Atheist Threat
Oct 10th, 2008, in News, by Patung
Young atheists on the internet, and eradicating atheism and communism in Indonesia.
Governor of North Sumatra, Syamsul Arifin, said on 8th October at an occasion marking Pancasila Day that all elements of the nation must continually fight against and eradicate atheist beliefs among the people.
Atheism, which seeks to erase Pancasila and which once threatened the nation in the guise of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), and still does, has to be guarded against, particularly because it still finds support among sections of the poor.
Syamsul said children should be taught from primary school through to university to hate atheism, so that the creed could as far as possible be obliterated.
A 4th ‘T’ – Rakyat tidak ateis.
The butchery of the atheist-PKI backed murderers of the September 30 Movement of 1965 (G30S PKI) could not be allowed to happen again, he said, hence the need to struggle against atheism. beritasore
Young Internet Atheists
On the internet at least some Indonesians seem happy to declare themselves as unbelievers.
Running an “affiliation” search on the social network site Friendster.com for “atheist” brings up about 144 matches friendster.com, while “ateis” produces 185 odd results friendster.com, although more than a few seem to be claiming to be atheist as some kind of joke.
On the same site, created on January 23rd, 2007 is the “Atheist Indonesia” group friendster.com, with 76 members and a fairly active message board, and some of its members seem to be active in an Indonesian language Atheist Wikipedia. ateisindonesia.wikidot.com
1,311 Comments on “Atheist Threat”
-
Lairedion says:
Janma said:
I have no wish to be convinced of any of them really, much less to ‘believe’ in one of them!
Couldn’t agree more. I don’t understand the desire for people to have knowledge about the existence of God. We can talk and speculate about this for hours but it doesn’t bring us any further. It’s utter useless and irrelevant information. Even if we do discover who created our planet and the way he did this, it won’t take away our worries, sorrow, suffering and pain.
As for moral standards, that old Ethic of Reciprocity (exists in virtually any religion and philosophy) can be useful although not perfect because it seldom address animals, wildlife and nature.
-
Ally says:
We can talk and speculate about this for hours but it doesn’t bring us any further.
where do you think a life will go further?
some people are curious and asking about their existence in this life and death. what does it really mean to live?
As for moral standards, that old Ethic of Reciprocity (exists in virtually any religion and philosophy) can be useful although not perfect because it seldom address animals, wildlife and nature.
there comes the idea about intelligent design I guess…
A wildlife? you may call a wildlife when you find the meaning of “tame” next to it I guess.. that is related to human and inhuman
well.. just wanna say something 😉
-
Patrick says:
Atheism is the system of thought that which is formally opposed to theism. Logically speaking then conversely we should expect that theism naturally would be opposed to atheism. If I read Jamna correctly we learn that she does not want to be told about theism or about any belief in God as she is beyond convincing. Instead of ending her post there she then fires away at theism and the idiocy of the people who believe in a God as if we really need to hear from her. Mind you! She has had ample opportunity to respond to many previous posts highlighting discussions including Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs of the existence of God and neither she nor any of her fellow atheist have stepped forward with any convincing argument to refute Aquinas or Intelligent Design. Janma has not minded one bit in answering questions that I have posed to other people on this thread however inadequate were her answers. But now she has the peculiar audacity to say she doesn’t need convincing as if we theist do because after all we are the ones who need to be saved. Oh really? Let’s have a serious look at atheism for what it really is about. First, if you don’t believe in God or the concept of some type of superior intelligence and design then your world is a world that exists only by chance. Everything that exists now is due to conditions being just right and over the many centuries to survive. I suppose to Janma that Aquinas’ 5 proofs are inadequate to explain that one force must have existed to start all things in motion? She doesn’t believe in Intelligent Design and she doesn’t believe in the Big Bang Theory or her own Big Hand Job theory.
What are we left with? We are left with Darwin’s theory of evolution also known as survival of the fittest. Everything in the Universe is left to chance even though we can repeat science through experimentation and we can uphold certain laws of science Janma sees no merit in that counter argument. OK let’s look at survival of the fittest theory. If we are all pre-programmed and therefore conditioned to always fight for our survival why there would be so many instances throughout human history of people willing to either risks their lives or actually give them up so that another, often weaker, member of our human species can survive? Does this not alone fly in the face of evolutionary theory? By the way that so called unnecessary pain and suffering that Lairedion refers to in his last post is what challenges human beings in their journey through life and it is often from these challenges that we see human good reaching new heights. Perhaps Lairedion should put down Che Guevara‘s book and read Job and discover God’s own explanation for human suffering.Think of the compassionate nurse, doctor, family member or stranger. How do they fit into evolutionary theory? If evolutionary theory is correct wouldn’t the prudent thing to do would be to discard the sick as too weak to survive and as a threat to our own survival as they take up water and food or they potentially carry diseases that may harm or even kill us? As I stated before hasn’t this process already begun as the unborn are dismissed easily through abortion as they are deemed somehow less than human even as they have all the features of being human including a heart, brain and nervous system. Are there not medical doctors such as Jack Kevorkian who is infamous for inventing the assisted suicide machine to cull the weak and the desperately ill? Perhaps atheism is the real threat and we theist should wake up and take notice!
