Science doesn't belong to atheism

[MatthiasGould]

Haha, I was thinking the same thing.


Same here, only without Islam (again).
Are you my Muslim doppelgänger?

Haha that made me laugh!

A lot of anti-theists seem to have a very rudimentary knowledge of religions. Some of them may know a certain religious text quite well {from my experience, this is disappointingly rare, to the point where I've heard people say embarassingly stupid things}, but only seem to have knowledge of the surface of the text. Not so good when it comes to mysticism, metaphor, allegory, or anything of the like.

This seems to be an issue I come across time and time again, which is further complicated by the fact that my particular holy text is in Arabic, a language that my debater will likely not understand, whilst I do, and so some of my points will likely be lost on the majority as it draws particular attention to specific meanings of Arabic words or word order or grammar.

What disappoints me is, any time I've tried to explain the way they're looking at things is too simple, or not quite right, I've been told to "quit preaching". Although they can go on a tirade against religions, painting with a broad brush for ages. There's even atheists who think you can't be a fundy atheist.

Thankfully though, the majority of atheists I've bumped into have been nice enough, even if they don't believe it.

Same here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree - and I don't know why atheists get so offended when anyone suggests that ID and evolution can be mixed together. They agree with ideas such as "artificial selection" (which is a form of ID) but refuse to acknowledge the magnitude that thought/mind/conscience/spirit/intelligence (call it what you will) plays in it, which is sad.

Evolution is the idea that the combined effects of natural selection, random mutation and inheritance are responsible for the diversity of life we see around us. ID is based on the idea that the combined effects of natural selection, random mutation and inheritance cannot create the diversity of life we see around us. They're naturally in conflict.

... and this is taking ID at face value, i.e. ignoring the fact that it was specifically created as a way to undermine science education by slipping religion into public schools, which is pretty offensive in its own right.

 

[MatthiasGould]

And exactly what should they educate themselves in?

How to:

1. Accept the supernatural as an equal to reality


2. Believe one can change reality with prayer

3. Embrace rigorous moral codes

4. Organize one's life around a singular world view

5. Make a strong distinction between the sacred and the profane

6. Develop more respect for intuitive feelings than evidence

7.Take ancient tales and myths as true

8.Talk to divine beings

9. Accede to demands that one would otherwise find asinine

10.Ignore fact in favor of unsupported pronouncements of "truth"

11.Suspend rational thinking
​

​

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Okay, I've numbered these for ease of reading. I'll address each point in turn.

1. I can't see the point you're making here. Your use of the word 'supernatural' seems to indicate something of a derogatory statement.
2. Actually, Islam teaches that prayer will be answered only where it is within the divine will of Allah. It isn't and never has been a 'magic wand' which magically changes believers' lives if they ask.
3. Regarding moral codes, certainly within Islam there is generally a reason as to why a specific rule or teaching exists. Nothing is done just for the sake of doing it. Fair enough, you may not like said rule or reason for that rule, but love of Allah comes first.
4. No such thing in any religion, and certainly not Islam. There's different scholarly schools (madhabs), different denominations, even individual Muslims' opinions will differ on particular matters.
5. Why is this a problem?
6. Not in Islam. Muslims are encouraged to seek knowledge and to apply this in their deen (faith) and in their lives. Nothing is taken on faith and study and critical analysis of the Qur'an, Sunnah are encouraged.
7. Again, I fail to see what point you make here.
8. Why is this concept such a difficult one? Since time began, people have felt an innate need to speak with one higher than themselves, Allah Himself.
9. I'll need some specific examples before I can further address this point. Preferably from the Qur'an if you can.
10. I'd be willing to argue that Islam relies on facts. In fact, you can find many scientific, moral, philosophical and religious truths in the Qur'an itself. It's not just a case of 'I say this, believe it because it's true'.
11. Many people who have taken this line and then tried to attack the Qur'an and Islam have themselves become Muslim based on the Qur'an's rational and common sense teachings.

 

[Skwim]

Okay, I've numbered these for ease of reading. I'll address each point in turn.

1. I can't see the point you're making here. Your use of the word 'supernatural' seems to indicate something of a derogatory statement.
2. Actually, Islam teaches that prayer will be answered only where it is within the divine will of Allah. It isn't and never has been a 'magic wand' which magically changes believers' lives if they ask.
3. Regarding moral codes, certainly within Islam there is generally a reason as to why a specific rule or teaching exists. Nothing is done just for the sake of doing it. Fair enough, you may not like said rule or reason for that rule, but love of Allah comes first.
4. No such thing in any religion, and certainly not Islam. There's different scholarly schools (madhabs), different denominations, even individual Muslims' opinions will differ on particular matters.
5. Why is this a problem?
6. Not in Islam. Muslims are encouraged to seek knowledge and to apply this in their deen (faith) and in their lives. Nothing is taken on faith and study and critical analysis of the Qur'an, Sunnah are encouraged.
7. Again, I fail to see what point you make here.
8. Why is this concept such a difficult one? Since time began, people have felt an innate need to speak with one higher than themselves, Allah Himself.
9. I'll need some specific examples before I can further address this point. Preferably from the Qur'an if you can.
10. I'd be willing to argue that Islam relies on facts. In fact, you can find many scientific, moral, philosophical and religious truths in the Qur'an itself. It's not just a case of 'I say this, believe it because it's true'.
11. Many people who have taken this line and then tried to attack the Qur'an and Islam have themselves become Muslim based on the Qur'an's rational and common sense teachings.

