Islam Faith...

[Ibrahim-az@69]

Coming from an Islamic background, and fully convinced with my faith, I always question how atheists who are usually interested in "scientific evidence" never have the time to study other religions before taking a choice. Science is the study of everything around you. Islam is a spiritual religion that also deals with science. New info to you?

Some of the evolution interpretations may have happened but with the help of a primary cause.
I would like to add: don't learn Islam from Muslims or media learn it from the source. Islam is perfect, Muslims are not!

 

[Altfish]

Science isn't 'the study of everything around you';
Science is 'the study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment'
Unfortunately religious texts are neither physical or natural and say nothing that scientists are interested in.
Show me scientific evidence for your god and I'll be interested; quote me scriptures or books written by ancient dessert dwellers and I'm not impressed.
Science can say nothing about the supernatural because... it is outside of nature (there's a clue in the word)

 

[Ibrahim-az@69]

Science isn't 'the study of everything around you';
Science is 'the study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment'
Unfortunately religious texts are neither physical or natural and say nothing that scientists are interested in.
Show me scientific evidence for your god and I'll be interested; quote me scriptures or books written by ancient dessert dwellers and I'm not impressed.
Science can say nothing about the supernatural because... it is outside of nature (there's a clue in the word)

If a nation that came from ancient dessert wrote about sciences that they are know enlightened about, wouldn't that be interesting for you?

 

[Altfish]

If a nation that came from ancient dessert wrote about sciences that they are know enlightened about, wouldn't that be interesting for you?

Science books were written then BUT they have been reviewed and found wanting, therefore they are no longer relevant apart from an historical point of view. New revised, updated volumes exist and these in turn may well be abandoned if new evidence is discovered
That is one of the key differences between science and religion, science will change it's mind given the evidence, I don't see religion changing its scripture to sit recent discoveries.

 

[Kirran]

Firstly, welcome to RF.

Secondly, make sure to familiarise yourself with the rules regarding proselytising, which is not allowed on RF.

I'm not an atheist personally, but I find the mainstream forms of Islam rather unimpressive. Some forms which are the minority are rather more valid to me, but these are just the types which the mainstream tends to disavow! I actually really love some of the Sufi teachers, and I think there's some great stuff going on in the progressive and liberal Islamic movements. But as the vast majority of Muslims justify misogyny, religious intolerance, homophobia and exclusivism in their faith, I have little interest in a deeper engagement with Islam at present.

EDIT: Also, your question is ridiculously biased. My answer would be along the lines of 'I know a fair bit about Islam, and find no reason to accept it in an exclusivist sense'.

 

[Laika]

Coming from an Islamic background, and fully convinced with my faith, I always question how atheists who are usually interested in "scientific evidence" never have the time to study other religions before taking a choice. Science is the study of everything around you. Islam is a spiritual religion that also deals with science. New info to you?

Some of the evolution interpretations may have happened but with the help of a primary cause.
I would like to add: don't learn Islam from Muslims or media learn it from the source. Islam is perfect, Muslims are not!

I think I know where this thread is going but voted "No" anyway. I am not knowledgable about Islam but effectively reject it and its teachings. I am a materialist and that definetely prejudices my views on religion- whether I am knowledgable about them or not.

I think it is courtesy just to admit as much. It sort of cuts through everything as you can be with religious people and not have to enforce standards of rationality on them and learn to coexist up to a point. I can't say my beliefs as totally rational, only the product of my own limited experience and knowledge. Thats good enough for me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Coming from an Islamic background, and fully convinced with my faith, I always question how atheists who are usually interested in "scientific evidence" never have the time to study other religions before taking a choice. Science is the study of everything around you. Islam is a spiritual religion that also deals with science. New info to you?

Some of the evolution interpretations may have happened but with the help of a primary cause.
I would like to add: don't learn Islam from Muslims or media learn it from the source. Islam is perfect, Muslims are not!

Hey, welcome to RF.

I have studied religions. Kind of impossible to be across all of them in much detail, but I try. To be honest, you'll find most of the athiests here are fairly knowledgable about at least one or two religions. After all, many of us were raised in religious homes, or at least within religious cultures.

Do you study other religions apart from Islam to any serious level?

 

[David1967]

Greetings, and welcome to RF. I am Christian, and am also passably familiar with many religions. I'm always interested in speaking with followers of other faiths. Not to proselytize but more to seek out similarities. I took a course on world religions a couple of years ago and enjoyed it immensely. Gained a new respect for many of them. There are several useful common points in all that I studied as well as some serious shortcomings.

 

[Quintessence]

I always question how atheists who are usually interested in "scientific evidence" never have the time to study other religions before taking a choice. Science is the study of everything around you.

