One thing I’ve come across on this forum a number of times is the idea that I can’t question certain ideas, that you will be offended if I do so, and we should just steer away from those topics. Is that really how you believe rational dialog should be conducted?
I hold none of my ideas to that standard. If you want to run down or rationally complain about anything I say please go ahead. Question anything I say, question my lifestyle choices, my family values and my ideas on evidence, none of it is off limits and nothing you ask will offend me. Not so it seems with Muslims.
I’ve suggested a couple of times here that Muhammad was, at most, just a man and people took great offence that I could even think that. “I love him so you shouldn’t suggest such a thing” was basically one answer to me on that comment. Another argument was that you would not even discuss anything with me if I didn’t accept up front that Muhammad was more than a man. The idea that he was more than just a man is incompatible with atheism of course but that was ignored at the time.
Another idea I’ve expressed here a number of times that seems to cause problems is the church of Mickey Mouse. I use that one to try to explain what an atheist sees when they walk down the street and look at all these buildings with symbols on them, crosses, moons and stars etc. But think about it, given my view on god (I’ve already said I’m an atheist so this is no secret) how else should I see such symbols and the people who revere and worship them if atheism is the truth?
Now don’t get me wrong here, it’s the ideas I’m discussing, it’s the ideas I’m complaining about. I understand that people come to these ideas for many reasons and that many of the people who hold them are intelligent rational people, that’s not at question here, but I do think we need to rationally consider the ideas themselves. That Muhammad was just a man or that he may even be an invention are ideas which we should be able to discuss. Now this is the crucial point here if these ideas hold water you should be able to defend them and not have to pull the “you can’t question that idea” card. Rationally that statement is an admission of the weakness of your position. If you are incapable of defending a position maybe you should not hold it as true.
So what do you think, should rational enquiry be open to discuss any idea or are you really unwilling to truly examine the belief system that you hold to and if so why? Does insecurity pay a part in that reluctance?
Hello and As-salamu-alaikum-wa-rahmatullah.
I am afraid of an issue called “Atheism”. I think everybody is surrounded with a different religion. And every religion purifies human’s nature. Though human nature is really so mysterious! If so why some of the people say there is no god? It’s a matter of sorrow that many of them are famous to their work in the world! In my country (sorry to say it is Bangladesh) recently an American atheist blogger, named Avijit Roy who spoke out against religious extremism and intolerance has been hacked to death. So my question is- what about the punishment of an atheist and is it halal to hack him cruelly…? What is the declaration of Qur’an regarding the issue…? :cry:
By Absolute truth
This topic is for miscellaneous darwinism-related information in sha Allah..
Don't you understand how microbes turned to humans ???!!!!
You need to educate yourself on biology...
Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biological world.
But it’s a Fact Anyway ?!
Richard Dawkins' latest anti-Muslim Twitter spat lays bare his hypocrisy
The celebrity atheist's Twitter rant against journalist Mehdi Hasan shows he's a believer too – in his own mythology
Richard Dawkins has
accused Mehdi Hasan of not being a serious journalist for his belief
that Islam's prophet Muhammad was carried to heaven on a winged horse.
Photograph: Murdo Macleod
Richard Dawkins and Twitter make one of the world's great
pairings, like face and custard pie. But whereas more accomplished
clowns ram custard pies into the faces of their enemies, Dawkins'
technique is to ram his own face into the custard pie, repeatedly. I
suppose it saves time and it's a lot of fun to watch. On Sunday
afternoon he was at it again, wondering why the New Statesman employs an imaginative and believing Muslim:
admits to believing Muhamed [sic] flew to heaven on a winged horse. And
New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist."
this is only half the fun. The real comedy comes when he lifts his face
from the pie, dripping scorn and custard, to glare at the audience who
can't see how very rational he is. Because there are some people who
don't understand that everything Dawkins says illuminates the beauty of
For instance, Tom Watson, the MP who pursued Murdoch, tweeted back
almost at once: "You really are a gratuitously unpleasant man". To this
Dawkins replied "Actually no. Just frank. You'd ridicule palpably
absurd beliefs of any other kind. Why make an exception for religion?"
"You are gratuitously unpleasant; I am just frank" comes straight out of the Yes Minister catechism of irregular verbs.
But it gets better. Dawkins continues:
"A believes in fairies. B believes in winged horses. Criticise A and
you're rational. Criticise B and you're a bigoted racist Islamophobe."
It is of course horribly unfair to call Dawkins a bigoted racist
Islamophobe. Anyone who follows him knows he is an equal opportunities
bigot who is opposed to Christians of every colour as well.
you will tweet, as he has previously done, that "I have often said that
Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today", then us
inferior, less rational types can easily suppose that he means what he
says, and that therefore he does think that Muslims, especially
proselytising ones like Mehdi Hasan, are spreading evil and should not
be employed by respectable magazines.
Of course Dawkins would
probably deny with complete sincerity that this is what he means – until
the next time he says it. This doesn't make him unusually hypocritical.
It just means that he thinks the same way as people who believe stories
that are differently ridiculous to his – that the twelfth imam will return, or that Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse.