Anonymous - If you died and went to hell for your atheism would you regret it?
Muhammad Rasheed - If I should reject Al-Islam—the religion aligned to the revealed message of the One God of Abraham as taught by the illiterate Arab Muhammad ibn Abdullah (peace be upon the prophets!)—then die in the doomed state of a ‘transgressor of faith’ and find myself condemned to hell, I would indeed regret my decision to reject my Guardian Lord in exchange for an empty ‘freedom’ based on the pathetically poor limits of modern day atheism’s “intellectual” rhetoric.
Unlike my fellow Quorans who have also answered the question from the atheist’s perspective, I do not approach the material from a typical rejected Pauline Christian doctrinal background, with its package of poorly researched understandings and endless strawman effigies. Islam’s greatest strength is that it holds the final revealed scripture of the One God as its central text; the Qur’an addresses many of the points that the average Christian-derived atheist feels the need to guess at. If I reject God it wouldn’t be because I was swayed to arguments of the body of atheist literature, since I find their arguments narrow-minded, silly, full of wild speculations and unjustified in the arrogance in which they are presented. If I became an atheist it would be only because I tragically betrayed my soul and succumbed to my own foolish personal weaknesses, not because I no longer believed God was God.
Andrew Forrest - I think you miss the point, atheists don’t try to short change god, or wriggle out of being moral people, they just don’t see any reason to believe some holy book that makes a huge amount of promises and threats that can never be backed up, period.
Muhammad Rasheed - Andrew wrote:
"I think you miss the point..."
I know quite a few atheists and recognize they don't all follow some hive mind doctrine. Even though there are quite a few that parrot popular party lines circulated among them, not all have come to the same conclusions and in the same ways.
There are quite a few chunks of knowledge that—as a believer—confirm my faith in God, that I would not be able to reconcile if I decided to reject faith and become an atheist. Rejecting the Truth of God out of my own bull-headed stubbornness would be a different version of my atheism than what yours means to you.
Reply
Andrew Forrest - That’s fine for you, if you feel justified in your faith then that’s a personal choice that you have made, and I’ve no argument with that.
There are a few, as you say “party lines” that are used by atheists which is the predicable result of theistic party lines designed to throw a “gotcha” argument that seems to be watertight. The problem is that this watertight argument is only a killer if you accept the premises that theism is based upon, which is pointless to an atheist.
It’s a bit like the line about “aren’t you afraid of going to hell when you die?” Well no, I find the idea of hell silly, and regard it as the same sort of threat as “Santa won’t get you any presents for christmas!”.
Anyway, back to the crux of the discussion, the reason atheists don’t follow the theistic line is that they simply see no evidence that would back up any of the claims made by any religion. Morality and being good are not being denied here, just the concept that there is some creator that requires some code of behaviour which has no moralistic or otherwise logical reason. If you see things differently, then that’s your right as a free individual to do so, but you cute cartoon is quite ill informed and assumes that everyone works on the same basic premise as you, which is quite wrong.
Muhammad Rasheed - Andrew wrote:
"That’s fine for you…”
I know.
Andrew wrote:
"There are a few, as you say ‘party lines’ that are used by atheists which is the predicable result of theistic party lines designed to throw a ‘gotcha’ argument that seems to be watertight.”
As mentioned in the body of my Answer above, I’ve noticed that many of these atheist ‘party-line’ canned responses usually take the form of strawman effigies, and when they don’t, represent a fundamental poor understanding of a theological point that the innocently ignorant, but otherwise sincere, atheist forms a ‘logical’ argument around. Since the Pauline doctrine of Western Christianity is often equally as flawed as the arguments of those who used to subscribe to it, I don’t find their points nor atheist responses to be as watertight as either proponents believe.
Andrew wrote:
"The problem is that this watertight argument is only a killer if you accept the premises that theism is based upon, which is pointless to an atheist.”
That’s the point of matters of faith, Andrew. ‘Belief’ is the activating principle of the message.
Andrew wrote:
"It’s a bit like the line about ‘aren’t you afraid of going to hell when you die?’ Well no…”
Over-wordy examples of simple disbelief are not necessary. I get that you choose not to believe in the material. I have zero interest in discussions that explore how you don’t believe. Is that concept trying to be its own branch of science? #PleaseDont
Andrew wrote:
"…the reason atheists don’t follow the theistic line is that they simply see no evidence that would back up any of the claims made by any religion.”
