All Comments (176)

Jihadist,

This thread is playing out, so thank you for your indulgence.

Unlike many religion-obsessed atheists I have never been religious. I am genuinely flabbergasted at the phenomenon of religious belief and have never gotten a rational explanation of why anyone believes, hence my desire to ask you. I too have read the "believing in God is just like falling in love" quote, but it has more power coming from someone who is personally testifying to its accuracy. Love is blind.

As fo HL and his haughty manner - that's part of what this blog is for. However I would say that it's strange to suggest ignorance of the "true" meaning of a word in the same post that contains lines like:

"Time and again, I have heard - from Muslims and non-Muslims alike - that Islam calls on Muslims are to hate non-Muslims (Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc). I have even seen scripture being quoted to that effect, and I have even listened as Muslims - deeply devout ones - have said to me, while keeping a straight face, that I am supposed to hate all those who are not Muslim. I do not buy it one bit. I do not buy it no matter how many "Ulema," or religious scholars, are quoted as saying so."

If these guys can't get their story straight, why should I be exppected to know what side you're on? Once again I'm reminded of Ben Franklin: It IS so! It ISN'T so! It IS so! It INS'T so!...

Besides, how did Mohammad treat infidels? What do Hindus have to say about their treatment by muslims? I'm sure you know better than I, but I get the impression it hasn't been a pretty story.

I don't buy "atheism is boring". Nothing in nature is excluded by atheism, and nature is not boring. What IS boring is substituting silly stories for an understanding of reality, something that seems intrinsic to all religion and demeaning to human reason. However, it is true that human culture has emerged within a framework of religious superstition, and that this framework has been the repository of millienia of wisdom on human nature and the human condition. Thus dispite all the nonsense there is also great depth. The challenge for atheism is to resonantly articulate an ethics free from superstition. Secular Humanism is one such attempt (a little too narrow a focus for me - I'm a vegetarian). The freethought movement of the late nineteenth century is another, and I recommend Robert Ingersoll if you are interested (I love the term "freethinker"). Personally, I belong to the "religion" of Ethical Culture, founded by an ex-rabbi (oy vey) who wanted a religion utterly free of superstition and focused on man's care of his fellow man (and women - I wouldn't want to be sexist!).

Morality exists because suffering exists, and because we know that the suffering of a fellow being is no different from our own. Equally horrific. Not because god says do this don't do that.

You ask "What do atheists, among believers, want in the public square?" That's a broad question, going far beyond religion. The obvious answer is peace, civility, love, compassion, freedom, etc.

I'd like life to be unfettered by superstition.

No matter what time continuum The Obfuscating Jihadist lives in, the following famous quote holds true:

Until the koran is "deflawed", no one is safe"!!!!!

HL,

Hello.

Yes, it does bother me sometimes too when someone writes something without thoroughly researching the related facts.

Yes, ignorance is not an excuse especially in this ICT enabled age for access to knowledge and to keep up with political, economic and social developments. Given our limited time and mind, we can't absord and know everything.

We not only don't have time to read and know everything, but sifting through and determining reliable sources of information also takes time, especially in new areas.

Nowadays, I mostly focus on areas that interests me. I have no intention in learning about fly fishing and the best spots to do so.

Thanks and regards
"J"

J,

I agree with what you wrote and I apologize if I went overboard with my critique. You are someone I look up to and admire your staying above the fray of name calling and condescending attitudes that most of us have. You try to live by the teaching of the Quran about how to deal with people with different beliefs and I command for that. As for me I am a stickler for details, maybe because of my engineering background, and it bothers me when someone writes something without researching the related facts; ignorance is not an excuse especially in this day and age of information and technology.

Anon.
Colson (yes, I know, Colson is the least qualified to pontificate) and others on his post say that religion and morals are very much relevant to the measure of a candidate's suitability.

This may be the first time I agree with Colson.

For my part, I could not support a candidate born with a silver equivocation in his mouth.

Nor could I support one that attempts to buy the White House.

Nor could I support one whose "religion" is downright scary.

Providence C.

Providence

HL :)

Hello. Why get upset?

Chris Everett is fun. He call my post "mersmerising". As if I am a witch casting a spell, or a dancer distracting him from facts.

Very sweetly dismissively sexist of him, and asking me why I believe in God. I'll indulge him a bit. Atheists needs believers to validate their non-belief. They read up on books on non-belief and facts to support non-belief to reinforce and reaffirm their non-belief. I've never seen Asian atheists do that. Yet.

Like you, I don't care if they call me a “maniac” or "moron", or "smug" and "condescending" or "immune" to truth and reality. I don't quite know if they are talking about themself.

Nor do I care if they correct my English grammar and spelling. Or the French and Arabs to correct my French and Arabic. I made the effort to learn their languages.

Nor do I care for anyone calling me "terrorist" and saying to "nuke Mecca" in On Faith threads. I've stop reading their posts since, and also because their posts on politics and economics are not worth reading, much less to correct.

I don't have your patience to elaborate on "kafir". The way I see it, my time is better spend going into the finer points on Suras, Hadiths, and Shariah with my fellow Muslims. It don't matter to non-Muslims a whit on this. Nor can they do anything about it in the Muslim world.

Really fun for me to see some atheists and some Christian evangelical-fundamentalists also calling each other morons, maniacs and idiots. must be a civilised thing to call that of people who don't share the same beliefs as them.

Makes one wonder whether atheists mostly are from evangelical-fundamentalists families of any Christian denominations. Someone should do a research on this as they use the same labellings.

It seems that only Christian evangelical-fundamentalists and some others, including atheists, who like to call Muslims morons and maniacs. Oh, wait,some atheists do say every believer are morons, idiots and delusional.

It this a superiority complex or exceptionalism of their beliefs and truths.?

I've seen many Christian posters here, such as Soja from Australia, Viejita Del Oeste, Daniel in the Lion's Den, Arminius etc who are really fine people and like the Christians we met in real life.

It is interesting to find out how much atheists know or don't about everything else in the world, including on science or even on their own culture. So now we know. Non-belief in God and religion does not automatically make atheists know everything else.

I do respect and like some atheists here. Especially those who are secular humanists or spiritual atheists like E Favorite and A Hermit. They are never condescending and smug to anyone.

