This interview was conducted by Aljazeera and is worth watching. It was circulated to affiliates by e-mail and has already received some comments on the video. Please see comments in the comment area and make your own comments. Link to video,click below;
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/general/2012/12/2012121791038231381.html
My views on video and issues raised in video.
The video discussion exposed the weaknesses of both Atheism and Religion, but I think more so of the Atheism than Religion. Bringing up atrocities of Stalin, Mao and Hitler may be shocking, but not irrelevant. To say that they were mad men who happened to be atheists, is a very convenient excuse, especially when Stalin and Mao demolished many places of worship, forbid practice of religion, jailed and used violence against religious believers. Would Stalin and Mao have done so if they were not atheists? Applying the same logic, the interviewer rightly argued, then why criticize suicide bomber as Muslim extremist and not as mad individuals who happened to be Muslims.
In my judgment, and also argued in the video, Atheism is no longer just an argument over “Existence of God and Reason”, but it has become an organized religion with its share of militant views, just like any other religion. It is aggressively trying to convert people, just like any other religion.
The language used by Dawkins and Hitchens is the same self-righteous and extreme language used by the fundamentalist militants. Ken Miller, author of Finding Darwin’s God, once scolded Dawkins by saying atheists and agnostics are more evangelical than religious people. In Dublin speech Dawkins argued that sexual abuse is less damaging to a child than the psychological damage of bringing him up Catholic. This was brought up in this video also. Christopher Hitchens and Dawkins discussed the idea of arresting the Pope, and idea was dropped on attorney’s advice.
In September 2012, Doug Saunders, wrote an article in NYT against Islamophobia, “Catholics Then Muslims Now”. Bertrand Russell, a giant, champion of human rights and an atheist, refused to stand up for the human rights of Catholics under attack in 1950’s, and endorsed Paul Blanshard’s Book criticizing Catholicism as medieval authoritarianism that has no rightful place in the democratic American environment. At that time there was already separation of State and Church.Sadly some other famous philosophers also endorsed the book. Their animosity towards Catholicism was so strong that they did not care about their human rights. Today, one can hear similar anti-Muslim voices from atheists and others alike. If one is an atheist, it becomes difficult to support an individual’s human right to practice religion ?
Few months ago NYT ran a story on Mr. Dewitt, a priest, and resident of DeRidder, Louisiana, who became an Atheist. Mr. Dewitt is now a sought after speaker at “Reason Rallies”, and Convention Conferences of Atheists. He is still doing preaching, but for Atheism now. Atheists are holding Reason Rallies, conferences, retreats and gatherings just like any other organized religion.
Apostles of Atheism like Dawkins and Hitchens have made a fortune, just like their religious counterparts, and deliberately use the salty militant language to keep the emotions high, keep the Ministry going and financial rewards flowing.
Fayyaz
Cpmments by Noor Salik;
In my judgment, and also argued in the video, Atheism is no longer just an argument over “Existence of God and Reason”, but it has become an organized religion with its share of militant views, just like any other religion. It is aggressively trying to convert people, just like any other religion.
ß—–à
In this statement Dr. Fayyaz is equating ‘Atheism’ with “other religions”.
All religions are based on some core ‘Belief System’.
All belief system by definition are based on Supernatural phenomenon.
Supernatural means beyond the range of verifiable data and human reasoning.
My understanding is Atheism is not based on any belief system.
It uses reasoning power, logical principles to validate a statement before the statement is accepted or rejected.
Atheistic group is increasing not because of any proselytizing but because of the environments where scientific and
Logical thinking are encouraged.
Noor Salik
Comments by Tahir Mahmood
I did watch the video,it was not a debate between the Prof.Richard Dawkins,the Atheist and the non Atheist personality,it was just an interview of an Atheist and the Anchor happens to be Muslim.and to me Mehdi Hasan did excellent job but do not consider that the interview showed the weaknesses of religions and Atheism.Though it was well deliberated but Mr Dawkins was speechless on no of occasions.There is no doubt that the Atheism is spreading in all over the world and it is challenging all the religions on earth.It is in result of not religions but our religious practices. Science,logic and intellect happen to be the source of all human developments but the religious entities,in the first phase refused to accept it,tried to embrace under the umbrella of religion.As Daikins blamed the Muslims who took long time to come up to condemn the 9/11 incident when it was already established that religious fanatism is behind this episode.
Despite all the shortcoming of our religious leadership,there are more glitches in Daikins arguments……………………
Tahir Mahmood.
Comments by Mian Aslam
Every baby born is an atheist. It is taught, coerced and brain-washed to hold a Belief in one religion or the other. That’s the simple truth.
Calling atheism a religion is part of the rich imagination that fosters religions. Religions have a beginning, a period of codification, a history of expansion, and also a history of violent confrontations to either impose it or defend it, under a clear cut leadership and banner. Atheism, specially its popular and growing appeal among the grown-ups, is still shiny new and an outcome of growing awareness about the synthesis of religions.
You picked a good topic to opine on.
Let’s first settle on the fundamental parameters of our premise.
The science is a method of inquiry, research, verification and determination of facts.
Belief is a system of reposing one’s Faith (??) in a collection of stated anecdotes, fantasized miracles and romantically super-natural powers of the Promoter of that belief, who claims to have been ordained by an unseen, unproven but Almighty God, to spread that Belief. All of this without inquiry, research or verification, but concluding (not determining ), nevertheless that it is the holy TRUTH.
So, without meaning to over-simplify the two positions, one is a documentary, the other is a piece of fiction garnished with anecdotes, imagined miracles, rewards promised for compliance with its DOs, and punishments for flirting with DON’TS.
One needs verification for Science, but only a rich imagination and suspension of inquiry/verification, for Belief. Debating over the validity of one against the other is like comparing real apples with imagined oranges; futile exercise at best.
God is a work in progress. There are many models in circulation. God of Muslim and Jews, God of Protestants and Catholics, multiple Gods of Hindus and solitary God of Zoroastrians, to name a few. Gods have evolved in shape, size and powers over the last 6-7 millenniums. The past history indicates that future of Gods will see many more changes including its obsolescence.
Science determines facts, but facts remain constants.
It doesn’t matter how well the interviewer conducted himself, or how lost for words Richard Dawkins appeared at times, it was a comparison of real apples with imagined oranges. The fact that many quotes from his book or quotes from others were thrown in, does not alter the basic premise. Those are thrown in to give it a modicum of scholarship.
Mian Aslam
Every time I point out extremism and terrorist atrocities committed in the name of God or religion, my religious friends argue that there is difference between the faith and the actions of believers and that Islam and Muslim are two different things. I agree. Now when theologians bring in Hitler and Stalin they undermine their own stance that actions of followers do not reflect their belief or faith. One does not have to be much of “thinker” to conclude that if chopping of hands and necks are not Islam but exploitation of religion, then concentration camps and gulags are also not reflective of any ideology. I am amazed how very educated people mix communism with atheism. Atheists will gladly accept Stalin or Mao acting up due to their atheist inclinations if our “thinkers” insist and then throw in face of theologians the burning, slow roasting on stakes and all the “creative” methods of torture invented by Spanish inquisition, which actually was done in the name of God – unlike concentration camps which was a backlash against Jewish political and financial controls and gulags weren’t any worse than slavery practiced for centuries by devout religious people.
Westerners aren’t blaming Muslims for not criticizing 9/11 for the sake of only criticizing, we all know how mullah and company was proud of the monster Osama, how people named their new born Osama and the beards that grew in the cricket team…a few of the visible examples of “pride” in the Muslim world, sweets were distributed in middle East too, and thinkers failed to set the right response towards that tragedy and now this plague is spread all over Pakistan itself.