God mentions that mindset in the Qur’an. The atheistic assumption believes that God/spirit are fiction and the atheist isn’t open to the idea that they may be true anyway, therefore he aren’t searching for evidence that he may be wrong. Any actual circumstantial evidence that threatens cognitive dissonance (see: Big Bang Theory) is wrapped in fantastic mental gymnastics to explain how it ISN’T evidence of God. Since you lot haven’t changed any since the Qur’an was revealed in the seventh century, I find your stated reason to be disingenuous at best.
Andrew wrote:
"Morality and being good are not being denied here, just the concept that there is some creator that requires some code of behaviour which has no moralistic or otherwise logical reason.”
The concepts of morality and “goodness” come directly from our religious tradition as a species. Literally everything we know about “good versus evil” comes from that same source and flavors our discourse even in the modern day, so it seems like you are trying to force a faux-logical narrative upstream while the fierce current of historical fact demonstrates that you can’t even swim.
Andrew wrote:
"If you see things differently, then that’s your right as a free individual to do so…”
I know.
Andrew wrote:
"…but you cute cartoon is quite ill informed…”
lol No, it’s not.
Andrew wrote:
"…and assumes that everyone works on the same basic premise as you, which is quite wrong.”
I’m afraid you are uninformed on that item as well. Both the generality and hyperbole are legitimate tools of the editorial cartoonist toolkit. Those who get it, get it. Those who don’t either keep scrolling or they get triggered. I’m good either way though, so you’re fine. :)
Andrew Forrest - No worries mate, I can see you’re quite sure of yourself and very rigid in your faith, and nothing I can say will make any sort of impact on this. This was not my intention anyway. As someone who’s had quite a few strawman effigies set against me, I can recognise them just fine thanks. As far as the efficacy of Islamic theistic arguments go, just more of the same really. The difference between christianity and islam may be like night and day to you, but without a reverential attitude to either, they come out both the same. You see, from my perspective mental gymnastics are required to find these differences.
Did you draw the cartoon? If so I must congratulate you on your skill as a cartoonist, even if your subject matter is rather simplistic and lacking in insight.
Anyway, see you later, unless of course you want to continue, then in that case I look forward to our next chat.
Muhammad Rasheed - Andrew wrote:
"No worries mate, I can see you’re quite sure of yourself…”
The revealed scripture of the All-Powerful One God of Abraham, Supreme Creator of reality and Master of the Day of Judgment is the Authority that backs my claims. Should I not be assured when speaking of that which my Guardian Lord hath revealed?
Andrew wrote:
"…and very rigid in your faith…”
I’d better be. There’s a narrow path indeed between paradise and hell, and I for one wish to be sure I end up on the desired side of that space.
Andrew wrote:
"…and nothing I can say will make any sort of impact on this.”
What do you imagine you hold that realistically challenges the Word of the All-Powerful, All-Knowing Cherisher & Sustainer of the heavens & the earth sent down to guide us all aright?
Andrew wrote:
"As someone who’s had quite a few strawman effigies set against me, I can recognise them just fine thanks.”
I’m sure you have. I often battle game members of the Christian community myself.
Andrew wrote:
"You see, from my perspective mental gymnastics are required to find these differences.”
That means you are out of your depth here. I prefer to battle scholars of the material – those versed at least in the basic difference between ‘revelation’ versus ‘hadith’ – since they are actually capable of pushing back with some amount of substance to make the back-n-forth fun. I can only get a little bit of mileage out of those admitting to ignorance as wrapped within the atheist’s trademarked faux-assured arrogance.
Andrew wrote:
"…even if your subject matter is rather simplistic and lacking in insight.”
lol Tell me what the message of the cartoon is as you see it and we’ll see together if you really grasped its simplistic meaning. :)
Andrew Forrest - Good to hear from you again, this is an interesting conversation.
Starting at the back, the thing that first drew my attention to your post was of course, the cartoon. It immediately struck me that you have made the typical assumption about atheists that most theists make, which is the inability to understand the concept that we don’t actually have any concerns with the afterlife, regarding it as a moot point.