Not all atheists are as smart as Bertrand Russell or Jacques Berlinerblau. My tea lady is an atheist who still can't pass the equivalent American high school diploma after five attempts thus far. This in spite of her having reason, being logical, rational and intelligent enough to see the "truth" if we are to believe the atheists' characterisations of themselves. She's resitting for the exams again next year.

On Faith is very educational, no?

Thanks and regards

"J"

Hello Chris Everett,

What? Nothing to say on my post but to ask me why I believe in God? What has that got to do with what I say and do?

Don't tell me atheists are like fundamentalists. People who don't believe as they do are not worthy of anything and can do no good, be up to no good at all? LOL

I like your posts, as I do those by E Favorite and A Hermit, some other atheists here, because they are more nuanced and see the world as less either this or that as the sole cause or panacea for all the ills in the world.

Why be confined to science only? Let's go here and there again to stretch beyond what most posters do - cut and paste from other sources and give links to strengthen their arguments against the other.

It seems to me that atheists don't like to talk too much about ethics, morals, values. No wonder some don't like to be called "freethinker". Gives the impression of free living, freebasing, free love, freeloading, etc. Just kidding.

Now, why would some non-believers be as obsessed in asking believers to shed their faith as some fundamentalist-evanglelicals are in urging those who don't share their faith to believe as they do or face hell for all eternity?

I usually ignore both types in On Faith as they are the "mirror missionaries" who see the world as a "fallen place" either because of belief in God and religion poisons everything or religion is the root of all our problems, or because we don't believe in a God of a particular faith. They are the "extremists" of both non-belief and belief.

Only Ms. Susan Jacoby among all freethinkers/atheists/agnostics whom I read have intellectual honesty and equilibrium to answer my question whether without belief in God/s, the supernatural or religion, the world will be free from hatred, bigoty, strife and war.

Jacoby said we would not, but issues causing those has to be addressed, and the rigths of all ensured and protected as as per the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. She's become the only atheist/freethinker/agnostic writer whom I respected and admired. I like her writing style too.

Some atheists seem to have undertaken quite an indefagible quest "persuading" believers that their beliefs just superstitions and "false". I have not seen any believer "persuaded" or "converted" to atheism by any atheist here as yet. But if there are, all well and good for them to resolve on their personal beliefs and cease to be feeling "tortured".

Again, why do people see truth and meaning in their lives through their respective faith? Surely you are not going to give me the of oft repeated response that they are fearful, that they are afraid of the truth, that they are delusional. From what I've read in some posts in On Faith, some atheists are more terrified of the afterlife than believers are.

It is because what the holy texts stated on human nature, on human condition has become so obvious through centuries of human experience that they become as cliched as quotes from Shakespeare's plays?

The holy texts continue to offer guidelines on ethics, mores and values better than the dry prose of civil laws, Constitutions and Bill of Rights that simplified, modified and updated them on what one can and cannot do as individuals and member of society.

So, you wish to interest me in Buddhism? I live in Asia and am familiar with the the various forms of Buddhism from Tibet to Japan. More and more South Koreans are leaving Buddhism to be Christians. The Japanese are rather indifferent, and the Thais more into rites. Buddhism as organised faith in Sri Lanka and Thailand is something one would not recognise from reading the Dhammapada.

The Asian atheists from Lebanon to Japan never have to quote Voltaire or Einstein or Dawkins or Dennett or Hitchens et al to state why they don't believe. Nor do many heard or read the works of those fellows. They just don't.

It is often stated if one is born in India or of a Hindu family, one would be Hindu. If one is born in Iran of a Shiite family one would be one too. Perhaps in most cases. Then again, just as believers are born and infused with the faith of their parents, so are atheists if born of atheist parents.

Just as believers can become atheists in physically and mentally moving away from their family's faith, or even society, atheists can become believers. In China, the younger generation weaned on Moaism are increasingly finding and discovering faith, especially Christianity while their parents remain atheists.

So, you want me to show you a little skin, eh? And my posts is like the dance of the seven veils only? I'm not a belly dancer, showing a lot of skin but only one veil for one face. Atheists want believers to keep their faith out of the public square and to keep it private or some suggest, in the closet, but ask about it anyway, eh?:)

Science is easy to grasp. Human nature and the human condition can be explained by science or social science. 1+1 = 2 is easy. But what is "1"? How do it accept to join with another "1" to become "2"? What happens when they get together in the real world? Are we looking at the whole picture or the sectoral slice from the prism of our own limited experiences and knowledge on most things including beliefs?.

I'll make it simple and atavistic. "Maurie Beck", an atheist whom I don't see here much nowadays, once simply said "believing in God is just like falling in love." I leave it at that for that is how I feel about love and belief. Like love, there are degrees of belief. Like love, one can fall in or out of belief. Like love, one can believe blindly. Like love, one can believe and see all the the warts and still believe.

And you ask why Islam? Tells more about you than me and in asking me to look at Buddhism instead. A thousand reasons for me. Compared to other faiths, the God it talks about is closer to what I believe in. It is less obsessed with miracles. It focus on personal responsibility and accountablity. It sees the individual and society as interlinked. It sees man and the universe as intertwined. It urges one to seek the right part personally. It urge for one to live and act rightly and justly towards others. If I want to be a spiritual introvert focussing only on my self-Enlightenment and well-being, I'll be a Buddhist. But I can already do that as a Sufi Muslim.

The Five Pillars of Islam and its other tenets are also the ones that fits my personality and temperament best. I chose to pursue Islamic banking and to support specific programmes and activities. I never seek to impose my belief on others. Nor do I mock their beliefs. Such a waste of time. It is their personal behavior that matters most to me.

One can be mentally "pure" atheist, but it never stop one from behaving badly towards oneself or with others. It may be an atheist's virtue to be free and unfettered in mind and/or behavior. An irresolute and self-indulgent lout can be found among believers and atheists. It also send out the message that one don't care for any religious or secular or personal ethics, values and mores.

As I said earlier, I live in Asia, the most diversified region in terms of race, religion and culture in the world.