-
jami says:
Patrick, I can quote myself, thank you:
October 29th, 2008 at 5:41 am
I dont really like labels, I simply have no religion and believe that Gods, Magic, angels, after lifes, and so forth are very highly unlikely and that is all. I dont think I have all the answers, but I take all available information, and determine what is more likely and what is highly unlikely. I also accept that in a universe of infinite possiablities even The Smurfs could be real….However, It would be super extremely highly unlikely.
going back to Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas’ arguments cant be refuted….because they are a fallacy argument
The Fallacy of Equivocation and the fallacy of Induction. Induction is where you take a specific set of examples and then generalize a conclusion. The problem with this is that the conclusion is not necessarily true, based on the premises. To put it another way, a conclusion derived from induction is not proof of anything.It basically goes like this:
If X is true
and I say X is God
therefore God is trueWatch as I apply this to the 3rd “proof” and “prove” that the universe was created by collisions between membranes in an 11-dimensional space.
3. Argument from existence
a. Some things exist, some do not.
b. Things that exist must have obtained their existence from a prior thing
c. We cannot have an infinite regression of prior existing things
d. There must be a thing that necessarily exists first, to cause to exist all other things
e. This thing is membranes in an 11-dimensional space.
see the problem?
The second problem is that Aquinas draws out the conclusion to a logical contradiction: there cannot be an infinite regression of causes/motion/existences. Under normal circumstances, this would be it; Aquinas as essentially disproved his own argument via reductio ad absurdum. But instead of recognizing this, he proposes a solution by defying his initial premises! To explain away the potential infinite regression of causes, he proposes the existence of a “first cause” and “uncaused caused” despite the fact that this violates his premise that all things must have a cause. He offers no reason why this “first cause” is an exception to the general rule he has established. He simply labels it God.
However, I understand, I also did not prove Aquinas wrong either
This is why I dont like to argue this stuff: It is arguing a non understandable and untestable concept with infinite variables…well, it is an exercise in futility on both sides.
-
The classic fallacy of your argument Jami is that you have pluralized membranes and so if you follow Aristotle, Maimonides, and Thomas Aquinas there can only be one unmoveable mover so your argument is voided. The reasoning goes that one unmoveable mover provides order among what otherwise would be chaos. Multiple unmoveable movers would create unimaginable chaos so they are rejected. Thats also the reason that I have difficulty with the Big Bang Theory because an explosion implies at least 2 chemicals to come into contact with one another. How can 2 different chemicals exists before all else?
I do understand the mathematical point you are making that there are infinite possibilities to consider and Thomas Aquinas did realize that but he reasoned that there had to a finite number of moveable objects to make sense of the unmoveable mover. He said that the unmoveable mover was not confined or constrained in anyway to the Universe that He created. Convenient? Yes, but it is a reasonable consideration as something had to be first.
-
I think with Slavoj Zizek that atheists may be today’s & tomorrow’s genuine believers in refusing to repeat one or more contradictory assertions about God thinking these are the last word about “truth”. Isn’t it a nice meditation on God to begin thinking It is not trapped in Being. Thinking God does not belong to “being” is, in my view, an already very high mystical attainment…
-
Oigal says:
Still going here hey guys!
Oh well kills the time I suppose. Personally I feel a bit sorry for those who have to cling to some vague superbeing as the final assessor as to their humanity and value. Bit like the schoolkid who once out in the real world finds he can no longer write essays as there is to teacher to grade them or value their worth.
There is no problem who or what people believe in private until we can to the stage as we so often do that the weak minded start thinking this life is just a journey of little material value which devalues the present and leads them to think that any shortening of this life for them or others in a “higher” cause (serving whatever collective soul catcher happens to be regionally or culturally in ascendence at the time) is acceptable.
On the amusing side its always interesting watching those defending their particular cult as the one true way and yet the only reason they are part of that cult is by accident of geographical conception.
Patrick .. Its not a proof if the outcome is required to build frame the question..
-
Janma says:
Patrick keep your hair shirt on lad! I’m not saying that all I’m left with is Bloody Charles Darwin! You are a man of little imagination….and please excuse my audacity in responding to posts not adressed to me on a public forum… plus I didn’t address old Thomas’ proofs, cause Jami already did that and I agree with zir… It’s fallacious.
Also survival of the fittest does not mean that we are all preprogrammed, the truth is that we all have an amazing ability to adapt… which means we can change with the times…. (well most of us can…)
Plus god doesn’t make people protect and help each other, it’s the way people are….. once I even saw a killer whale help a baby sea lion back to the shore…. who knows why he did it…. i’m sure that would screw with darwins theory…. (not that I’ve even read it all the way through)
Humans need each other. they know that. nobody wants to be a lone human…. it’s our nature to help and care for each other and it’s our nature to feel empathy… it’s also our nature to want something to worship, and fear death and kill people who are different. -
Barry Prima says:
Great divergence from Fanglong, I agree that the Atheist have the potential to be tomorrow’s genuine believers.