I believe you have missed the point.

These are things most religions expect, require, or promulgate. Things secularists normally don't do, but would have to learn in order to be a good member.

 

[Breathe]

Recent studies have shown that atheists tend to be much better informed on religious topics then religious people are.

Definitely not in the UK.

And at the best of times, 'informed on religious topics' is subjective. What is a topic? What does it mean 'to be informed'? Who deems who is informed?

You can know the Bible word for word, for example, but if you read it at face value then are you really 'informed'? I doubt it.

Without evidence to back it up, and even then, it being tricky, pretty much, it just looks like anti-religionist propaganda.

From my experience, the claim is an utter load of bollocks.

 

[fantome profane]

Definitely not in the UK.

And at the best of times, 'informed on religious topics' is subjective. What is a topic? What does it mean 'to be informed'? Who deems who is informed?

You can know the Bible word for word, for example, but if you read it at face value then are you really 'informed'? I doubt it.

Without evidence to back it up, and even then, it being tricky, pretty much, it just looks like anti-religionist propaganda.

From my experience, the claim is an utter load of bollocks.

What I find really objectionable (bollocks) is the claim made in this thread that atheists are only atheists because they are uneducated. This has not been my experience, and there is no evidence to support it. The evidence I have seen indicates the opposite. The survey I am referencing here was conducted by he Pew Foundation, hardly a source for atheist propaganda.


And I know this kind of claim is often made by atheists against theists. And it is equally bollocks when someone says that the only reason someone believes in "God" is because they just don't know better.

 

[Breathe]

[snip] And I know this kind of claim is often made by atheists against theists. And it is equally bollocks when someone says that the only reason someone believes in "God" is because they just don't know better.

Indeed; I do agree with you. However, it has been my experience that says the majority of anti-theists know little about religion.
I definitely don't think atheists (or theists) are what they are because of ignorance.

The survey I am referencing here was conducted by he Pew Foundation, hardly a source for atheist propaganda.

It's used as anti-religionist propaganda, however, which is what I meant. Even then, what is 'more informed' and how is it measured?

And besides: if you live in an area where religious adherence is low, atheists are less likely to know about religion.
If you live in an area where religious adherence is high, atheists are going to know more. They're more likely to go against the norms of society, one's parents, friends, and so on.

I live in an area where religious adherence is low. I can definitely speak from experience and say "atheists being more knowledgeable" just doesn't fly.

 

[MatthiasGould]

I believe you have missed the point.

These are things most religions expect, require, or promulgate. Things secularists normally don't do, but would have to learn in order to be a good member.

And you miss my point: most of his points I've proven don't apply in the case of Islam specifically, but religion as a whole can't be generalized to a handful of points. There's an infinitely wide variety of religious opinion and tarring them all with the same brush does nothing to prove anything.

Definitely not in the UK.

And at the best of times, 'informed on religious topics' is subjective. What is a topic? What does it mean 'to be informed'? Who deems who is informed?

You can know the Bible word for word, for example, but if you read it at face value then are you really 'informed'? I doubt it.

Without evidence to back it up, and even then, it being tricky, pretty much, it just looks like anti-religionist propaganda.

From my experience, the claim is an utter load of bollocks.

I've often felt that too many anti-religionists take things at face value simply for lazy attack. When presented with nuanced, more analytical or metaphorical forms of religious belief, they seem to become unstuck. I've been reading Richard Dawkins recently and I noticed that much of his attack seems based on the assumption of taking a Bible passage as literal fact rather than a physical representation of divine facts, which I take my own Qur'an to be.

 

[Skwim]

Because idea identifies with CoJCoLDS my post was directed more at him than anything else. So if some of the points don't apply to the Islam, so be it. It was pretty much an aside anyway.

 

[idea]

I believe you have missed the point.

These are things most religions expect, require, or promulgate....

I think you have missed the point. Your continued misrepresentation of who religious people are, and what they believe, confirm the stereotype that atheists are uneducated when it comes to religious matters.

I believe those who patiently, honestly seek with a humble, non-sarcastic, open heart can commune with God through the Spirit. I believe this is true for other people, because it has been true for me, and for many others that I know. Materialistic views only scan the surface of what exists. Everyone's conscience testifies to them of a higher power... the natural man rejects what the conscience would have us do - when I see an atheist, I see a natural man who is at war with their own conscience, which is a state all of us find ourselves in at one point or another.

 

[Skwim]

I think you have missed the point. Your continued misrepresentation of who religious people are, and what they believe, confirm the stereotype that atheists are uneducated when it comes to religious matters.