As Altfish mentioned, that's not quite what the sciences are about. That said, you have a point in that those who are scientists tend to be curious and inquisitive on the whole. Because of how the disciplines works, though, working scientists will specialize in some particular subject area. The sciences where the study of religion would be most relevant are the social sciences. Unless the scientist is an anthropologist, for example, they don't have (or take) the time needed to properly study world religions. The time it requires to specialize in their own area occupies most of their time.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Coming from an Islamic background, and fully convinced with my faith, I always question how atheists who are usually interested in "scientific evidence" never have the time to study other religions before taking a choice. Science is the study of everything around you. Islam is a spiritual religion that also deals with science. New info to you?

Some of the evolution interpretations may have happened but with the help of a primary cause.
I would like to add: don't learn Islam from Muslims or media learn it from the source. Islam is perfect, Muslims are not!

I was never a science-focus atheist. I just know no deities exist so why would I explore spiritually deity-related religions that need my knowledge of a deitys existence to believe it?

A Muslim one time gave me an English/Arabic version of the quran. Muhammad has sour views of christianity so I did t read it. The only sacred scripture Ive read that doesnt speak ill of others is Buddist sutras. The Buddha talks about consequences but never belittles others. He actually said not to speak ill of other peoples religious doctrine.

So that attracks me more than sacred text that is political in nature. Personal preference.

 

[Ibrahim-az@69]

Science books were written then BUT they have been reviewed and found wanting, therefore they are no longer relevant apart from an historical point of view. New revised, updated volumes exist and these in turn may well be abandoned if new evidence is discovered
That is one of the key differences between science and religion, science will change it's mind given the evidence, I don't see religion changing its scripture to sit recent discoveries.

No current observation denies any of the ideas of science mentioned in the Quran
If so, prove to me one that seemed to be false or needed an update

 

[Ibrahim-az@69]

Science isn't 'the study of everything around you';
Science is 'the study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment'
Unfortunately religious texts are neither physical or natural and say nothing that scientists are interested in.
Show me scientific evidence for your god and I'll be interested; quote me scriptures or books written by ancient dessert dwellers and I'm not impressed.
Science can say nothing about the supernatural because... it is outside of nature (there's a clue in the word)

Unfortunately, many sciences have converted to Islam after being impressed by the quality of science mentioned in it

 

[Ibrahim-az@69]

Hey, welcome to RF.

I have studied religions. Kind of impossible to be across all of them in much detail, but I try. To be honest, you'll find most of the athiests here are fairly knowledgable about at least one or two religions. After all, many of us were raised in religious homes, or at least within religious cultures.

Do you study other religions apart from Islam to any serious level?

Yes I do, and I also read much about the scientific perspective of the evolution.
Despite its some good points, scientists seems to have many gaps that they cannot explain about the building up of the universe. Some which is the possibility to have both genders in every species on earth which cannot be found by coincidence

 

[Altfish]

Unfortunately, many sciences have converted to Islam after being impressed by the quality of science mentioned in it

Yes, huge numbers of them I bet.

Go on, name me three together with their area of expertise

 

[Altfish]

No current observation denies any of the ideas of science mentioned in the Quran
If so, prove to me one that seemed to be false or needed an update

Can you quote me some science in the Quran?

Please something that is not ambiguous but clear and useful to mankind. Like, germ theory or how to harness electricity.

 

[Jackrabbti]

Coming from an Islamic background, and fully convinced with my faith, I always question how atheists who are usually interested in "scientific evidence" never have the time to study other religions before taking a choice. Science is the study of everything around you. Islam is a spiritual religion that also deals with science. New info to you?

Some of the evolution interpretations may have happened but with the help of a primary cause.
I would like to add: don't learn Islam from Muslims or media learn it from the source. Islam is perfect, Muslims are not!

I'm playing the Devil's/Atheist's/Jewish advocate:
One reason Atheists are Atheists is because they've never seen compelling evidence of scientific knowledge supernaturally revealed in any holy book. I agree that science, in principle, would involve examining religious texts. Indeed, the Korean and the Bible have been carefully combed through with a scientific eye, and still nothing compelling to them. There's too much in the world for every individual to study, so the common Atheist takes the word of their peers, or waits for you to show them something.

I, on the other hand, have studied the Korean. While there's too much in the world for every individual to study, there's not too much in the world for some individuals to study.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes I do, and I also read much about the scientific perspective of the evolution.
Despite its some good points, scientists seems to have many gaps that they cannot explain about the building up of the universe. Some which is the possibility to have both genders in every species on earth which cannot be found by coincidence

Two quick points;
1) I agree that science has many gaps. I think acknowledgement of ignorance is the path to knowledge.
2) Not all species on earth have male and female.

 

[gnostic]

Coming from an Islamic background, and fully convinced with my faith, I always question how atheists who are usually interested in "scientific evidence" never have the time to study other religions before taking a choice. Science is the study of everything around you. Islam is a spiritual religion that also deals with science. New info to you?

Some of the evolution interpretations may have happened but with the help of a primary cause.
I would like to add: don't learn Islam from Muslims or media learn it from the source. Islam is perfect, Muslims are not!

You are generalising.

Many atheists were formerly theists before becoming atheists, brought up as ones.

Some might give it up because of science, but I doubt that's the contributing factor for giving up their former religions.