It is also a region where man-made and natural disasters occurs all too often.It is where there are the most political, economic and social strifes. Disasters and deaths are everyday occurrences. One can never be smug and condescending on the causes, reasons and victims. One can never afford to have compassion fatigue or to easily fix the blame instead of trying to fix the problem. One is also highly attuned to the sanctimonous, to the hypocrites in culture and politics. One is also wary of cultural chauvinists.

One can never be sheltered from the real world of natural calamities and armed conflicts and terrorists. But from Lebanon to Japan, people seek to find strength, to find hope, to have faith and courage in whatever way they can to face the challenges before them. They may lose faith. They may find faith. And it don't matter how we all overcome our fears and flagging spirits to give us courage and hope to do the right thing not only for ourself but for others tgo move on.

My college mates and some dons asked me the same the question as you do. Why do I believe? As to the answer I gave to my college mates and my dons who asked why I believe, don't take personal offence. I responded that atheism is simple, boring and unchallenging. They laugh and agreed that faith and "organised religion" (as "churches" for Christians, or as organised groups by Muslims), is a challenge to states, in being able to colour or determine state policies for or against religion, and to even remove goverments.

And so my friend, would you prefer a fellow atheist on your side calling believers moronic for "believing in the supernatural", mocking individual believers on their beliefs but is effete in the real world, the wider world to ensure seperation of church or domination by one faith;

or,

do you want believers who recognise and understood the power of faith at the personal level, and "organised believers" in the public square, who grasp the abuses, manipulations and excessess of the self-serving ones using religion for their own ends on your side?

and,

What do atheists, among believers, want in the public square?

At this stage, and by numbers, believers outnumber believers. Technically, believers have less need for non-believers in the public square as believers are currently better organised and have more funds for believer-related activities and interests.

Calling believers delusional and moronic does not lessen their political clout for wily politicians to avail himself of their support by making the right noices on faith, or believers shrewd enough to use political network, machinery and machinations to get what they want from politicians and the state.

Thanks and regards

"J"

Chris Everett:

You wrote: “Let us hope we don’t follow the guidance in these texts, otherwise I’d have to stone you to death and you’d have to cut my throat or something, seeing as I’m an “infidel”. By the way, have you ever thought about the word “infidel”? Do you think it actually has a legitimate meaning that signifies something real? Or is it a concept wholly pathological? Am I really an infidel? Is there anything intrinsic to by being, to my existence, that has anything to do with some us-vs.-them concept that a maniac in the desert came up with 14 centuries ago? Why even associate yourself with that kind of tripe.”

What wisdom and decency form an otherwise smart and intelligent person! By the way I am proud to be a “maniac” follower of whom you call “maniac.” I might refer to you as a heathen in the Christian sense of the word. I might also call you a moron and a Jack a55, and since I don’t know you well enough I might be wrong.

And now back to the topic at hand. The word in question here is “infidel.” The two words used in the Quran that might be translated as such are “kafir” and mushrik.” We find these two words used extensively in the Quran and therefore we can deduce their meanings from their usage. First the word “mushrik” has the meaning of associating other partners or “lesser gods” to act as intercessors to God himself. The word “kafir’ is the word that’s often translated, or mistranslated in this case, as “infidel” and therefore we need to take a closer look at it to find out what it really mean.

In Arabic the word kafara means "cover, hide." The word itself, like in other Semitic languages, is made of three basic consonants: the letters k, f, and r; many other words can be derived by adding vowels to the root letters. From their usage in the Quran, the words can mean (1) to cover, (2) to be ungrateful, and therefore (3) to deny something, in this case truth, after being presented with proof and clear signs. I have not seen any where in a decent and extant translation of the meaning of the Quran where the word “kafir” is rendered as “infidel.” Nowhere! Check it out yourself if you want to.

The meaning of the word “infidel” in the dictionary is as follows:
1.One who has no religious beliefs.
2.One who is unbeliever with respect to some religion, esp. Christianity or Islam. [ME infidele, heathen < OFr. < Lat. Infidelis, unbelieving.

So the word infidel is used therefore to refer to non Christians and that’s where the problem is. If the word infidel to Christians refers to non Christians, like the word gentile and goyum refer to non Jews, to the Muslims it does not necessarily refer to non Muslims. If that is the case then we should find the Christians and the Jews being referred to as “infidels.” But that reference is nowhere to be found in the Quran and in fact they are called “people of the book.” Which means the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims share a single divine scripture and therefore they are spiritual cousins. So, the concept “us versus them” is alien to the Quran and uncalled for on your part. And no your life would not be in danger if you happen to be in a Muslim setting even if you happen to be a heathen. Your accusations are shameful and have no basis whatsoever in real life.

A fellow Muslim, Hesham Hassaballa, wrote concerning this subject:

“Time and again, I have heard - from Muslims and non-Muslims alike - that Islam calls on Muslims are to hate non-Muslims (Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc). I have even seen scripture being quoted to that effect, and I have even listened as Muslims - deeply devout ones - have said to me, while keeping a straight face, that I am supposed to hate all those who are not Muslim.

I do not buy it one bit. I do not buy it no matter how many "Ulema," or religious scholars, are quoted as saying so. Yet, this begs the question: exactly who is a kafir? Many Muslims may understand that a kafir is anyone who is not Muslim, a so-called "infidel." It is not that simple.

The Arabic word kafir itself comes from the word kafara, which means "to cover up." In fact, farmers in Arabic are called kuffar because they "cover up" their seeds with dirt (such a usage is found in the Qur'an, in verse 57:20). Another meaning of kufr is ingratitude; it is the opposite of shukr, or gratitude. In fact, grammatically, kafir is an active verb, meaning that a kafir is actively "covering up" something. Thus, when the word kafir is used in the Qur'an, it is a voluntary action on the part of the person committing the kufr. Muhammad Asad (may God have mercy on him) explained the meaning of kafir best, which first occurred in the Qur'an in verse 74:10:

Since this is the earliest Quranic occurrence of the expression kafir (the above surah having been preceded only by the first five verses of surah 96), its use here - and, by implication, in the whole of the Quran - is obviously determined by the meaning which it had in the speech of the Arabs before the advent of the Prophet Muhammad: in other words, the term kafir cannot be simply be equated, as many Muslim theologians of post-classical times and practically all Western translators of the Quran have done, with "unbeliever" or "infidel" in the specific, restricted sense of one who rejects the system of doctrine and law promulgated in the Quran and amplified by the teachings of the Prophet - but must have a wider, more general meaning.

