracles? Regarding the miracles, imagine if we could fly or grow limbs again, for example. If we could do that normally, those things wouldn't be miracles anymore. They would be called ordinary things. However, the miracles were called miracles because they things we can't normally do. The purpose of showing miracles is to prove the prophets' truthfulness.

Why would prophet do that? A prophet is a "human" who does his duty which is spreading God's message. The message carries wisdom that any sane person would accept. Why would prophets waste their time and endanger their lives if they weren't telling the truth?

But Why didn't God send other prophets after prophet Muhammad? The Day of Judgment is near, when all people die and come back to life again to meet God. Okay, even if it is near, why isn't possible to send other prophets? God promised to keep the message (which is why he sent the prophet) until the end. The message of prophet Muhammad is still and will always be the same. Okay, why didn't God send other prophets to show us new miracles? Well, God send the prophets to deliver the message. Miracles are just to prove their truthfulness. And, honestly, if I didn't find prophet Muhammad's message good and makes sense, I wouldn't have followed it. So, I don't need miracles.

Personally, I pray everyday and I follow what the Quran says. It is not like it is going to hurt me or anything. I enjoy my life, I am happy and everything is good. I don't really care about what the others believe, but I respect the others. You ask for info and I just write it without the intention to preach or to force my beliefs into you. So, what is the point of writing this? You can choose to believe in whatever you want to believe. Why do people make such a big fuss about religion anyway? In the end, God is the one who'll punish you or reward you, not people. We should have respect for each other in this life, and then God is the one who will judge every single one of us individually in the afterlife.

I suppose people make a big fuss about religion because it's hard to argue with a religious person if he or she has based her beliefs on various of things based on faith. It's really not easy to try to argue feelings, thoughts and world views founded in faith, so one goes instead and attacks the source of this faith, the validity of the religious texts that the belief stem from and whether or not they are valid.

You might wonder why someone would argue to begin with it, and I believe it's because people's religious beliefs, and all beliefs really, affect the individuals thoughts and views of what should and shouldn't be allowed in society. An example being Christian fundamentalists hindering scientific progress and research for dubious reasons based in the bible, or muslim extremists with a very twisted views on the rights of homosexuals, women etc.

As their arguments are cyclical ("How do you know the religious text is right? Because it says so/it's clearly self-evident/the text or book itself is proof of it's validity") we cannot through a reasoned debate keep them from getting their will through (just look at how they've affected stemcell research during Bush's reign)

I really don't care either way what people's beliefs are so long as they recognize them as something personal like you do, and respect other people's beliefs or lack of beliefs.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Where did this whole "god only defends people by plagues or miracles" thing come into play?
A true miracle is changing the way people behave internally, by giving them an example.
A man from God is expect to handle all affairs of man, including wars.
Muhammad is the perfect example of how sword can be used for good. To defend those who can't defend themselves. Dismissing this is inconsiderate to say the least. Yes, Muhammad fought, he was battle numerous times. Yes, he bore the scars of combat over his entire body. And when he over powers them all, what does he do? He grants them absolution. And this is seen as a most honourable thing, as he fought for the people and put his life and message on the line numerous times, until he gave the people what he had promised them. Changing them from a people who buried their daughters, to men who furthered freedom of speech and other such great humanitarian progression of their time, resulting in them being written in history for ever to come. He truly practiced what he preached and put his life on the line as an example. There is seldom such a man.

You see a violent man, I see a hero.

Saddam Hussein is a violent man too and some see him as a hero, why should I care who you regard as a hero. I also heard that he was quite nice and forgiving to his wife.
Mohammed was starting a religion, of course he would not exert more violence than whats necessary to spread the message or it would do more harm than good for him. Its obvious that its better for him and his religions image to act holy once the battle has been won.

And yes, I see a violent man, and you see a hero.

 

[Veidt]

Saddam Hussein is a violent man too and some see him as a hero, why should I care who you regard as a hero. I also heard that he was quite nice and forgiving to his wife.
Mohammed was starting a religion, of course he would not exert more violence than whats necessary to spread the message or it would do more harm than good for him. Its obvious that its better for him and his religions image to act holy once the battle has been won.

And yes, I see a violent man, and you see a hero.

You're seriously equating Muhammad with Saddam Hussein. :lol

 

[Stat Flow]

Well, hasn't this thread blossomed :lol