Babar
Please read about ” Atheism” and ” Religion” definitions at the bottom from Wikipedia.
This comment by Mian Sahib,
“Every baby born is an atheist. It is taught, coerced and brain-washed to hold a Belief in one religion or the other. That’s the simple truth.”
1-Nice concept and try, but not so fast Mian Sahib. A child is born with a clean slate and by default is not an Atheist. A child does not have the intellectual capacity to decide one way or the other.
2- Atheists hate when atheism is called a “ Religion”. Atheism is absence of belief that any deities exist, but now a days the atheism has added new dimension to it and has added “ Reason/Proof” requirement for everything including even emotions, feelings and love. This becomes a set of principles/beliefs/laws for the atheist. Darwin,s theory of evolution is like a Bible to atheists. Hence it is no different than a religion. A religion does not have to believe in GOD/Supreme being, such as Buddhism. Atheists loved to be called Humanists and very open minded, but when it comes to a human’s right to believe whatever one would like, they come up short, and it becomes very difficult for them to support this right, as is obvious by the examples of Catholics and Muslims in my previous comments. This is the same kind of narrow mindedness as Atheists accuse the religious believers.
3- Atheism is going through different stages. For most of the people who are attracted to it, atheism is a personal matter, and I think have varying degree of believes. Some do not believe in God but keep moral side of religious believers and so on. I agree it is popular due to modernism and rationalism. Sensing its popularity, the stake holders are stepping up to cash on it and starting having conventions, retreats, Reason rallies and local gatherings-a progression like other religions.
4- Applying “Reason” to emotions, love , feelings and even morals. It makes pleasure able moments in life so dry, empty and baren.
Fayyaz
Atheism
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Atheism is accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Raelism, Neopagan movements[19] such as Wicca,[20] and nontheistic religions. Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods,[21] whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but some schools view the path of an atheist to be difficult to follow in matters of spirituality.[2
Religions
Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1] Many religions have narratives,symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferredlifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.[1]
Many religions may have organized behaviors, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, holy places, and scriptures. The practice of a religion may also includerituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration of a deity, gods or goddesses, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer,music, art, dance, public service or other aspects of human culture. Religions may also contain mythology.[2]
The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system; however, in the words of Émile Durkheim, religion differs from private belief in that it is “something eminently social”.[3] A global 2012 poll reports that 59% of the world’s population is religious, 23% are not religious, and 13% are atheists.[4]
This is in reply to comments by Babar Mustafa.
1-These comments by Mustafa-
“Every time I point out extremism and terrorist atrocities committed in the name of God or religion, my religious friends argue that there is difference between the faith and the actions of believers and that Islam and Muslim are two different things. I agree. Now when theologians bring in Hitler and Stalin they undermine their own stance that actions of followers do not reflect their belief or faith.”
I agree, but I think both sides are guilty of this. When Mr. Dawkins does not want to move even an inch from his view that only religion is responsible for the suicide bombing and no other factor is involved then bringing up atrocities by Marxist-Leninist Atheism (see comments on this in later part) is not un-reasonable.
2- These comments by Mustafa;
“I am amazed how very educated people mix communism with atheism.”
‘How educated people can believe it?”- is usually a throwaway line we all use when either we do not have a good argument to make or are not willing to make. Both Mr. Dawkins and Mehdi Hassan are well read and educated people with different point of view.
In the beginning religion was a part of communism. This from Wikipedia:
“At one time or another, various small communist communities existed, generally under the inspiration of Scripture.[13] In the medieval Christian church, for example, some monastic communities and religious orders shared their land and other property (see Religious and Christian communism). These groups often believed that concern with private property was a distraction from religious service to God and neighbour.[c
Later on Marxist and Lenon made Atheism part of their Communism Idelogy, but all the communists in other countries did not follow. See below from Wikipedia.
“Marxist–Leninist atheism (Russian: Марксистско-ленинский атеизм) is a part of the wider Marxist-Leninist philosophy (the type of Marxist philosophy found in the Soviet Union), which rejects religion[1][2] and relies on a materialist understanding of nature.[3] Marxism-Leninism holds that religion is the opium of the people, in the sense that it causes people to accept suffering on Earth in the hope of eternal reward, and therefore Marxism-Leninism promotes atheism and argues that religion should be abolished.[4][5] Marxist-Leninist atheism has its roots in the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marx, and V.I. Lenin.[6]
Marxist-Leninist atheism is not universally accepted by all Marxists. Some non-Soviet Marxists reject this anti-religious stance.[7]””
So arguments by Mr. Hassan are relevant, it is the ideology of Atheism that prompted Lennon, Stalin and Mao to commit atrocities against religious believers.
As I argued before, the atheists have such an animosity against religion that their actions and some views are no different than militant religious extremists’ views. See my initial comments on this.
I agree with you about the atrocities committed by religious extremists and Muslims’ muted response to 9/11 and still some reluctance and hesitation in some quarters to come out forcefully to condemn such violence.
3-This comment by Mustafa:
“Atheists will gladly accept Stalin or Mao acting up due to their atheist inclinations if our “thinkers” insist and then throw in face of theologians the burning, slow roasting on stakes————“
One wrong cannot make the other wrong right. Both are wrong.
My opposition to Atheism does not mean I support religious extremists’ view point or their actions. I believe every human being has the right to practice a belief of his/her choice (All Religions, Agnostics, and Atheists etc) and such practice should not infringe upon anyone else’s such right.
My biggest disappointment with atheism is that it has adopted such a virulent anti-religious and intolerant attitude that even Giants like Bertrand Russel did not come to support the civil rights of Catholics when they were under attack in 1950’s, just like Muslims today. Catholics did not even attack America or have any suicide bombers. Sadly Bertrand Russel and other Philosophers endorsed Anti-Catholic Book declaring them unfit for American Democracy. About a decade later, they were proven wrong by the election of J.F. Kennedy.
New thinking is supposed to be more tolerant and open minded.
Fayyaz
Dear Fayyaz,
If you can recall Dawkin’s remarks in this interview, he did acknowledge that non Muslims committed suicide bombings and he himself gave example of Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, he repeatedly accepted that atrocities were committed for reasons other than religion …so don’t say that he does not give an inch and blames only religion.
You yourself point out that religious communities were practicing communist ideas by sharing land etc. even before Stalin, and still many countries with religious populations are communist and that is exactly what people forget when they confuse communism with Atheism. Can’t atheists have a say in socioeconomic matters just as religious people can?
No atheist will support persecution of religious people or any people, by any one as religious people persecute blasphemy. If Bertrand Russel did not speak out for the civil liberties of Catholics it does not mean he was representing atheists. Atheism is just not believing in deities and does not set rules or commandments or code of conduct, for all these other virtues education will suffice. J.F.K getting elected or Mormon getting nominated for president has no bearing in a secular America, what was shameful was that founding fathers of America were tall on “In God we Trust” but short on abolishing slavery.
Babar
The opinions of Babar Mustafa Saheb are breath of fresh air. “Atheism is just not believing in deities” and “for all these other virtues education will suffice.” Those two comments are the gist of the discussion.
Atheism never means propping up an opposition to any religion. Individual atheists, like any other human being, can be for or against an issue. That is not predicated on his being an atheist. The difference is critical.
Society needs to curb violence in the interest of humanity. When violence is licensed by religion, it still needs be opposed at all costs, including use of violence for curbing it. That is the basis for construct of jurisprudence and maintaining Law & Order.
Why is atheism equated with religion when Atheists oppose the violence sanctified by religion ? One is in protection of all humanity, but the other is for promotion of a religion. How difficult is it to condemn one and appreciate the other without putting them under the same head ?