This meaning is easily grasped when we bear in mind that the root verb of the participial noun kafir (and of the infinitive noun kufr) is kafara, "he (or "it") covered (a thing)": thus, in 57:20 the tiller of the soil is called (without any pejorative implication) kafir, "one who covers", i.e., the sown seed with earth, just as the night is spoken of as having "covered" (kafara) the earth with darkness. In their abstract sense, both the verb and the nouns derived from it have a connotation of "concealing" something that exists or "denying" something that is true. Hence, in the usage of the Quran - with the exception of the one instance (in 57:20) where this participial noun signifies a "tiller of the soil" - a kafir is one who denies (or "refuses to acknowledge") the truth" in the widest, spiritual sense of this latter term: that is, irrespective of whether it relates to a cognition of the supreme truth - namely, the existence of God - or to a doctrine or ordinance enunciated in the divine writ, or to a self-evident moral proposition, or to an acknowledgment of, and therefore gratitude for, favours received.

This is the proper understanding of the word kafir, namely someone who actively denies the truth. This necessitates that he or she comprehends what the truth is in order to deny it. If someone does not know the truth, how can he or she be called a kafir? How can someone deny something which he or she does not know? This is extremely important.

Now, it is true that the Qur'an does identify groups of people who are kuffar, or people who actively deny the truth. For instance, those who believe that Jesus is God have committed kufr, or denial of the truth: "Indeed, those who say, 'Behold, God is the Christ, son of Mary' deny the truth..." (5:17). Later in the same chapter God says: "Indeed, those who say, 'Behold, God is the Christ, son of Mary' deny the truth..." (5:72). The very next verse reiterates the same message: "Indeed, those who say, 'God is the third of a trinity' deny the truth..." (5:73).

But again, to be a kafir, one has to know the truth about Jesus' being no more than a messenger of God and still insist on his being God Himself. If someone has never heard and comprehended the truth about Jesus Christ (from a Muslim perspective), how can he or she be called a kafir, or one who actively denies the truth according to Islam? Furthermore, the Qur'an does not address Jews and Christians as "O kuffar." Rather, the Qur'an addresses them as ahl al kitab, or "People of the Book."

What's more, the Qur'an clearly delineates the nature of a true kafir: "God has set forth as a parable for those who are bent on denying the truth [the stories of] Noah's and Lot's wife: they were wedded to two of Our righteous servants, and each one [spiritually] betrayed her husband; and neither of the two [husbands] will be of any avail to these two women when they are told [on Judgment Day]: 'Enter the fire with all those [other sinners] who enter it!'" (66:10).

What more intimate relationship can there be besides husband and wife? The wife of a Prophet would be a first-hand witness to the revelation from God and its truth. She would see the proof of its veracity in the life of her husband. Noah's and Lot's wives, despite their closeness to Prophets of God, still denied the truth and joined the ranks of the unbelievers. This is truly what a kafir is. You can not equate someone like this with someone who has never heard or comprehended the truth and call the latter a kafir.

What does this mean for Muslims? For one thing, I do not think it is proper to call every person who is not a Muslim a kafir. We do not know the status of their hearts. Only God does, and it is God and God alone Who will take everyone to account for their beliefs and actions. In fact, many Muslims use the term kafir in a derogatory sense, maligning and looking down upon those who are not Muslim. This is neither right nor proper. Muslims are supposed to be a positive force in the world, the "best nation put forth for humanity." Spewing forth anger and hatred is wholly antithetical to what it means to be a Muslim.

Yet, the fact remains: the world will always be full of people who are not Muslim, be they kuffar or not. In fact, God has willed it to be so. So, what are we as Muslims supposed to do about this? Are we supposed to kill them? Hell no. Are we supposed to "invade their countries, kill their leaders," and convert them to Islam? Umm, no. Are we supposed to hate them with all of our hearts? Wrong again. Rather, we are supposed to "invite to the way of [our] Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation" and leave the rest to God. End

Examples of words containing “kfr”:

KNOW [O men] that the life of this world is but a play and a passing delight, and a beautiful show, and [the cause of] your boastful vying with one another, and [of your] greed for more and more riches and children. Its parable is that of [life-giving] rain: the herbage which it causes to grow delights the tillers of the soil [This is the sole instance in the Quran where the participial noun kafir (in its plural form kuffar) has its original meaning of “tiller of the soil”]; but then it withers, and you can see it turn yellow; and in the end it crumbles into dust. But [the abiding truth of man’s condition will become fully apparent] in the life to come: [either] suffering severe, or God’s forgiveness and His goodly acceptance: for the life of this world is nothing but an enjoyment of self-delusion. 57:20

Kafir translated as ungrateful as in:
Has there [not] been an endless span of time before man [appeared - a time] when he was not yet a thing to be thought of? Verily, it is We who have created man out of a drop of sperm intermingled, so that We might try him [in his later life]: and therefore We made him a being endowed with hearing and sight. Verily, We have shown him the way: [and it rests with him to prove himself] either grateful or ungrateful {kafura.} 76:2-3

Kafir translated as to deny the truth:
All that is in the heavens and all that is on earth extol God's limitless glory: His is all dominion, and to Him all praise is due; and He has the power to will anything.
He it is who has created you: and among you are such as deny this truth, and among you are such as believe [in it]. And God sees all that you do.
He has created the heavens and the earth in accordance with [an inner] truth, and has formed you - and formed you so well; and with Him is your journey's end.
He knows all that is in the heavens and on earth; and He knows all that you keep secret as well as all that you bring into the open: for God has full knowledge of what is in the hearts [of men].
Have the stories of those who, in earlier times, refused to acknowledge the truth never yet come within your ken? [They denied it -] and so they had to taste the evil outcome of their own doings, with [more] grievous suffering awaiting them [in the life to come]:
This, because time and again there came unto them their messengers with all evidence of the truth, but they [always] replied, "Shall mere mortal men be our guides?" And so they denied the truth and turned away. But God was not in need [of them]: for God is self-sufficient, ever to be praised.
They who are bent on denying the truth claim that they will never be raised from the dead! Say: "Yea, by my Sustainer! Most surely will you be raised from the dead, and then, most surely, will you be made to understand what you did [in life]! For, easy is this for God!"
Believe then, [O men,] in God and His messenger, and in the light [of revelation] which We have bestowed [on you] from on high! And God is fully aware of all that you do. 64:1-8

Even as We have sent unto you a messenger from among yourselves to convey unto you Our messages, and to cause you to grow in purity, and to impart unto you revelation and wisdom, and to teach you that which you knew not: so remember Me, and I shall remember you; and be grateful unto Me, and deny Me not. 2:151-152

Jihadist,

Your posts are like the dance of the seven veils. Beautiful and mesmerizing but never getting to the meat of the issue.