Science has nothing to do with atheism. Science has nothing to do with theism.

Being a scientist is a job or career, and anyone with the knowledge can do it, regardless of their religious background. Religion and theism are not required to do the job.

Do a person require a belief in god, if he was bricklayer or plumber or gardener? Do you need god to build a house, road or bridge?

If your religion interfere with your work in science, then you are no longer being objective, so religion or faith is more of hinder than helpful, because you would be allowing your belief to corrupt the work.

Science should work without your belief, desire or ambition.

 

[gnostic]

Science is the study of everything around you. Islam is a spiritual religion that also deals with science. New info to you?

It is false information.

The Qur'an contained no science whatsoever. It explain nothing about nature, explain nothing about their mechanisms or their structures of what it poorly described.

Science provides detailed explanations. The Qur'an provide none of that.

For instance, the Qur'an described the stars like lamps. It is obvious that the lamps are metaphor for stars. But oil lamps is not accurate at all.

There is no fire in stars, no oil as fuel. Nothing accurate about it.

And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.

And verily We have beautified the world's heaven with lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame.

And what's this lamp- "missiles" to scare off "devils" or "evil ones".

Shooting stars? Comets?

Meteorite are not stars. Comets are not stars.

None of either translations explain to me what stars are, and what these lamp missiles are.

The Qur'an showed the simplicity and utter ignorance of the author. Is the author really that superstition? Is the author really that STUPID that he can't explain to people what a star is or what a comet is?!

I know from history that Muslims centuries after Muhammad's death, from the 8th century to 13th century were involved in maths, science, medicine and astronomy - the so-called Golden Age of Islam. These medieval mathematicians, scientists, astronomers and physicians, made re-discoveries and made some improvement or advancement on ancient knowledge, but it is their contributions to science, not Islam or Allah.

The Qur'an provide no such insight as these learned Muslims did.

How does the Qur'an compare to science of today? Well, the Qur'an would be idiot book, filled with myths and vague reference that have nothing to do with science.

Is the Qur'an science book, when it say that Solomon talk to or listen to and understand the language of ants? The answer would be no. This passage is nothing more than fable or myth.

When it say Solomon can command the birds and jinns to fight in his army...is that science? My answer would again be no, it isn't science. It is nothing more than a myth.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi, Ibrahim.

To answer the question in the thread title:

Were you knowledgeable about Islam and then reject it?

Not really. More like the other way around. I have learned a lot more about Islaam in the last few years and that did not improve my opinion of it.

In any case, I would never have even the choice of rejecting Islaam because it was built in such a way as to reject me first. I am an atheist.

Coming from an Islamic background, and fully convinced with my faith, I always question how atheists who are usually interested in "scientific evidence" never have the time to study other religions before taking a choice. Science is the study of everything around you. Islam is a spiritual religion that also deals with science. New info to you?

I would not say that it is new exactly. Nor all that accurate.

I am not sure what you want imply. Is it that better awareness of Islaam would perhaps convince skeptics, rationalists and/or atheists of the truth of it?

That does not sound very likely at all. Despite recurrent claims that Islaam encourages rational thinking and frequent reminders that largely Muslim cultures used to be at the forefront of scientific discovery and even more surprising recurrent invitations to consider Qura'nic verses that are supposed to predict scientific knowledge, the current relationship between Islaam and rational thinking does not seem to be particularly close nor confortable.

Seeing some videos from apparently popular Islaamic apologists in Youtube that for whatever reason saw fit to discuss their views on biological evolution and how they apparently perceive those views as confirmed or related to the Qur'an did not reassure me at all. Quite on the contrary really. It is bad enough that those specific speakers have little clue of basic science and don't seem to realize it. Once I consider that those are the names and attitudes that keep turning up despite the huge numbers of Islaam, I can't help but conclude that Islaam does not encourage rational nor scientific thinking at all.

If it did, that encouragement would bear fruit. There would be informed apologists with a functional understanding of science, and if they saw fit to comment on biological matters under a Islaamic perspective, they would not show a failure to grasp the basic ideas and would not misuse the basic concepts in so doing.

Such Muslims probably exist. There are a great many Muslims, after all, and some of them must have a fair understanding of science and biology. But the plain fact is that it is not them who end up being brough to discuss how the Qur'an relates to evolution. That is significant in and of itself.

Some of the evolution interpretations may have happened but with the help of a primary cause.

Evolution (in the biological sense) is not speculative at all. It is known to happen.

There is of course room for presuming a will behind it, but at the end of the day that changes nothing, and has little if any scientific consequence. However one believes, evolution is still how species originate and it is still based on natural, non-random selection of random differentiation.

That shold not shock nor surprise anyone. After all, we are discussing how to interpret the facts, not choosing which facts to expect according to our religious inclinations.

I would like to add: don't learn Islam from Muslims or media learn it from the source. Islam is perfect, Muslims are not!

We are often warned along those lines. Not sure why. Surely a perfect doctrine would make itself discernible as such from its results.