I also notice that Secularism and atheism are getting mixed up in the discussion. Secularism is the only way for democracy (Of the People, For the People, By the People). The slogan of Islamic democracy is self-contradictory because in democracy sovereignty lies with the People, in Islamic democracy sovereignty lies with the Almighty Allah. That’s a complete departure from the concept of democracy. In an ‘Islamic democracy’ crimes and punishments are decided by “Hudood”, not by a legislature of elected representatives.
Another point to remember is that in Secularism it does not matter what belief or lack of belief a voter has, because religion, Faith, Belief, or absence of belief(atheism) are personal choices. Those choices neither matter to the State nor to Public Policy making.
I look forward eagerly to reading more contributions of Baber Mustafa Saheb in future.
Regards,
Wequar
Comment by Mian Aslam
Every baby born is an atheist. It is taught, coerced and brain-washed to hold a Belief in one religion or the other. That’s the simple truth.
Calling atheism a religion is part of the rich imagination that fosters religions. Religions have a beginning, a period of codification, a history of expansion, and also a history of violent confrontations to either impose it or defend it, under a clear cut leadership and banner. Atheism, specially its popular and growing appeal among the grown-ups, is still shiny new and an outcome of growing awareness about the synthesis of religions.
You picked a good topic to opine on.
Let’s first settle on the fundamental parameters of our premise.
The science is a method of inquiry, research, verification and determination of facts.
Belief is a system of reposing one’s Faith (??) in a collection of stated anecdotes, fantasized miracles and romantically super-natural powers of the Promoter of that belief, who claims to have been ordained by an unseen, unproven but Almighty God, to spread that Belief. All of this without inquiry, research or verification, but concluding (not determining), nevertheless that it is the holy TRUTH.
So, without meaning to over-simplify the two positions, one is a documentary, the other is a piece of fiction garnished with anecdotes, imagined miracles, rewards promised for compliance with its DOs, and punishments for flirting with DON’TS.
One needs verification for Science, but only a rich imagination and suspension of inquiry/verification, for Belief. Debating over the validity of one against the other is like comparing real apples with imagined oranges; futile exercise at best.
God is a work in progress. There are many models in circulation. God of Muslim and Jews, God of Protestants and Catholics, multiple Gods of Hindus and solitary God of Zoroastrians, to name a few. Gods have evolved in shape, size and powers over the last 6-7 millenniums. The past history indicates that future of Gods will see many more changes including its obsolescence.
Science determines facts, but facts remain constants.
It doesn’t matter how well the interviewer conducted himself, or how lost for words Richard Dawkins appeared at times, it was a comparison of real apples with imagined oranges. The fact that many quotes from his book or quotes from others were thrown in, does not alter the basic premise. Those are thrown in to give it a modicum of scholarship.
Mian Aslam
i would like to like to slightly disagree w/ the first sentence. there’s a sentence i claim to have coined and it’s ” religiousness is inherited, religion is environmental”. for example if a child is born to a religious hindu family and if he grows up in that family and if he is biologically inclined to be a religious person, he/she will turn out to be a religious hindu. but if that same child was somehow given up for adoption to a religious muslim family, he/she is very likely to become a religious muslim. so what i’m disagreeing is that not EVERY child id born atheist. some maybe, and these latter would eventually be adult atheists in spite of their upbringing in a religion. it seems to me that in most of us there is an innate wish or longing for a higher being. if there wasn’t, religions would not have sprung up. you may argue that some or most religious observances are unnecessary(and i might even agree) but the need for a higher being is inside most of us. i would like to think that most of the TF members who don’t call themselves atheists, and many other people at large have as much knowledge and acceptance and respect of science as most who declare themselves as atheists. and that background of science makes them doubt and wonder whether our religious practices are correct or necessary but at the end we do not want to give up belief in a higher being because i think we were born that way, the same way that atheists are born that way.
If I didn’t miss any comments in opposition to “all babies born are atheist…”, all comments are in support of this statement, and I would like to add to these comments. Clean slate is same as atheist. One is born with a clean slate and one can wipe the slate clean when one is grown up, by rejecting all indoctrination. The today’s young, born in religious families are simply wiping all the fairy tales and biblical fables off, and are exactly like those who were born in atheist families. There are more than hundred recorded cases of feral children (human children lost to animal kingdom like the fictional Tarzan or Mowgli, but real) and they were found living like the animals that took care of them. These feral children didn’t learn any language, didn’t find any inner calling. I am wondering if any one opposes this fact that religion is nothing but indoctrination/brainwashing then shouldn’t feral children or children raised in isolation (for experiment’s sake) display worship of God? It shouldn’t be very hard to conduct such an experiment. How humans started to worship God is also not very hard to understand if one looks at myths, looks at ignorance of early humans and fears. Fear and hope have a lot to do with the origins of religions.
Babar
P.S. My use of the word “ignorance” is not meant in any derogatory sense but for “lack of knowledge”.
” a child is born as atheist” is not true according to biological sciences , a child is born as Dr. Fayyaz said with a clean slate we impose our values and culture via socialization process could be any religion. As in Latin term we say he is born with tabula rosa (clean state).
I would argue that both modern scientific understandings and simple observation of humans throughout their recorded history show that the “blank slate” and “default atheist” positions are both false. There have been a number of recently published books by both believers and atheists that people interested in this topic may find interesting (please see below).
The fact that babies are born mute and learn the language of their environment does not mean contradict the indisputable truth that babies are “hard-wired” to pick up language according to a set of universal grammatical principles. Religion can be thought of largely in the same way. The fact that a minority of people do not have any religious beliefs does not contradict the general principle that humans as a whole have a strong innate inclination to certain types of belief.
http://www.amazon.com/Born-Believers-Science-Childrens-Religious/dp/1439196540/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356895501&sr=1-1&keywords=justin+barrett
http://www.amazon.com/Belief-Instinct-Psychology-Destiny-ebook/dp/B004HW6ADS/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356896367&sr=1-1&keywords=belief+instinct
http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/B0002D6DIS/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356896395&sr=1-1&keywords=blank+slate
i agree a 100% with all “clean slaters”. i do believe children are born with a “clean slate” but they ARE born WITH a “slate”. and the make up of that slate decides whether a child or adult accepts some or all or none of what is written on that slate.
coming off the analogy, a child is born with no idea of a religion, certainly no idea of what religion he/she’ll be exposed to. but after being exposed to whatever religion, whether he’ll accept all of it without question, accept some while rejecting others or completely reject it depends on certain innate qualities you are born with. obviously environmental factors – like being raised by animals – affects the outcome but in the normal course of events – humans raising human children – your biological substrate(the slate) has a lot to do what kind of effect the environment will have on you. in the example given by babar sahib, the feral children not developing a language does not mean they had no substrate to develop a language; if they were brought up traditionally i am sure they would have developed a language. same goes for religion and religious beliefs. so this may be semantics but NOT ALL children are born atheists.
i would ask people to refer to aziz’ comments above and look at the references he has quoted.
Shoeb Amin Sahib,
When you conclude that NOT ALL children are born atheist, you refer to the capacity or ability of human brain (…”if they were brought up traditionally I am sure they would have developed a language, same goes for religion and religious belief”). We have no problem with it, actually that is exactly what we are saying that its the writing on the slate that introduces God or religion, otherwise, before writing, there is no such thing as God there…which is ATHEIST!! I agree of course, the capacity is not same to start with and what gets written depends on the “writers” too. I wish so much brain space was not taken up by fables and don’t even ask me how bad I feel about those who are made to memorize a book the size of Quran, without even understanding the language (Arabic).