I still can't understand why you're a muslim. I've tried to explain why I'm an atheist (nature presents us with what is most irrefutably true, science is the only successful method devised for explaining empirical observations, scientific "truth" refers to the correspondence of an abstract model of reality to the entirety of the evidence, scientific truth is compelling because of its profound elegance and its enormous power of prediction, what is not known empirically is food for thought and wonder but not to be "filled in" with myths and fairy tales, religions are very obviously artifacts of early human attempts at understanding, etc...). What I would like to understand is why are you compelled to believe in God? You're the one that wrote, “It is accepted that there is an Ultimate Creator and Originator,” which IS passive, baseless and uncompelling. Moreover, even if you feel compelled to believe in God, why Islam as opposed to some other religion (can I interest you in Buddhism?)? Is there something about Islam that is compelling? Does your personal experience convince you that angels appear out of nowhere and dictate holy books? You write, "Amazing is it not, that a so-called "maniac" continue to have a hold on and deep respects of Muslims? He must be doing something right after all - on belief, on realpolitik, on society." Amazing maybe. But not necessarily true. The same can be said for Jesus, Moses, Krishna, Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard but that doesn't make them factually correct (or even real people). So be amazed at all these men and mythic figures, but why BELIEVE? You write "Religious texts are also read and loved as one would of great literature and poetry for spiritual well being... There are gorgeously beautiful and and timeless passages in all religious tracts..." I agree, and they are no less accessible to me, an atheist, than to a believer. In fact, they are MORE accessible to me because I see them as they really are - flawed yet sublime, like the human minds that first conceived them and the human cultures that have refined and transmitted them down the generations (is there a MEME in the house!?).

So the veils remain: Why BELIEVE? Why Islam (or any PARTICULAR religion)? I have read hundreds of your lines - they are all fascinating but leave me nowhere closer to understanding what I'm burning to understand. Please please PLEASE! - show me just a little skin.

Anon -

Wow!! God willed that GWB become president in
2000?? More like Satan working in cognitio
if you ask me. If the worst president of all time is the best God can do, let him practice
on a few other countries before coming back for
a reprise. I told you to keep God out of politics and now look at the mess He's made!!

And He's still meddling .......

Huckabee's the second biggest loser the GOP has ever produced. He's getting severely creamed in New Hampshire and mark my words. Even the GOP won't let this happen twice.

Freestinker:

I beg your pardon. Jesus was certainly mentioned.

"We hold these trughts to be self evident, all men are created equal except Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, (they saw into the future), plantation owners, newspaper editors, rock stars, preachers, (especially those from Arkansas), Ayatollahs and millions of faithful Muslims..."

Giuliani did not pray before the Iowa cacuses and Mitt Romney prayed to the wrong God along with several others. Not to worry, devil is on his way to New Hampshire where all men will be equal again -given a second chance to "hold these truths to be self evident..."

May I offer the 2000 election as an example of how getting the most votes and winning are not the same thing. God wills it.

"Second, I would like to know if the candidate believes in a Christian God and is this belief in accord with the Declaration of Independence. Does this candidate believe that man’s inalienable rights are God given and not man given, as the Founding Father’s stated in the Declaration and Madison intones in the Bill of Rights?"

Hogwash!

If the founders thought our rights came from the Christian god of bible, then why did they purposefully omit any reference to Jesus or God from the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Instead, the preamble reads "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." So it is in fact "We The People" (not a god) who are responsible for securing our "inalienable rights".

And in the Declaration, Jefferson used word "Creator" and that could mean any god (or other force) you like including the Deist god, not the Christian god of the Bible which Jefferson clearly rejected.

And if there are still any doubts about this, just check the Treaty of Tripoli which reads "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ...". It was ratified unanimously by the US Senate in 1797 and signed by President John Adams (a Unitarian, not a Christian).

Jihadist:

You're kidding of course. Muhammad's remains didn't get carried off to heaven by a band of angels?

I'm so ignorant. Educate me. Why do Muslims give a hoot about Jerusalem? I was so poorly educated -told that Muhammad's dead body left earth from somewhere, (Temple mount?) in Jerusalem and that's why Jerusalem is so sacred to Muslims.

No offense intended. Unlike others I don't already know everything. I learn by making mistakes, explaining why I thought that and then getting corrected.

Example: http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul and no one has managed to correct me there so I'm left to assume what it says is so. The list of those with nothing to say is rather "lettery, (PhD, DD, etc)" too.

Those who already know everything cannot learn. That's not me. Learning is fun. Don't you think?

regards

Chaotician:
amen!

AMENophis IV!!

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ:

OK. Begin here. The Bible is a hoax. It is not the word of God. At best it is the word of the biggest Devil of them all, Lucifer, (and let's agree there are a lot of Devils/devils -devils are just little ones, beginners like YKW).

Proof the above is so:
The Bible is a hoax http://www.hoax-buster.org page 2

OR -Proof the Bible is Devil's handbook http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

What you have written is absolutely unAmerican and a violation of the constitution -there shall be no religious test for candidates. Now violating the constitution is bad enough but using a hoax as your source of information is an outrage.

You think elections are the picking of temporary monarchs to rule the kingdom of God while you wait for Jesus to return and claim his throne. There is no place in democracy for either rulers or kings -kings of kings are 10X worse. In democracy all officials are servants of the people.