The next issue with the cartoon is that it implies that atheists are amoral. This is particularly puzzling, since most people I talk to regarding their loss of faith tell me the same story that I found with myself. We don’t lose faith because we wish to escape morality or moral consequences, we lose faith because we discover the morals of our religion to be absolutely horrible. It was careful reading and studying of the bible that persuaded me that the writer had a very primitive view of what morality was, and that morality as a whole has progressed since these times despite what religion attempts to enforce.
The last quibble is entirely subjective, in that it portrays atheists as objectionable and arrogant. This of course is mostly irrelevant since these negative attributes are quite well dispersed among the population, regardless of what they believe or don’t believe.
The unfortunate truth is that very few people actually read their holy texts comprehensively or with anything other than what I can only describe as extremely heavy filters in place. I’m talking about the sort of filters that allow you to read about human sacrifice, slavery, rape, genocide, etc, and still come to the conclusion that if god orders it, it must be moral.
The very fact that a lot of these holy commands are actual felonies now should tell you that this is not coming from a supreme being, but rather a writer that was stating what was accepted in a more primitive past.
Muhammad Rasheed - Andrew wrote:
"It immediately struck me that you have made the typical assumption about atheists that most theists make, which is the inability to understand the concept that we don’t actually have any concerns with the afterlife, regarding it as a moot point.”
Meanwhile, the cartoon is actually a satire of a real life atheist’s position I had argued with the day before. These kind of discussions are the primary fuel for my Gag-A-Day editorial cartoon project. Smile for the camera by the way. :)
Andrew wrote:
"The next issue with the cartoon is that it implies that atheists are amoral. This is particularly puzzling…”
Don’t be puzzled. It is your official position that God isn’t real, even though God is the Author of our species’ religious tradition and thus our concepts of morality, righteousness & wrongdoing. You insist the Originator didn’t create them in favor of believing they were instead invented by wishy-washy humans so that you may ignore morality when conveniently at your leisure with a free conscience.
Andrew wrote:
"…since most people I talk to regarding their loss of faith tell me the same story that I found with myself […]
It was careful reading and studying of the bible that persuaded me that…”
In my own experience in walking down lengthy discussions with atheists from varying backgrounds, the root cause of why they all decided to reject faith is that they quite simply didn’t want to follow it anymore. They wanted of a sense of “freedom” without the guilt-trippy “crutch of God” attachment. As with you, it didn’t take long at all to see that there was no ‘careful reading and studying’ of scripture involved in their journey and they were forced to admit that it all just came down to willfulness.
Andrew wrote:
“…the writer had a very primitive view of what morality was, and that morality as a whole has progressed since these times despite what religion attempts to enforce.”
So you believe we all should be allowed to kill, cheat, steal, withhold needed resources from the community, cheat the disadvantaged during business negotiations & divorce, cheat the widow & the orphan out of their rightful property, et cetera, et cetera, without consequence as the new “advanced” moral virtue? May I write this down as the formal atheist position? It does explain much.
Andrew wrote:
“The last quibble is entirely subjective…”
Curious, considering literally everything you’ve typed has been entirely subjective. Did I somehow miss your response to my question of what you imagined you held that trumped the Authority of the Omnipotent & Omniscient Being’s Word?
Andrew wrote:
“…in that it portrays atheists as objectionable and arrogant.”
Please note that despite you admitting that you have zero idea of what the Qur’an’s actual message/content is from a stance of willful, disinterested ignorance, it still doesn’t stop you from continuously making definitive statements about what it is, what it’s about, etc., in a perfect imitation of a classically objectionable, arrogant person. I don’t understand how you could possibly think you should be depicted in a different profile from this since you go out of your way to present yourself thus.
Andrew wrote:
“This of course is mostly irrelevant since these negative attributes are quite well dispersed among the population, regardless of what they believe or don’t believe.”
lol At this point I’m forced to suggest that maybe the point of contention is actually you? #ManInTheMirror #MakeThatChange
Andrew wrote:
“The unfortunate truth is that very few people actually read their holy texts comprehensively…”
You’re describing the type of believer that you’re used to battling – one who tends to be intimidated by the modern atheist’s pseudo-intellectual, devoid of any substantial knowledge of the Abrahamic faiths, over-wordy speak, and collapses in baffled confusion and cognitive dissonance when you call them to play the game on your own strawman-laden turf. Let me assure you that you aren’t currently talking to that guy now. Allow me to introduce myself: I am M. Rasheed.