Babar
babar sahib,
if every child was born atheist, grew up atheist and had atheist children, no religion would have ever developed. sometime, somewhere some people, either out of fear, out of need for creating hope or the reasoning to give their existence a meaning had the ability to think about a higher being. that desire had to come from some part of their brains. so whoever it was that was the first person to come up with the god idea(here i am even conceding, for the sake of argument, your line of thinking that god was created out of someone’s imagination) was certainly not born atheist.
also, taking your logic further each newborn should be called “mute”, which is technically correct at birth, but that mute child has the ability to develop language when exposed to one. similarly a child may have no concept of god at birth but given the concept of god by parents has the ability to accept or not to accept that concept.
i am not continuing with this semantic game to change your mind; i am sure you have reasons to believe in what you believe. this is mainly to clarify my definition of the statement “every child is born an atheist”.
These comments by Babar Sahib:
” I wish so much brain space was not taken up by fables and don’t even ask me how bad I feel about those who are made to memorize a book the size of Quran, without even understanding the language (Arabic).”
I am sure the religious people will be feeling sorry for atheist’s children also for missing blessings of God. You may say ” I am rational and right”. They will also say “we are also educated, rational and right”. This can go on—-.
There is no difference between the two! Both are so sure of being right.
World will be a better place if everyone respects the other’s right to practice one’s believe and does not infringes upon anyone else’s such right.
Fayyaz
Syed Imtiaz Bokhari
I am intellectually exhausted by reading all the comments about Richard Dawkins and Atheism and its various dimensions culminating ” a child is born as atheist” is not true according to biological sciences , a child is born as Dr. Fayyaz said with a clean slate we impose our values and culture via socialization process could be any religion. As in Latin term we say he is born with tabula rosa (clean state). I agree with Dr. Fayyaz he very succinctly articulated the nature of a child at time of birth. A child at time of birth is free from all types of cultural and religious proclivities and he learns as he grows and acquire his parents culture and religion.
Imtaiz
Mirza Iqbal Ashraf
I believe Wequar Azeem is right to say that a child born is a “Blanca Rosa.” It is also clear that when a baby is born the parents say Adhan in its ear. But does any one rmember what he/she had heard? At least I did not remember and had learn the wording of Adhan when I was old enough.
Mirza Ashraf
I know Imtiaz Sahib is tired of hearing comments on video, but I have to respond to challenging comments of 12/27/12 by Wequar Sahib. I needed few days rest also.
The following comments By Wequar Sahib;
“The opinions of Babar Mustafa Saheb are breath of fresh air. “Atheism is just not believing in deities” and “for all these other virtues education will suffice.” Those two comments are the gist of the discussion. Atheism never means propping up an opposition to any religion. Individual atheists, like any other human being, can be for or against an issue. That is not predicated on his being an atheist. The difference is critical.”
Unfortunately after writing above lines Wequar Sahib went after religions. Wequar Sahib did not mention any specific acts of violence but wrote this general indictment;
“When violence is licensed by religion,” “Why is atheism equated with religion when Atheists oppose the violence sanctified by religion?
Incidences of violence are condemned by everybody, not just atheists, whether it is committed by believer or anybody else. Sex abuse committed by some Catholic priests was condemned by everybody, including Catholics. The difference between atheist’s condemnation and others is that Atheists render a’ collective punishment’ and condemn the whole religion, while others condemn violent acts and involved individuals.
I doubt Mr. Dawkins is not capable to understand the “Fine” distinction or ‘critical difference’? He said that raising child as Catholic is worse than sexual abuse.Mr. Bertrand Russell also has the intellectual capacity to understand this fine distinction, but opposed Catholics’ civil rights in 1950’s.I think, at the heart of atheist’s condemnation of religion is their believe that ‘religion’ is harmful to the society. That is why they condemn the whole religion and not individual acts. This has been expressed openly not only by Apostles of Atheists but others also. It is the main topic of all the conventions, rallies, retreats and gatherings.
The atheists’ ideology is no longer limited to “no belief in deities” as the definition suggests, but its core ideology is ‘Religion is harmful to society”. Atheists support civil rights, like many others, but when it comes to religion, all bets are off. It is no different in narrow-mindedness as exhibited by any other extreme ideology and fundamentalists.
These comments:
“One is in protection of all humanity, but the other is for promotion of a religion. How difficult is it to condemn one and appreciate the other without putting them under the same head ?”
1-Kindly name some acts of Humanity done exclusively by atheists, but not by others.
2-With all due respect, the above statement is so self-righteous, so pure and so certain that it is no different than other extreme ideologies who think of themselves the same way. They all wonder, how hard it is for others to understand that they are on right path, the chosen one and protector of all humanity.
Following is a sobering statement by Bertrand Russell, a great Philosopher and human rights activist (but unfortunately his atheists’ views came in the way to support Catholic’s human rights, or perhaps he forgot his own advice): This statement is directed in general, for all of us.
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.”
― Bertrand Russell
I am not defending any religion or religious practices, but I am defending everyone’s right to practice one’s believes (atheists, agnostics, all religions and ideologies), as long as they do not infringe upon anyone else’s such right.
Fayyaz
I as a convert Atheists would argue that everyone is an Atheist about most gods, so why feel surprised and violated if Atheists advance one step further. This is my short answer.
However to continue with splitting hairs, or to play-act scholarship, here’s a detailed definition of Atheism offered by various known sources of substance.
Belief Systems fall in following categories
Atheists, Monotheists, Polytheists (several gods exist), Pantheists (all is God, known in our part of the world by its Persian nomenclature as “Hama Oost”) and Panentheists (all is in God, aka “Hama az Oost” in Persian).” These two concepts are reflected in the Sufism of Middle East, the breeding ground of most well-known Sufis world has known like Rumi, Shams Tebrezi, Hallaj, Mansur etc. The two philosophies of “Tareeqat” are known as “Hama oost”/Pantheism and “Hama az oost”/ Panentheism.
Atheism means slightly different to different people
According to The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. By Martin, Michael, ed. (2006). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-84270-0. OL22379448M. Retrieved 2011-04-09. pp. 467–468
1.An Atheist who disbelieves that God exists is called a Positive Atheist.
Here Atheism means the explicit denial of the existence of gods
2. Negative Atheism by definition simply means not holding any concept of God.
In this, Atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods.
According to Dictionary of Philosophy. Compiled and edited by Runes, Dagobert D.(editor) (1942 edition).
Some philosophers have been called “Atheistic” because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means “not theistic”. The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought”
Encyclopedia Britannica defines Atheism as a conviction deliberately adopted by a thinker as a description of his own theological standpoint.
It is obvious that Atheism from the standpoint of a Christian is a very different conception as compared with Atheism as understood by a Deist, a Positivist, a follower of Euhemerus or Herbert Spencer, or a Buddhist.”
According to “Atheism”.by Rowe, William L. (1998). and Edward Craig in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of “atheism” is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. …an Atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology.”
According to “Atheism” by Nielsen, Kai (2011). “Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an Atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons…: for an anthropomorphic God, the Atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God… because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers… because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an Atheistic substance—e.g., “God” is just another name for love, or … a symbolic term for moral ideals.”
According to “Atheism” by Edwards, Paul (2005) [1967
“On our definition, an ‘Atheist’ is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that ‘God exists’ expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion.”
I admire the approach of Mr Baber and Mr Azeem, as both seem adequately disinterested in feigning any theatrics of erudition. Both the gentlemen made a bee-line to the logical treatment of the subject as genuine truth seekers.
My compliments also to Mr Ashraf for his excellent poetic commentary on the most complex creature in the Universe known as Humans.
all these definitions of atheism include some form of “disbelief in existence of god”; since a newborn cannot form beliefs or disbeliefs he/she cannot be called born atheistic. for the very few people who are still following this chain of comments, my comments are mainly directed at the one sentence “every child is born atheist”; i have no problems with anything else being said. enough hair splitting. don’t have enough hair to split.