What misrepresentations are those?

And. how about answering my question in post 80

Exactly what should atheists educate themselves in?


How to:

1. Accept the supernatural as an equal to reality

2. Believe one can change reality with prayer

3. Embrace rigorous moral codes

4. Organize one's life around a singular world view

5. Make a strong distinction between the sacred and the profane

6. Develop more respect for intuitive feelings than evidence

7.Take ancient tales and myths as true

8.Talk to divine beings

9. Accede to demands that one would otherwise find asinine

10.Ignore fact in favor of unsupported pronouncements of "truth"

11.Suspend rational thinking
​

? ? ? ? ? ? ?
​

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

I think most atheists are not religious because they are uneducated... if they searched, and learned a little more (as other have) they too would become religious.

when I was young and naive I was not a religious person - now that I have read and experienced more, I am.

this is an exceptionally offensive thing to say. just sayin.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

Everyone's conscience testifies to them of a higher power... the natural man rejects what the conscience would have us do - when I see an atheist, I see a natural man who is at war with their own conscience, which is a state all of us find ourselves in at one point or another.

also, mad offensive.

please recognize that not everyone is exactly like you in response to education or in having a conscience that "testifies to them of a higher power".

 

[fantome profane]

I think it is clear that atheists have no special claim on science. But this thread has also demonstrated that we also have no monopoly on ignorance or bigotry.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think most atheists are not religious because they are uneducated... if they searched, and learned a little more (as other have) they too would become religious.

Really? That is a very curious belief for one to have. It flies in the face of pretty much all available evidence.

when I was young and naive I was not a religious person - now that I have read and experienced more, I am.

I don't doubt it. But you are extrapolating in a very reckless way from your personal experience.

 

[LuisDantas]

Evolution is the idea that the combined effects of natural selection, random mutation and inheritance are responsible for the diversity of life we see around us. ID is based on the idea that the combined effects of natural selection, random mutation and inheritance cannot create the diversity of life we see around us. They're naturally in conflict.

... and this is taking ID at face value, i.e. ignoring the fact that it was specifically created as a way to undermine science education by slipping religion into public schools, which is pretty offensive in its own right.

This.

 

[McBell]

I think it is clear that atheists have no special claim on science.

Agreed.
But then, I knew that before this thread was even created...

But this thread has also demonstrated that we also have no monopoly on ignorance or bigotry.

Without a doubt.

 

[Breathe]

I've often felt that too many anti-religionists take things at face value simply for lazy attack. When presented with nuanced, more analytical or metaphorical forms of religious belief, they seem to become unstuck. I've been reading Richard Dawkins recently and I noticed that much of his attack seems based on the assumption of taking a Bible passage as literal fact rather than a physical representation of divine facts, which I take my own Qur'an to be.

Yeah, it's easier to ridicule a religion if you go by literal value, after all; it's why I think the anti-theist and literalist are bed buddies, since they both have the same doctrinal beliefs (just one accepting, the other not).

That's my own experience with Dawkins, too. I've seen him debate on a programme on TV (I can't recall its name off-hand; I think it was an episode of The Big Questions) and I was disappointed about how one of the 'four horsemen of atheism' was such a terrible debater. The debate in question involved a Muslim man speaking about something, and Dawkins kept saying, "What's the penalty for apostasy in Islam?" Over and over and over, until he answered; but the issue had nothing to do with apostasy. Have you seen it?

 

[MatthiasGould]

Yeah, it's easier to ridicule a religion if you go by literal value, after all; it's why I think the anti-theist and literalist are bed buddies, since they both have the same doctrinal beliefs (just one accepting, the other not).

It must also be said that for the US in particular, there's a LOT of literalists, sometimes even being a majority. The moderate, semi or non-literal religionists get lost in the crowd as a result.

That's my own experience with Dawkins, too. I've seen him debate on a programme on TV (I can't recall its name off-hand; I think it was an episode of The Big Questions) and I was disappointed about how one of the 'four horsemen of atheism' was such a terrible debater. The debate in question involved a Muslim man speaking about something, and Dawkins kept saying, "What's the penalty for apostasy in Islam?" Over and over and over, until he answered; but the issue had nothing to do with apostasy. Have you seen it?

I've seen that clip, yes, and it just seems like he's trying to get some cheap points by attacking people. I seem to recall in the same clip he asks the question about apostasy to a young Muslimah, only to then block any attempt she made to answer him.

Plus regarding the apostasy issue itself, it's a complete non-issue for anyone living in non-Muslim countries given that the apostasy rulings only apply where the country is Muslim. Even then there's a wide range of opinions as to what the punishment entails and whether it is to be applied in all cases or as a last resort.

 

[fantome profane]

Plus regarding the apostasy issue itself, it's a complete non-issue for anyone living in non-Muslim countries given that the apostasy rulings only apply where the country is Muslim. Even then there's a wide range of opinions as to what the punishment entails and whether it is to be applied in all cases or as a last resort.

You can't really say it is a non-issue. If lives are being threatened in some Muslim countries it should be an issue everywhere.