Andrew wrote:
“I’m talking about the sort of filters that allow you to read about human sacrifice, slavery, rape, genocide, etc…”
Be so kind as to post the links to all such mentions in the Qur’an that we may discuss them. This will have the added value of providing interest to a discussion that had already started to wane due to your lack of fundamental knowledge about the topic. I’ll formally consider it a teachable moment. You’re welcome in advance. :)
Andrew wrote:
“The very fact that a lot of these holy commands are actual felonies now should tell you that this is not coming from a supreme being…”
Please list these felonious commands from the Qur’an and let’s test the mettle of your position formally. At the other side of it, I’ll expect you to show at least a modicum of integrity, admit to your loss, and submit your puny will to Allah as a shiny new Muslim. #GetReady
Andrew wrote:
“…but rather a writer that was stating what was accepted in a more primitive past.”
Remember earlier when I pointed out that in the Qur’an, Allah paraphrased the argument of the disbelievers and it matched a comment that you posted that I used the reference to address? Note that the relevant verses were revealed almost 1,500 yrs ago, so since humans haven’t changed at all in such time, not even in their ideological thinking about belief/spirit, by what metric do you use to label what is primitive or not?
John Nobel - It is strange to see someone so progressive being, at the same time, so almost antagonistically theist. I know I am not the only comment to point this out, but the arguments you make in this comic and in your answer are inherently flawed. Your other answers at least use proof, reason, and logic, which makes them up for debate. When you say things like that you don’t have to prove your faith to be true in order to outright say everyone should submit to it or that it is completely true, the trail of logic is nonexistent, and the argument can’t take place.
Muhammad Rasheed - John wrote:
"It is strange to see someone so progressive being, at the same time, so almost antagonistically theist.”
Hi, John. Thanks for reaching out. I found this first line interesting. For one, it gives the impression that “progressive” is a dogmatic package that can ONLY mean a very specific thing. That has the unmistakable stench of partisan political games upon it and I reject it out of hand. It is perfectly reasonable that I pick through the bi-partisan platform mess to decide which items I will fight for and which I will leave behind based on my own interests and needs and political goals. It is not “strange” at all that I do so. I do consider it strange that anyone would be willing to uncritically swallow whatever the liberal/conservative pre-packaged positions are. When has such a thing ever been healthy?
I take issue with the “almost antagonistically theist” portion of your comment. As I type this, there is a group of high-profile public intellectuals who semi-seriously refer to themselves as “the Intellectual Dark Web.” They have made it their mission to attack religion in general and Al-Islam in specific by framing it as inherently dangerous, primitive, anti-science and counter-progressive through their focused xenophobic lens of Eurocentric academia wrapped in a package of ‘charming intelligentsia.’ I consider these individuals to be foes since they use their high-level knowledge and expertise in the chosen focused areas of their post-graduate degrees to pretend they are highly knowledgeable in this field, too, meanwhile they echo the same willful ignorance as your boy Andrew does elsewhere in this thread. I quite reasonably feel it is my duty to plant my feet and defend my faith from the mainstream-approved rhetoric coming out of this group, which is so clearly influencing the thinking of many of the greater body of atheists.
John wrote:
"I know I am not the only comment to point this out, but the arguments you make in this comic and in your answer are inherently flawed.”
I disagree. The cartoon is merely feeding back the satirized messaging from an atheist I actually argued against, a message I had seen before and recognized as a wide-spread tenet of at least a sub-group of them, and worthy of “putting a pin in” so to speak.
John wrote:
"Your other answers at least use proof, reason, and logic, which makes them up for debate.”
lol I have zero problems using proof, reason and logic to debate faith based concepts with people who know and believe in the material. Perhaps you could consider that not all subject matter is for just any and everyone to debate in? I know the atheist believes the fundamental portions of religion are 100% fictional fairy tales, and somehow believe they can just make up whatever they like out of thin air and it appear as equally valid and indistinguishable from anything in the religious systems they scorn. Please understand it doesn’t actually work that way. It’s actually best, if you see a topic being discussed that you genuinely have zero interest in, to just keep scrolling by. To seek to engage despite lacking enough knowledge to make your points valuable on any level, you will come across as a hostile, anti-religious troll with a biased agenda, no matter how measured and calm you present your pseudo-intellectual opinions.