THIS A COMMENT BY SYED AJAZ
ASA.
First of all I commend
Aslam Saheb for his
Courage to introduce
himself as an atheist,
most atheists are
Still in the closets for
the sake of social decorum.
But I disagree with him
that every child is born
is an atheist,rather agree
with Dr.Sheikh and Dr.
Shoeb that a child is
born with a Clean Slate.
I also disagree with Mr.
Babar Mustafa that atheist
and clean slate is one
and the same,actually
as soon as somebody
Starts believing that god
do not exist his slate is
not clean anymore.
It is also true that atheism
is no longer an individual
behavior but very well
organized and aggressively
trying to convert.Atheism
Is sharing the same
Characteristics as a religion,
that is trying to save humans from
the dangers of religion,
that is also the very object
of religion to save humans but from
evil or satan.
But I agree with Mr.Aslam that
the absence of solid
proof does creat doubts
on fantasized miracles
and reward and punishment
buisness.I further agree
with him that future gods
will be changed but will not be
obsolete because it is
human need.
Ajaz.
a very balanced comment indeed.
THEOLOGY versus ATHEOLOGY
The gist of Dawkins’ interview is: (a) Religions are responsible for War and Conflict, (b) that Religions preach false conception, and (c) that God is an illusion.
(a) War and conflicts are not only pre-scriptural but also pre civilization phenomena. Charles Taliaferro on April 21, 2012, in Ask Philosophers, responding to a question on war says, “The latest thinking is that warfare probably came about approximately when we developed agriculture (on the theory that hunters and gatherers may fight as groups, but there was not quite the pressure to protect land in the absence of farms and with surplus agriculture) you can get cities and have armies and have more motives to attack others or defend yourself. I believe (though I may be off a century or two) that the current, best attested case of when there was probably a war was 12,000BCE (that is, this is the oldest date of when there is evidence of the oldest war). There is a mass grave (cemetery 117) in Egypt in which there are 59 bodies of both genders, all ages, and all with signs of wounds which would probably be fatal. The thesis is that the most likely explanation is a mass attack by a hostile group (and thus this is not a case of individual struggle). So, empirically it seems we have had war for 14,000 years of human history, and this is likely to continue without some kind of radical change. From time to time, we have thought that conditions have changed that would make war less likely (better and better communication, better weapons making war too costly, more trade with would-be enemies) but so far, it seems difficult to be optimistic about the end of war.”
I wonder why Dawkins, Harrison and many other atheists would blame religions as a main reason for war and conflicts. This morning I picked up a book, Atheist Manifesto by Michel Onfrey, an atheist who after introducing atheism as “Atheology,” an opposite of “Theology,” spent all his energy, almost in 90% of the book, on condemning all the religions as the source of war and terrorism. I am often surprised why these exponents of atheism fail to accept that human beings are war mongers, more reasonably and scientifically proven by the Darwinian theory of evolution than religions. War and conflict was there even if there was no civilization, no natural moral order, or no religions. It is a well known fact that, if God permits war, science provides weapons of war. From a sword to gun and a hand grenade to a nuclear bomb have neither been invented by a rabbi, priest, mulla, or pundit nor have been produced in a synagogue, church, mosque and a temple. I believe it is “man” whether a believer or a non-believer whose hard-drive is loaded with the elements of nobleness and savagery.
(b) One may agree or disagree; Darwin’s theory of evolution carries more weight in the creation and evolution of man than the scriptural explanation of an intelligent design. Reflecting upon the historical (Darwinian) Homo sapiens, when they became recognizable human, they manufactured god or gods in their own quintessential image; maybe to make their daily life bearable. Along with human beings’ intellectual evolution, religions also started evolving. Fear, terror, anguish, mysteries and many such devices created divinities. Zoroaster is the first documented figure in history to have portrayed a divine view of One God, say an illusion as perceived by the atheologists. Since human beings cannot kill illusions, rather they were subjected to be killed by the illusion, later on named an illusory figure as God, until they started reasonably believing in a Transcendent God as a reality. Since modern science has relinquished human beings of unseen fears and many cosmic entities as mysterious, religion and God is losing importance. But the most important question for an atheist is, suppose there is no religion in this world, how atheism would help human beings in understanding the meanings of life. I believe, Dawkins did not have a reasonable answer, nor do I find in Sam Harrison or Michel Onfrey or any other modern atheists have presented a justified answer. The only explanation atheologists–I would onward use the word atheology instead of atheism which is now a godless religion–give to the meaning of life is that humans have to pass on their genes to the next generation. But every other creature does the same, and then what is the difference between humans and animals. And what about the gay marriages, that totally puts a full stop to the role of passing on human genes to the next generation. Today gayism is being morally justified while theologically gayism (which may or may not be natural) as a moral practice is sinful. As there are many plus/minus points both in theological and atheological morality, to find a reasonably final answer has been a perennial quest of humankind resulting into endless debates only.
(c) For atheolothists God is an illusion. Dawkins in his best seller The God Delusion “demonstrates the supreme improbability of the existence of a supreme being. He makes a compelling case that faith is no just irrational but potentially deadly.” But he has failed to prove that having no faith is a guarantee for permanent love and peace for the humanity and that having no faith is all peace and not deadly. Although the philosophical exposition of this dilemma is a long one, but I will have look through the age of enlightenment. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) professing his materialism, perceived human nature as mechanistic and deeply cynical. He argued, humans are instinctively ruthless and selfish, with everyone struggling for his own sustenance and preservation leading to a state of nature of a war, as is of every man against every man. They would inevitable kill one another, making life solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Rousseau, renouncing Hobbes, defined the natural man as a greedless noble savage, a good husband and affectionate father who followed the religion of natural kindliness. Darwin (1809-1892) a naturalist founded the theory of evolution propounding life on earth as an evolutionary process grounded in science and reason, based on the survival of the fittest. Nietzsche (1844-1900) proclaiming “God is dead” presented a new concept of Ubermensch and in his Thus Spoke Zarathustra speaks, “Man is a rope, fastened between animal and Ubermensch–a rope over an abyss.” He never explained what he meant by Ubermensch which literally means “over man.” For some (most importantly for Hitler) he is superman, a symbol of a master-race. Hollingdale saw in Ubermensch a man who had organized the chaos within and is a symbol of a man who creates his own values. For Carl Jung (1875-1961), Ubermensch is a new God. In fact Nietzsche’s departure from religion augmented his immersion in Schopenhauer and his mission was to reclaim a “Self,” the god-like part of humanity, and Ubermensch can be seen as an attempt to do just that. Jung believed that the emergence of the archetype of the Self is a revelation of religious nature; a revelation of God and also of man. The revelation of the Self is experienced as a transpersonal power which he called the “God within,” and this is “an intelligible sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.” Jung believed, since the hero’s journey is ultimately a journey towards self-integration and the archetype of a hero which is the oldest and most powerful of all archetypes, religious figures like, Buddha, Christ or Muhammad are to be considered its various personifications.
I believe that there is a God within every one of us. I believe in the God that Rumi saw in a man when he first met Shams, a God that Jung saw in Nietzsche’s Ubermensch. For me there is a God within every theist and every atheist which they do understand very well, but interpret in their own way. I believe the way Dawkins, Harrison and my friends Mian Aslam and Babar Mustafa, speak with as great confidence that there is no God they are in fact speaking as true poets of their life, masters of their own fate, and thus in self-creating and self-destroying they are a symbol in which the creator and the creatures are united. Is this not same as Bertrand Russell said, “Every man would like to be God, if it were possible; some few find it difficult to admit the impossibility. These men are framed after the model of Milton’s Satan, combining, like him, nobility with impiety. [Following lines from Paradise Lost is my insertion for clarification].