Time for you to evolve. Packs of dogs have kings, alfa males to rule the mob. I see. You don't believe in evolution. That explains it all.

Mike,

Nice try but you still evaded the central point of Gustav's post (and mine).

Accusing us of being Bush haters is completely irrelevent to the charge that Bush is immoral because of his well documented actions as President.

If you really admire Bush's morality, then defend his actions rather than call us names.

And if you don't care to engage on the topic, then why should anyone care what you think about irrelevent issues?

Dear BNICHOLS,

Your post would seem to indicate that you also could not answer "yes" to question #2. If I'm wrong, please help me understand why your statement is not a great example of bigotry.

Second, will you listen to others and give thoughtful weight to reasonable arguments with which you may be inclined to disagree?

A religious person could not honestly answer yes to this question since they are immune to any reasonable arguments.

VOTING FOR A PRESIDENT:
I believe the most important moral quality in any President is, “What is his view of human life?" What does he believe is the purpose of human life? What is his view on the nature of man? Is man a material being or a spiritual being created to the image and likeness of God?

Second, I would like to know if the candidate believes in a Christian God and is this belief in accord with the Declaration of Independence. Does this candidate believe that man’s inalienable rights are God given and not man given, as the Founding Father’s stated in the Declaration and Madison intones in the Bill of Rights?

Third, how does this president view the Natural Moral Law? Does the candidate believe there are certain violations of moral principles that are never permissible, like murder of the unborn and the embryo? Do his principles change from one day to the next? And, what are his views of Justice and Mercy?

Fourth, does this candidate have an impeccable record of integrity, character, professionalism, and is not a demagogue and consummate duplicitous prevaricator? Does he have the moral courage to keep his word and to stand for what he believes and runs on, regardless of polls and political pressure?

These questions posed by the Mr. Niebuhr sound vaguely like a hit on our president. First, no one has to be humbly admitting his mistakes. If he makes one, then he should try to correct it, move on, and try not making it again. Apologizing all the time is a sign of weakness. Playing “got you” by the opposition accomplishes nothing but an attempt to undermine the Presidency.

My personal opinion about admitting to your mistakes is Roosevelt's statement. It personifies both Bushes and Regan. All candidates should have that same moral courage these presidents have demonstrated in their presidency in contrast to the consummate liar, perjurer, rapist, adulterous womanizer and molester Bush II succeeded.

Theodore Roosevelt:
“It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena. The man, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, The man who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause. He is the man, who at best knows achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

If the president isn’t outright stupid, he always listens to others. Bush invited the Dems over to the White House and they kicked his teeth in after he agreed with them on nearly all their points, one being Ted Kennedy on the education bill.

Moreover, referring to things affecting the Globe sounds like a reference to Global Warming. I believe there isn’t one credible climatologist that can go along with Global Warming. Thank Bush for not being a fool falling for that canard, and destroying the economy.

As for going to war, I believe, at times, it is necessary. World War II is a great example, as was the Gulf War, and Bush’s War on Terror as well.

We had a pusillanimous president who was so worried about his legacy that his base poltroonery necessitated the war on terror. Moreover, he depleted the Armed Forces in order to gain political advantage on the domestic side. In addition, for campaign contributions, he sold out our country by allowing Bernie Schwartz and Loral Technologies to sell their missile technology to China at the cost of our security.

Further, if Clinton had taken out bin-Laden when he had the several opportunities to do so, just maybe 9/11 might not have happened.

Stature of a president is all in the courage of his convictions, Bush has both stature and conviction; Clinton's only conviction was his avidity for self-aggrandizement and his perjury conviction.

i found your list to be compelling and thoughtful but eye think the key to any leader or seeker or a greater spiritual truth is the fundemental knowlege that in some aspect of life or wisdom or interpreting events one must expect to be the student instead of the teacher... the truth is the truth when said by the least of us... william james has a much quoted statement on what bars progress and in its essance i think it referrs to contempt prior to investigation being the bar that could keep a person forever in ignorance. i am quite surprised our current president seems to have no knowledge of this quote, or simple key to spirituality and leadership, and another quote from a reference manual... a primary book on life ...says and when... we make a mistake... we promptly admit it....not if by chance we ever make a mistake...i didnt find God in a church but The God i found has been present in some of the churches i have sought out../ most christians who seem to have problems with humanity while professing to follow christ seem to want to be either Christ himself or God himself....that leaves little room for humility and soul searching or reality........of coarse a leader must also be a leader... if you look over your sholder and you think you are leading... and no one is there.... perhaps it is you... that is lost....this has benn me several times in my life

amen!

Hello BGone,

Er, my friend, I hate to break this to you, but the tomb of the Prophet has been known and visited by Muslims since he died. The current Saudi regime don't encourage Muslims to do so. Guess where? Medina or Mecca?

As for the other matters you raised in your post above, I'll just let them pass.

Thanks and regards.
"J"

Jihadist:

Democritus said that atoms are "uncuttable" -like starting with a big piece of stuff and "halving" it until it was all gone? Did he also say atoms could be manufactured doing that? I guess he didn't guess either fission, the process of "cutting" atoms or fusion, the process of combining atoms to make big ones.

Zeno said the chicken couldn't get across the road too but it did. He explained the failure of his analysis of chickens crossing roads the same way Trinity God is explained, mystery except he called it a paradox.

Maybe we put a little too much stock in what ancient people didn't know that we assume they knew? Even credit a few with actually talking to supernatural beings?

I can't argue they didn't, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul but I can question just which supernatural being was it? I mean, how do you know Muhammad didn't cut a deal with the Devil Lucifer just like Moses?

Actually, I think Muhammad is a fictional person dreamed up by the Arabic scholars who wrote the Quran to validate it. I'm sure you disagree and can explain why there is no remains of Muhammad buried somewhere by saying they was taken to heaven.

Don't you agree that we are all in the blind on many things we would be well advised to question a little harder than we do and not be so quick to take the word of those with vested interests so quickly?

Have a nice weekend yourself.

Hello Chris Everett :)

I should put in more quotes from religious scriptures to terrify non-believers. Canyon Shearer is doing it well enough. I mischievously thought I should too. All I need to do is say - You will go to hell! Very easy to terrify non-believers with certainties of beliefs.