John wrote:
"When you say things like that you don’t have to prove your faith to be true in order to outright say everyone should submit to it or that it is completely true, the trail of logic is nonexistent, and the argument can’t take place.”
1.) I literally don’t have to “prove my faith to be true” in order to benefit from the blessings promised by Allah, Lord of the worlds and Master of the Day of Judgment. Therefore, it should seem to reason, that the disbeliever outsider who continuously insists that I MUST “prove my faith to be true” doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Am I a Muslim in order to seek the approval of the unrepentant hellbound, or am I a Muslim in order to please the Lord thy God and receive my reward? There appears to be an inherent baseless arrogance in the position of the atheist in this regard, who expects me to reject my faith and play the debate game according to HIS rules. My response is “No. You play according to my rules as yours are beneath me.”
2.) Debates with atheists generally lack depth and any real interest for me because the opponents usually don’t know what they are talking about, even at the highest levels of their game. Sam Harris, for example, lives behind a wall composed of strawman effigies and twisted misreading of cherry-picked Qur’anic verses and hadith when going on at length about how ‘dangerous’ the religion is. If for whatever reason he decided to take it seriously should I formally respond to his blasphemous nonsense, he would be forced to cheat—as they all eventually do—which would make me lose interest in the discussion (I enjoy walking the argument down to its logical conclusion for formal closure; cheaters prevent this due to their hatred of integrity). By contrast, people who actually know what they are talking about are a lot more fun. I used to hang out on an atheist message board dedicated as a safe space to ex-Muslims; they were far more fun to argue with since they didn’t hold Harris’ willful ignorance of basic-level understandings of the ideology, and I was often able to learn more about my faith even in that situation. I was eventually kicked out because, in walking the discussions down to their logical conclusions, we inevitably reached the part where they were doomed to hellfire for rejecting the Truth of their Lord. Since they were understandably conflicted to varying degrees about this concept, the Admins ejected me to protect their safe space.
John Nobel - No, that is not what I meant by my progressive comment. I am not saying ALL progressives, I am saying it is “strange” to see one who holds this belief, especially since a central part of progressive ideology is the valuing of secular thought. Religious tolerance, i.e., respecting all religions and keeping it out of your public life, is a fundamental part of the American progressive. I was just pointing out how it was unusual that you are diametrically opposed to that outlook, and are willing to intermix it with your politics. That’s fine. Not my main point, just a starter.
M. Rasheed wrote:
“there is a group of high-profile public intellectuals who semi-seriously refer to themselves as “the Intellectual Dark Web.” They have made it their mission to attack religion in general and Al-Islam in specific”
You must be confused. Is it the Four Horsemen you are talking about? The Intellectual Dark Web has not made it their mission to critique religion. In fact, on their website the first two members listed, and, by far, the most popular are Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro. Jordan has made rather a fool out of himself stepping outside of his box not, as you suppose, to attack religion, but to endorse it, and Ben is a devout, Orthodox Jew. There are some, such as Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who do criticize religious mantra, but that is not what the Intellectual Dark Web as a group does.
However, I do not identify with the anti-theist or antagonistically atheistic mindset to any extent. And if you view my answer to the question Is God Real or Fake?, I make it quite clear why. I actually am a believer in God and the soul myself, two concepts atheists, by definition, reject. But I do so by using secular argumentation and not blind faith alone. And that is essential to my outlook, as well as the outlook of most atheists I find, and very few religious people let alone religious zealots in their defense of their faith.
If the atheist’s “rules of the game” are simply to argue logically and through the use of evidence, then they are not his rules by any measure, but just how you argue... It is not that atheists want you to get trapped in their Hell-inspired dogma; they just want to point out things like, hey, logic is how we know something to be true, and if this kind of thing is outside of the bounds of logic, then you cannot know it to be true, and have no reason to do so. Or that I could, indeed, make something up, and it would make as much sense to believe wholeheartedly in it as it would to believe in Islam, as both require zero evidence to prove. Or, hey, there are hundreds of other religions with members who believe something entirely different than you, and all hold that their particular belief is completely true, 100%, and, often, that those who do not believe that certain thing are going to some sort of chthonic torture-place after death. Yet you are positive that your religion, which you are just so fortunate enough to have been born into, is the right one. I should clarify, I have no problem with you, just with your argument. I am only trying to disprove it.