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, Hell of Heaven.
What matters where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less than He [God]
Whom Thunder [Power] has made greater? Here at least
We [Satan and his team] shall be free; the Almighty has not built
Here for His envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure, and in my choice
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.
[Russell contd.] By ‘impiety’ I mean something not dependent on theological beliefs: I mean refusal to admit the limitation of individual human power. This Titanic combination of nobility with impiety is most notable in great conquerors, but some element of it is to be found in all men. It is this that makes social co-operation difficult, for each one of us would like to conceive of it [whether theists or atheists] after the pattern of the co-operation between God and His worshippers, with ourself in the place of God.” (Russell in “Power” pp 8).
Within all of us is a “Self,” and that Self, according to the theists, is the one God has infused and thus a theist acts and behaves like a God. According to the atheist man has evolved and Self within him is as omnipotent as to have an authority like Hitler, Stalin and the secular President of USA to order holocausts, inflict starvation and to nuclear bomb peaceful citizens. Isn’t man more complex than God? and to be a theist or an atheist is just as two sides of the same coin. HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Mirza Ashraf
scholarly and balanced!
Mirza Sahib’s comments above are indeed very scholarly. However, for the sake of record I would like to point out that most of the atheists if asked about “the meaning of life” will not answer that “humans have to pass on their genes”. This in point (b), is Mirza Sahib’s own Q&A with “atheologist”. Most atheist’s answer, including myself, will be that
there is absolutely no “meaning” or purpose of life (which does not mean that we can not
set our own purpose and make our lives meaningful). Dawkins idea of “selfish gene” is individual person’s idea. Atheists have no prophets and no holy books. As Mirza Sahib goes on to object to his own assumed answer of atheologist, that it is no different than animals – man is of course a transitional animal, he is not the climax of creation!
Second thing that I notice is people are bent on assuming that atheists or Dawkins says
that religion is the “only” culprit of the crime of war – Darwin explained in great detail how
the territorial nature is descended to humans from their historical past (of lesser species)
and Dawkins being a biologist and evolutionist, can not say that religion is the only reason of wars. Yes, it is a historic fact that a lot of blood has been shed due to religious conflicts too. Abolishing religions will remove one of many causes of wars which will be good for humanity. Theists have hijacked morality as their patent product, morality was never a product of religions, so please don’t keep feeding fresh and young minds the fables and myths for the sake of morality.
Babar
i am not even a very religious person but i cannot stand by while someone is “feeding fresh and young minds(their version of) fables and myths”. “morality is not a product of religion”??? REALLY?? i agree that there could be morality without religion and i agree that religion does not have a “patent on morality” but to say that all the religions combined had NO impact in the moral fiber of the society we live in today(as opposed to what people lived in 10-15 thousand years ago) is just plain false. whether we realize it or not; whether we believe in god and religions or not, a big part of our secular morality is based on religious morality handed over the generations.
In fact pre-religious morality is the natural moral order. Religions inherited that moral order and the scriptures say that there is nothing repugnant to natural moral order. It is the law which in different religions is differently implemented. Religious laws which confuse us even today were framed or revealed according to the need of the time. Religious morality evolved from natural morality and is considered updated natural morality. For example when Abraham decided to take his son for sacrifice, he was transcending natural moral order of not only homocide, but a father killing his son. Since the motif was higher, a way to be found to stop human sacrifice, so the result that human sacrifice came to a stop. If Abraham has himself ordered to the people to stop human sacrifice few would have listened and accepted. But a Divine order became universal for the people of Middle East.
Here I will relate one example of religious morality. A polytheist abused the prophet and ridiculed the religion of Islam in front of Hz. Ali, who showed maximum patience and perseverance. When the polytheist noticed that nothing moved Ali, he drew his sword and challenged him to fight. Ali also drew his sword and within minutes overpowered the polytheist and was about to thrust his sword into the chest of the subjugated enemy, when the enemy in utter desperation spit on Ali’s face. Ali immediately let the enemy go. Surprised, the polytheist asked why he let him go. Ali replied, “When you spit on my face my anger was more than what you had said, but it became personal. If I had killed you it would have become a personal vengeance and in that case I would have been responsible to Allah as well as the Caliph and my ummah as a murderer.” For modern thinkers, these are stories, but these are facts documented in history.
An atheist following secular morality would follow his own conscience to good or to obey that law of the state. But Ali was following his own conscience, the Divine order, his being answerable to the sate and above all to whole of the ummah. I can prove, religions, not only Islam, but Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and many other preach higher levels of morality and there is an unending list of great persons who have demonstrated great piety, moral perfection and ethical greatness. Unfortunately we see the examples of modern deteriorated state of religious mullas and priests or rabbis. But there are still many great religious personalities of high moral levels. Since atheists have an individual moral order and every atheist’s moral exposition can be different from other atheist therefore, I regard that there is no unified moral order for those who follow the faith of atheology. As far as Babar’s remark that, “However, for the sake of record I would like to point out that most of the atheists if asked about “the meaning of life” will not answer that “humans have to pass on their genes” see here:
“At the end of the 20th century, reflecting upon the meaning of life, based upon insight gleaned from the gene centered view of evolution, biologists George C. Williams, Richard Dawkins, David Haig, among others, concluded that if there is a primary function to life, it is the replication of DNA and the survival of one’s genes. This view is, however, far from universal–Jeremy Griffith is a notable exception, maintaining that the meaning of life is to be integrative.” (The Meaning of Life, by Steven Sanders and David R. Cheney).
Tolstoy, an atheist and later on turned Christian says, “I felt that what I was standing on had given way, that I had no foundation to stand on, that, that which I had lived by no longer existed, and that I had nothing to live by.” … What haunting turn of fate left him under a shroud of seriousness for the rest of his life? He tells us that it was due to his inability to avoid or to answer these questions: “What is the meaning of my life? What will come of my life? Why does everything which exists exist, and why do I exist?” My Confession [Tolstoy’s book] displays the circumstances of his quandary and records the long journey in search of an answer. (For reference see My Confession by Tolstoy).
My only concern about atheologists is that until they present a valid and universally acceptable meaning of life, just saying that there is no God is more easier than believing that there is a God. Man is a spiritual animal and would not be satisfied without a religion. Let the atheist give mankind a godless religion and I am sure a majority will follow. The Soveits tried to supress all religions in their empire and after 90 years when Soveit Union collapsed, religions have again surfaced. Churches, synagogues and mosques are getting crowded with worshippers. I would refer to my last week’s Qata’a on God posted on TF, which explains in four lines full philosophy of life and the complexity of man.
Mirza
I wonder if the editors could move the discussion under a new topic (purpose of life or
morality) from Al Jazeera interview, as the thread has stretched too far and new participants may be spared reading from all the way back.
Mirza Sahib’s take on Abraham’s intent of sacrifice (of his son) is a better way of explaining that incident which, as a parent, is horrifying to me. But the fact is that
the intent of Abraham was not to end human sacrifice, but on the contrary, the intent
was exactly to carry out human sacrifice. Every year billions of Muslims act hypocritically
by not putting the knife on the throat of their children but brutally slaughtering millions of poor goats, lambs, cows and camels. Sure, Allah “created” all these animals for humans to consume as food. I disagree that if Abraham had not done that, we might still be offering human sacrifice. We aren’t cannibals any more, progress/evolution of civilization
has been and is taking care of things.