Unruffled, unflustered and never resorting to name-calling in exchanges and with your well-informed posts. I enjoy them. But also fun for me to read "science is everything" to explain everything and anything about human existence and the human condition and take into different directions for a bit to see what happens.

In discussing on history and religion, there is obviously always 20/20 hindsight. Even on what we do five minutes ago.

On hypotheses
----------------

In hypotheses as in inventions, as you stated, there is an abundance of rejected hypotheses. Thomas Alva Edison once said that he did not have a thousand failures in coming up with the light bulb. He found a thousand ways how not to make it. Or words to that effect.

On the universe
------------------

On the universe, yes, the universe in accelareting is expanding. The background radiation has been redshifted. We don't want to go into whether the universe is open or flat, or the Big Crunch of the universe here.

On gravity
----------------

I was hoping you'd object to what I say as only one whose philosophical belief is scientific would on what difference would it make to us in knowing about gravity.

Now, ever considered knowing about gravity and being able to put a communications satellite in orbit not preventing us from transmitting and dissemating programmes and ideas that are contrary to science and reason? Including those by Flat Earth Society, Al Qaeda and Pat Robertson etc that goes round the world?

Applied science and technology are also used as tools and facilitator by the most bigoted to pursue their objectives. Knowledge and applications of science has its dark underbelly, including nukes and laser guided weapons.

Religious tracts
-----------------

Unlike scientific tracts, religious texts are also read and loved as one would of great literature and poetry for spiritual well being. There are gorgeously beautiful and and timeless passages in all religious tracts that makes "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" seem sophomorific.

For example, everytime someone reads the Bible, her or she see different meanings in its passages according to his or her state of mind in and stage in life.

Take religious texts as literally as religious fundamentalists and inerrantists do is to do a reading as flawed as them. For example, the Ten Commandments may be perceived to be cast in stone, but it is not. Since coming into being, no one really complied to the letter on all the commandments. More of a selective and convenient apllication by individuals, clerics and rulers for their own reasons. The Ten Commandments has also been supplanted by civil laws. It has become a personal guide on ethics, mores or values for those who chose it.

Also, on beliefs and faiths, there is a lazy tendency by some that in spite of their stated preference for facts and empirical evidence, never focus on functional religion as held and practiced by the majority of adherents.

From Hinduism to Judaism to Buddhism to Christianity to Islam, what is raised is fundamentally the religious texts as literal, and on as the small percentage of adherents of the respective faiths whose excessive behavior are held up as proof of generalised thinking and behavior for all. Not very scientific and this really is the purview of anthropologists and sociologists, even political scientists and economists, and not to be left to biologists, chemists, or physicists solely. As faith and organised religion is regarded as all ecompassing by non-believers, it then, should be look as from a multi-disipline perspective.

Interpretation of scriptures
------------------------------

There is always retroactive interpretation of any work of literature and art with new knowledge acquired over time, even in the field of science. The religious texts are held by their believers to be texts for all time. Every generation has a different interpretation and find different meaning and relate to them accordingly, making them in this way, timeless classics.

If believers see “quantum mechanics” in phrases such as “the many shall be one”, so be it. Art lovers see many different things in Picasso's paintings. Even not what actually he had in mind when he painted them.

I have a King James Version of the Bible. Beautiful language. Thomas Jefferson is free to excorcise all the superstition and religious edifice out of the Bible. But there is still the King James version and other versions. What Thomas Jefferson did was a form of censorship, no?

I would not censor Shakespeare's "Taming of the Shrew" because I think that play is sexist. Nor did I not read Voltaire because he is anti-Semitic. Surely we can't go around going deleting passages in texts because we disagree with them and others like or is guided by by them. And we, in exasperation and frustration, simply want to do away with what we deem to be problematic texts?

Poets, musicians, painters, sculptors and authors express their version on the human condition based on their specific experience, knowledge and culture. Some of their works became great art as its themes and message have universal or mass appeal. As in religion, there are different personal preferences or taste in the arts with supporters and opponents of art movements etc.

Bob Dylan may be considered as a Great White Hope by one fan. For another, he may be thought of as a Great White Whine. Bob Marley may be held by some as a great universalist whose music transcend race and religion. For others, he is a ganja smoking Rastafarian who never washed his hair. Michelangelo and Da Vinci are great artists, but there are those who prefer impressionism or surrealism.

There will also be those who prefer Thomas Pynchon and Don De Lillo over Kurt Vonnegurt. To each his and her own, and as you know, even admirers of Dylan, Marley or Vonnegurt argued over their works and what they personally means for them.

On infidels
---------------

Fear of being called and killed as “infidel”? Some Muslims do call other Muslims "infidels" in not agreeing with them. Being called an "infidel" is a taunt.

Some Muslims also say, "Convert to Islam" to non-Muslims. Usually to any non-Muslims regarded as beyond their comprehension even by the standards of beliefs of the recipient so such taunts. Or simply as political and religious digs hurled at opponents.

When Osama said to President Bush, and Bashyir Ahmad (leader of Jemaah Islamiyah) to former Prime Minister John Howard (Australia), "Convert to Islam", it is a taunt, a slur of their enemy in the public domain.

Let me put bluntly to you on "infidels" that may perhaps offend some Christians. In the Muslim world, there are Muslims who don't believe in God. Muslims ignore them and let them be as it is between them and God. But, if you become a Christian instead, they would be shocked and appalled as that is considered a retrogression in belief on God. Muslims accept atheists among them better.

If you come across one who is said to be a "non-practicing Muslim" or a "nominal Muslim", a high probability that he or she is atheist or agnostic. Fundamentally, they remain within the family and society's fold. Not much fuss really on how they will be buried when dead. It is Muslims who, when no longer believing in God, or convert to another faith, who made it his or her stated mission to be the enemy of Islam and Muslims that Muslims will take umbrage to and oppose in reaction.

Most Muslims don't have the same worldview like evangelicals that anyone not Christian can't possibly do any good work on their own. if you come in peace instead of war, nothing to worry about. Some Muslims are rather difficult in not "turning the other cheek" on transgressions by others. Nor do Muslims expect others to tolerate their transgressions hat is unjust and unprovoked.