I see you are on some sort of religious quest to proselytize all over the Internet. Look, I really have nothing else to say. My argument is pretty much summed up with this: if you cannot prove what your saying to be true, and rely on faith alone, then you cannot expect anyone else to believe in it unless they willingly take a leap of faith OVER the mound of evidence rejecting that conclusion.
Fin.
Muhammad Rasheed - John wrote:
"...I am saying it is “strange” to see one who holds this belief, especially since a central part of progressive ideology is the valuing of secular thought."
That's exactly what I said. A dogmatic packaged ideology that everyone on that team is expected to uncritically accept in its entirety.
John wrote:
"I was just pointing out how it was unusual that you are diametrically opposed to that outlook, and are willing to intermix it with your politics."
It just means that I am not as dogmatic when it comes to mainstream partisan politics. In fact, I have every reason to distrust it in the way it is presented to the public.
John wrote:
"Jordan has made rather a fool out of himself stepping outside of his box not, as you suppose, to attack religion, but to endorse it..."
Perhaps that's how you interpret it from your atheist stance; from my theist position, he expressed a wishy-washy agnosticism.
John wrote:
"...and Ben is a devout, Orthodox Jew."
Did I not say "...and Al-Islam in specific" only for you to cite the VERY anti-Islam Shapiro as proof I was wrong? You're bad at this.
John wrote:
"...but that is not what the Intellectual Dark Web as a group does."
So far, all of my research shows them all anti-Islamic in their rhetoric.
John wrote:
"If the atheist’s “rules of the game” are simply to argue logically and through the use of evidence..."
I find that they are not, but just like to say they are. They also like to pretend they hold monopoly over those tools. Meanwhile, they swim in a sea of logical fallacies and when you corner them in their own arguments using logic & reason, they cheat to escape.
John wrote:
"...as both require zero evidence to prove."
Islam doesn't require proof to practice the faith, no. And I don't have to prove it to disbelievers for it to mean anything. lol But there are evidences and proofs from within the system (signs), evident to those who believe. By contrast, the stuff you made up that you lack the insight to discern Islam's truth from your invented falsehood, has nothing at all to back it by virtue that you just made it up (with a smirk).
John wrote:
"Or, hey, there are hundreds of other religions with members who believe something entirely different than you..."
The beauty of comparative religion is that you see the thread that the one God's messengers did indeed found the majority of the lot and it was the people who, over generations, allowed the messages to stray. But they are all similar for a reason, though I do not expect you to understand since you don't know the material but only passionately think you do using your shallow atheist version of "logic/reason."
John wrote:
"Yet you are positive that your religion, which you are just so fortunate enough to have been born into..."
I formally converted to Islam during my 20s after developing a love for the comparative religion hobby. Like many Black Americans, I also changed my name as a symbol of returning to the religion of my pre-chattel slave institution ancestors.
John wrote:
"I should clarify, I have no problem with you, just with your argument. I am only trying to disprove it."
Good luck.
John wrote:
"I see you are on some sort of religious quest to proselytize all over the Internet."
An odd conclusion since I'm doing nothing of the sort. The vast majority of my posts are in the anti-racism lane.
John wrote:
"My argument is pretty much summed up with this: if you cannot prove what your saying to be true..."
I love it when atheists double-down on their favorite logical fallacy. Why attempt to impose your group’s incompatible rules on another group? It genuinely doesn’t make sense. In fact, I may realistically consider your troll-ish posts a form of hard-sell proselytizing. Are you not [
quite unreasonably] INSISTING I prove something that wasn’t designed to be probed & prodded with materialistic tools? It’s odd behavior, John.
John wrote:
"…and rely on faith alone, then you cannot expect anyone else to believe in it...”
You know there’s a billion Muslims in the world, right? And that’s just Islam. lol
John wrote:
"…unless they willingly take a leap of faith OVER the mound of evidence rejecting that conclusion.”
And what “evidence” would that be , John? smh You must realize deep down that the wishes of atheists aren’t recognized by anyone as ‘evidence,’ right?
________________________________
MEDIUM: Scanned pen & ink cartoon drawing w/Adobe Photoshop color.