Abraham, the patriarch of all three major religions is not an example or model for humanity; his conduct is questionable too when he, for fear of his life, pretends as a brother of his beautiful wife Sarah and lets Pharaoh take her, afterwards he accepts a
slave Hagar in return. What morals are displayed there with regards to women? Later
on again (on the command of God of course) he leaves his son Ismail and Hagar without
food and water in the desert. How many want to “really” follow Sunnat e Abrahimi??
If we keep going a little further down the biblical story; Abraham’s son Issac when old
and blind, his wife Rebecca plots with her favorite son Jacob to cheat his twin brother Esau,out of his inheritance by deceiving their blind father….called “a blessed deception”.
Rebecca makes Jacob wear Esau’s garments and wrap hairy game skin on his smooth skin arms and neck to get final blessing and become head of a nation.
This is just the start, the lessons in “morality” per theists will put morality to shame. We
humans could do better than this on our own and we did.
Replication of DNA and survival of the fittest is what is life as we know here on earth, its
true for not only humans but animals and plants as well. Purpose and meaning, well, I would like to find out if any.
Babar
Bravo Baber Saheb !
I would like to add here that people were lot more ignorant in Abraham’s time than they are now. If I were to declare that I heard God tell me to slaughter my son as an offering to HIM, people would immediately institutionalize me as a schizophrenic and put me on medication and under strict watch. While on it, I might also add that if my mother declared that I was fathered by the Lord Himself, she would be challenged by having a DNA paternity test done on me and check the result with other males in close proximity of my mother, perhaps some one like a carpenter named Joseph, to see whose DNA matched my paternity. The surprising thing is that humanity has come a long way since Abrahamic period and discontinued countless practices and beliefs in daily life as ill-founded products of ignorance. Religions and their unintelligent notions are being constantly protected by the addicts. In this sense I find religions as addictive and dependency prone feature in human life.
Please refer to the comments of Mr Baber on the article of Mr Ashraf on Atheology, which in turn were commented upon by Mr Shoeb Amin. I felt that Mr Ashraf”s position on genesis of morality and its defense by Mr Shoeb Amin are anchored in quick sand and let me explain why.
Going back to basic, lets be clear that
a. God is assumable, but not provable.
b. Since the concept of God’s existence has been assumed by the equivalent of Queen Bee among men and conveyed as a reality to equivalent of regular Bees among men, it has been followed as a Belief/Faith by men equivalent to the regular bees, for generations. The process involved regimented indoctrination, dogmatic persuasion and ritualistic training by parents, clan, community, clergy etc., until the regular bees were in completely induced conviction.
c. Religions, conceived and dispensed by the equivalent of Queen Bees, are as such, products of human brains, simply because these proverbial Queen Bees are human too. The direct corollary of this equation is that morality, being a big part and objective of any religion, is also a product of human brain, exactly in the same way the concepts of Secularism, Humanism, Socialism, Communism, and any other isms for that matter, are products of human brain.
d. Wars take place because of the individual and collective passions like greed, ambition, survival, supremacy, etc. Religion has been a major cause of conflicts leading to wars. While some wars were not fought on the basis of religious differences, most wars were. Had religious conflicts been non-existent, there would have been far fewer wars in history.
e. References to scriptures and quotes from “Divine Revelations” carry suspect weight since the divinity of those quotes has never been verifiably established. Until the claim that those are in fact words of God (Which too remains unproven), their authority remains imaginery.
I wish Mian Aslam Saheb had commented on Mr Ashraf’s scholarly article and Mr Baber’s incisive comments on it.
i usually comment on a very specific item in someone else’s comments. my only point was to refute the argument that “morality was never a product of religion” by mr. babar and if that part of his comment was “incisive” i would say it was incisive but it was incising the truth. religion may have a lot of aspects to be criticized and ridiculed by atheists but saying that all the religions had NOTHING to do with what we now universally recognize as morals is just false.
at this point i’ll rerfain from commenting on mr wequar’s animal(bee) analogy ; i want to keep the discussion focused on one item.
Read carefully what I said, “For example when Abraham decided to take his son for sacrifice, he was transcending natural moral order of not only homocide, but a father killing his son. Since the motif was higher, a way to be found to stop human sacrifice, so the result that human sacrifice came to a stop.”
Yes it is a fact that human sacrifice never occured in Abrahamic religions. I have clearly said that Abraham transgressed the natural moral order of taking his son for a sacrifice. But the outcome is a total ban on human sacrifice. In India the sati could not be stopped for centuries until the British made a strict law. Even then in 1836 Ranjit Singh was cremated alongwith his 2 wivies and a dozen of maids. In China the kings were burried with hundreds of their servants and wives etc. Steven Pinker, in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature writes horrible traditions of human sacrifices before gods. Now 3 million animals slaughtered once a year is a very cruel act for an atheist. How about more than 3 millions animals being slaughtered every day in this country and the meat supplied to the stores for our kitchens. Is this not cruelty? Even if we become vegetarians, then plants have also life. Are we going to live on minerals only?
Religious wars in Islam came to a stop during the Abbasi period when the chapter of Jihad for war was closed for ever. During the Soveit-Afghan war a permission was saught from the Imams to allow the opening of Jihad for war, which unfortunately is still going on. All other wars, such as Mahmud Ghazni’s adventures to India, the Turco-Mongol-Mughal wars were geo-political wars. The Ottoman wars with Persians and their wars in European countries were not religious wars. Muslims have fought with Muslims and Christians with Christians and these were not religious wars. The European’s war for colonization were not religious nor the British empire and its wars were religious. Even the Crusades were considered by the Christians as holy wars, but the Caliphs in Baghdad and Spain refused to take part in these wars declaring that these are not Jihad. The atheists are focused on the subject that religions are the cause of wars. They don’t study history carefully. Wars are pre-religion practice of human beings. Toynbee in his A Study of History says that there have been a total 20 years of peace in human history when there has been no war in any part of the world.
Let me give you some latest statistics of believers and non belivers in USA. The magazine Philosophy Now’s special issue # 71 on Darwin & Friends, says on page 4, that 52% said there is a God and the theory of Evolution is wrong. 31% said there is no God and evolution is true and 17% said they don’t know. In the Skeptic issue # 4, 2012, in the review of a book, Non-Believer Nation by David Noise, it says that tellingly, 81% of Americans report a belief in a divinity, but only1.6% identify as atheists or agnostic while the rest are unwilling to identify as non-believers or believers. Please do not confuse this statistics with the 52% one which is inclusive of Darwin’s theory and belief in God. There are many who believe in divinity as well as in the theory of evolution and many who just believe in God but not in a religion.
Moral values of 5000 (Abrahamic time) years ago are definitely not acceptable to us and do not appeal to us. But the modern concept of Gay-marriages is acceptable to us as moral. There are many more moral issues which are now viewed as moral but were considered immoral in the past.
My views are not to convince the atheists that religion is the future of mankind. My whole discussion is based on this conviction that UNLESS THE ATHEISTS COME FORWARD WITH A UNIVERSAL ORDER OR DISCIPLINE BASED ON PURE REASON AND RATIONAL MORAL AND ETHICAL ORDER, only blaming religions is just as every problem happening in many countries is viewed to have been perpetrated by the West.
Mirza
Ref. following from Mirza Sahib’s post:
“For example when Abraham decided to take his son for sacrifice, he was transcending natural moral order of not only homicide, but a father killing his son. Since the motif was higher, a way to be found to stop human sacrifice, so the result that human sacrifice came to a stop.”