As to you being an "infidel?". No. Just a non-believer of God. But if you make it a stated mission that Muslims are your enemies, don't expect the reactions of some Muslims to be sanguine. The personal will become the political.

Passive acceptance of faith and God
--------------------------------------

Who says Muslims are passively accepting God and their faith? We are too active for the taste of others, no? Even heatedly calling one another "infidels" in our disagrements. Amazing is it not, that a so-called "maniac" continue to have a hold on and deep respects of Muslims? He must be doing something right after all - on belief, on realpolitik, on society. Muslims continue to argue and argue and argue. Let it be, in this marketplace of beliefs and ideas.

As for your point to believe what is evident, and let the rest remain a mystery, that do sound like what some bona fide Muslim ulema say from the early days of Islam to now. But there are those who say we are to look around to discover, understand and appreciate all of God's creation.

On Democritus
------------------

and for BGone too...........

Come now! It is your own western scholars in science and philosophy who acknowledge and credit Democritus with atomic theory, or hypothesis if you like, as he was the first one to come out with that which was recorded. Shame on your both! Ignoring a common consent just because he don't fit in with your thinking and held ideas?

Democritus did come up with the word "atom" (uncuttable) - that it is innumerable tiny particles which is timeless, changeless, identitical self-moving etc. He also said that atom exist and interact in empty space, and that change occurs in the world through these interactions.

And by the way, I noticed some atheists acted as if scientists and atheist writers can do no wrong. Come on. They are not infallible. They do make mistakes in their work.

Thanks, regards and have a nice weekend.

"J":)

Indeed John,

Several times! He granted himself a license on Leno even, saying this is a bloodsport.

I guess the good preacher is exempting himself from "Love your enemies. Do good to those that hate you..."

Seeing as it could be be rather difficult to assess whether the answer given to number five would be anywhere near reality (for who really aspires to be the president who starts a war?) I guess we can at best state that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior....

That being the foundation, here is a question:

Which of the candidates (including their campaign spokepeople) have threatened to physically assault any of their opponents -- or said that they would LIKE to physically assault any of their opponents...?

ANSWER: Mike Huckabee

If this is the biggest questions you have about morality it is no wonder our nation is going to "hell in a hand basket". With our culture in total decline, a sexual revolution that has degraded women into slabs of meat, and total disrespect for human life, you are concerned about a presidents curiosty!

Freestinker:

Wow, I must have hit a nerve. Try breathing into a paper bag for a while.

No, you didn't say you hate Bush. You just accused him of the liberal bolierplate of moral crimes. Do you not hate Bush? You sure act like it.

I read the Post becuase it is one of the major newspapers that affects the mindeset of many American citizens. Their slanted coverage reuslts in less meaningful conversation and more partisans like yourself, incapable of speaking in less than hyperbolic terms. If they had less partisan writers, you might have less partisan blog posts.

Finally, I don't really care about boring people with my views of a President's "morality". I didn't agree with Clinton's morality, but I though he was a pretty good President. Of course, folks like yourself paint any who dont share your views as immoral, so I'm not going to bother. "Bush bad", right? LOL

Mike,

Rather than hurl invectives, why don't you tell us what morals you look for in a President?

Try posting a calm response to this question ... it might even help with your boredom!

Mike,

And if the Post bores you so, why do you bother to read and post on this forum at all?

Mike,

I never said I hate Bush because I don't. I just listed a few reasons why I think his morals are not to be admired.

You implied that Bush had better morals than Gustav's list gave him credit for.

I just wanted to give you a chance to be more specific.

Instead you just called me silly names.

Care to try again, without so much hate?

Freestinker:

I am not here to defend Bush's morals (which are no better or worse than most Republicans or Democrats). My post said nothing about that. What I did say is that the Post is boring us with hyper-partisans (like yourself) who are so obsessed with Bush that they can not discuss anything else. Can your Bush-hating brain wrap around that concept?

Liberals need to stop responding to every Post from non-Bush haters with a stupid demand to defend Bush's morals. Do you have to defend Bill Clinton's morals to be bored with tedious and idiotic partisan conservatives?

Amen Brother Niebuhr!

Oh yoo hoo, the Japanese bombed us first!

And we bombed Iraq first.

The dude needs to look up the word "start" before he gets his panties all in a bunch.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ:

You are delusional, sir.

As I read your words, I lose hope for us all. I only hope someday you can escape your own mind.

Mike says: "Can you now find some writers that aren't partisan jerks? Particularly partisan jerks like this guy who care nothing about morals, just his stupid Bush obsession."

Blatent Dishonesty
Institutional Corruption
Mercenary Profiteering
Illegal Torture
Fear Mongering
Religious Discrimination
etc ...

Hey Mike,

Since you seem to know something the Post has forgotten to write about, why don't you take a shot at convincing us that Bush's morals are to be admired?

"And finally, will you state categorically that you will not start a war?"

This is ridiculous on its face. Really, there is no reason, ever, to start a war? There would be no reason for us to enter WW2 if we hadn't been attacked at Pearl Habor? Really? I just don't buy it. There are absolutely moral reasons to start a war. To say otherwise is to deny the reality of the world in which we live.

In addition, I would say that "W" has spoken with thousands of people, looked into his soul, and said that he didn't start this war. Just because you don't believe him doesn't mean that he doesn't believe it. When you become God and have the ability to read his soul then you can become the arbiter of his thoughts.

Manier;

"No one takes that office with any experience unless s/he's in their second term"

I respectfully disagree... equitable professional or congressional experience is easily found from the outside. If he/she ran a company, what's it's record, how did it handle adversity and success? If a former governor or congressman, what's the performance record? how were things accomplished? If merely an old country lawyer, or doctor, there is a track record... You are absolutely correct, it takes much more than a quick. biased,fluffy Q/A to determine character... we, the voters must break a sweat researching to get it right...

"will you demonstrate enough respect to other human beings to be truthful with them, even if that costs you politically?"

Yeah, Bush was fixated on being politically popular:) What we really need are guys with a strong moral compass, instead of vapid poll-sniffers. You know, folks that stand for something like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry or John Edwards. LOL.

I guess the writer's jabs about the "past seven years" means that his stupid points are really just mo