I am having trouble understanding this; How the motif was higher, did Abraham know his offering will be declined, if so, then offering was not genuine. If the offering was genuine then he was clearly setting an example of sacrificing one’s own children and not discouraging human sacrifice. “He was transcending natural moral order” – I clearly fail to understand this remark. If Abraham didn’t know the offering was to be
declined, he clearly wasn’t discouraging human sacrifice. If God knew
that He would not really accept the offering then why is nailing of Jesus
to the cross considered atonement …. God accepting sacrifice of his own
son (according to believers) and forgiving the sins of Adam, here God is supposed to have accepted the offering (without Jews even knowing they
were helping salvage the sins of Adam). Apparently human sacrifice did
not come to a stop, but in fact it took the sacrifice of “His son” to finally
forgive the sins of Adam or humanity. Isn’t “Shaheed” a self sacrifice, and
rewarded handsomely? If human sacrifice ended, as per Mirza Sahib, then what was “blood liable” – Jews killing Christian boys in a ritual? What is the order (divine) of killing the infidels, is killing humans better than letting them deny the existence of God….some vanity! Nothing adds up, my adding machine is broken.
On Mirza Sahib asking atheists for presenting a better “universal order or discipline based on pure reason and rational moral and ethics”, I ask Mirza Sahib why not ask whole mankind including theists?
On Wequar Azeems’s remarks which I support (God is assumable, but not provable)…the God as perceived by theists is actually hard to even assume but since billions do assume, I ‘ll accept that assumable but personally I can’t reconcile the elegant universe with the vanity of such
God, of expecting his creation to prostrate and pray.
On Salik Sahib’s quote of Hazrat Ali (not taking a chance on the existence of God), I have no idea what a normal moral person has to fear … not bowing and praying – the only difference between a good, believer and non-believer? No, I don’t think so I will deserve hell for not praising and begging or thanking God. In a way I have more faith in God’s goodness if God exists than those who do every thing to please Him, even killing.
Babar
This comment is entered by Noor Salik
I was reading the comments on Dawkins Video.
I found Wequar Azeeem’s comments intellectually challenging.
I am quoting a portion of his comments here.
I will ask certain questions where I am not clear.
I will say where I agreed.
I may ask for some elaborations from other affiliates of TF USA on certain points.
< ---- part of comments of Wequar Azeem ------>
Going back to basic, let us be clear that
a. God is assumable, but not provable.
b. Since the concept of God’s existence has been assumed by the equivalent of Queen Bee among men and conveyed as a reality to equivalent of regular Bees among men, it has been followed as a Belief/Faith by men equivalent to the regular bees, for generations. The process involved regimented indoctrination, dogmatic persuasion and ritualistic training by parents, clan, community, clergy etc., until the regular bees were in completely induced conviction.
c. Religions, conceived and dispensed by the equivalent of Queen Bees, are as such, products of human brains, simply because these proverbial Queen Bees are human too. The direct corollary of this equation is that morality, being a big part and objective of any religion, is also a product of human brain, exactly in the same way the concepts of Secularism, Humanism, Socialism, Communism, and any other isms for that matter, are products of human brain.
d. Wars take place because of the individual and collective passions like greed, ambition, survival, supremacy, etc. Religion has been a major cause of conflicts leading to wars. While some wars were not fought on the basis of religious differences, most wars were. Had religious conflicts been non-existent, there would have been far fewer wars in history.
< -------------------------->
a. God is assumable, but not provable.
This statement has challenged me intellectually. But when I reflect at a deeper level, I realized this statement may be true.
Here I will quote Hazrat Ali the fourth caliph of Islam.
NOTE: Speaking personally, Hazrat Ali was the greatest intellectual in the history of Islam. Most believers never doubt about the existence of God.
But Hazrat Ali was a believer as well as a Philosophic thinker.
You might have heard this reference already but I repeat it here to explain my point.
Hazrat Ali was debating with one of the atheists of his time. This guy cannot be a Jew or a christian – he must be a pagan.
So after lengthy debate, Hazrat Ali realized that he could not bring any convincing argument which conclusively proves the existence of God.
So according to Hazrat Ali the intellectual contest was a draw.
Implicitly Hazrat Ali was saying that God is assumable and not provable.
Being a high class intellectual, Hazrat Ali did not give up here. He could have said, we cannot prove the existence of God so we go on our own ways.
Hazrat said to pagan intellectual.
Even though we cannot prove rationally the existence of God, but my position is far superior and full of wisdom.
Hazrat Ali said that both of us will eventually die.
Now there are two possibilities:
(1) These is Gog
(2) There is no God.
Hazrat Ali said, if there is no God then both of us are OK. We become the part of universal dust where we came from.
What if God is there then you look at yourself and me.
I will be in much better position than yours.
Hence according to Hazrat Ali it is much wiser to believe in God than not to believe in God.
The same argument is used in Pascal Wager.
Because Pascal was a Mathematician as well as a Philosopher, so his line of argument is completely different from Hazrat Ali’s line of argument.
Pascal uses concept of Infinity to make his point.
You may read the details of Pascal wages yourself.
Most believers use Pascal wages in support of their argument.
Pascal wager is empowered by very powerful intellectual arguments.
But it has some serious intellectual flaws. Bertrand Russel and many other modern philosophers have analyzed and exposed logical flaws in Pascal Wager. For details you have to put in some efforts.
<><><><>
Let u stake point (b)
b. Since the concept of God’s existence has been assumed by the equivalent of Queen Bee among men and conveyed as a reality to equivalent of regular Bees among men, it has been followed as a Belief/Faith by men equivalent to the regular bees, for generations. The process involved regimented indoctrination, dogmatic persuasion and ritualistic training by parents, clan, community, clergy etc., until the regular bees were in completely induced conviction.
…. My understanding is that is this point Queen Bee is a reference to PROPHETS of monotheistic religions and Regular Bees are the followers of monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).
Rest of the point expresses the techniques used to solidify the concept of GOD.
<><><><><>
Point (c)
. Religions, conceived and dispensed by the equivalent of Queen Bees, are as such, products of human brains, simply because these proverbial Queen Bees are human too. The direct corollary of this equation is that morality, being a big part and objective of any religion, is also a product of human brain, exactly in the same way the concepts of Secularism, Humanism, Socialism, Communism, and any other isms for that matter, are products of human brain
In point (c) it has been assumed that ‘Religions’ are also the product and outcome of human mind like Secularism, Humanism, Socialism, Communism, and any other isms for that matter.
I have read this argument in various books of Philosophy under Metaphysics. God is one of the concepts which is discussed in Metaphysics.
If you look at this statement philosophically, there is lot of weight in it.
If you look at dogmatically then we may disagree with this statement.
These are complex philosophic arguments, so we have to revisit this point.
Right now we are just scratching the surface.
<><><><><>
Let us go to point (d)
. Wars take place because of the individual and collective passions like greed, ambition, survival, supremacy, etc. Religion has been a major cause of conflicts leading to wars. While some wars were not fought on the basis of religious differences, most wars were. Had religious conflicts been non-existent, there would have been far fewer wars in history
This point says that Religion is one of the reasons of war in human history.
Any war is a crime against humanity. All wars are unjustifiable.
Under no circumstances, a war can be justified.
But this is a philosophic point of view. It is not naive, it may be idealistic.
I will come back to these points later on.
This is the beauty and power of this structure. Article/essay/Video in the web and all comments underneath the posting. All related points are together. We can revisit them whenever we want.
I will pick up these threads again whenever it will be convenient for me.
nSalik January 04, 2013 09:20 AM
What sort of god makes it so hard to ascertain its existence? There is no benefit to playing cosmic hide-and-seek. If there truly is one omnipotent, loving god, just come right out and demonstrate it as often as necessary. Making people search endlessly is a cruel game that results in endless intellectual debates. That very existence of thousands of sects of the major religions should prove that it is made up by humans.