Isn’t it a nice meditation on God to begin thinking It is not trapped in Being.
Being and non-being create each other..(Tao- Te -Ching)
The principle of non- being is also recognised in the Islamic sahadah, which also starts off with a negative.
However god is trapped (in a manner of speaking) in being…he is trapped in the world and the world is trapped by him….Hence creation..Hence the second part of the Sahadah. In biblical terms the the word(logos) was god(theos) or vice versa.(Kun fa ya kun)
The yin yang symbol symbolises that with the white dot in the black(creation) with the black dot in the white (god)To explain away the potential infinite regression of causes, he proposes the existence of a “first cause” and “uncaused caused” despite the fact that this violates his premise that all things must have a cause.
I agree it’s a bit absurd, to try and verify god absolutely using principles of logic or cause and effect, god who is by his very nature outside of conceptual formulation. Anything we can rationalise cannot evidently be god!
God is absolute, the rational mind is partial, there is no way the rational mind can provide proof of god that is absolute. I t can provide degrees of proof, which can lead to and are designed to lead to the recognition of the need for exercising faculties that are outside of its limitation.
I don’t know if Aquinas theory actually purported to prove god purely by reason. The concept of the pole (Qutub) or prime mover was derived from the Sufis, most notably Al Ghazzali who formulated this concept 2 hundred centuries before Aquinas and who is recognised as the biggest influence on him.If I recall correctly the Pole or the mover of the first Heaven was not identified as god himself. The Pole is an emanation or instrument of god in a certain sphere of activity, ie in a relative capacity. The concept is an attempt to prove how god works with the world, not that he exists per se.
Ghazzali did not stop his in the MIshkat Al Anwar there, he then tried to reconcile this pole with the non rational god, which he ultimately realised was as a futile attempt. For the conclusion of the whole matter, the end of the quest for those who arrive is an “existent that transcends all that is comprehensible by human sight or insight. Transcendent of and separate from every characterisation that in the foregoing we have made.”Ghazzali did not try to prove god through philosophical dialectic, in fact it was the opposite, he was attempting to prove (very successfully) that philosophy as a pursuit in its own right lead to error.
Personally I feel a bit sorry for those who have to cling to some vague super being as the final assessor as to their humanity and value.
It is even sorrier possibly to think there is no assessor of their value. The kind of faith you are deriding is a lot more intelligent than you think!
Man participates in god passively and actively consciously/subconsciously in the levels of action, knowledge and love, not just knowledge alone. When i say knowledge in this context it is rationalism, which is as emphasised earlier only partial/relative and incapable of knowing in any absolute sense.
Blind faith is not sentimental but has a metaphysical basis. Far from being opposed to intelligence per se, it is inextricably related to intelligence of a kind, which goes to the very heart of what being human is.
Whilst blind faith maybe lead to absurdities on the level of rational ,a purely rational approach leads to even greater absurdities in the spirit of man ,which is the higher level of truth. When Faith is transformed from its attachment to the self, it is no longer blind and illuminates the rational mind as well, helping to see reality for what it is. When the rational mind is exercised without faith it leads to blindness or submergence of the spirit in darkness that is worse.
It is not faith that leads to blindness; it is rather imperfection of faith.There is no problem who or what people believe in private.
There is no such thing as a private belief, that denies the interrelatedness of man with the rest of creation, if not metaphysically even socially. “ If you fail to bring forth that which is within you, that which is within you will destroy you.”
-
I’m not trying to present any theory atheistic, evolutionary or otherwise!
I don’t know much about ‘atheistic theory’ as you put it. I didn’t even know there was one…. I don’t care about such things. I know what my opinions are on the matter.That’s my point! You are presenting that theory without being conscious where and when you came to take it as your own!I believe this is called Conditioning.
Hasn’t anyone else noticed that the atheist on this forum have to resort to moral arguments, which are based on Religious systems to argue their point against it?
They claim to deride religious people and systems for perpetuating myths, falsehoods and conditioning people when they fail to realise the degree to which they are themselves totally conditioned and perpetuating another set of myths and falsehoods in return.
The worst thing is that Atheist , think they are somehow free thinkers, that their thoughts actually have an objective value when they don’t, they are a product of philosophical developments which have filtered into the minds of people in society, via education, culture etc.
You only think certain ideas are free or objective, because you’ve been told they are, without actually making the effort to establish what is true/false/free/oppressive in a profound way or taking into account the degree of freedom man has to develop opinions!Your idea about objective truth is only in relation to the lack of objectivity that you perceive in religion, rather than anything that has any value on its own. It’s a default type of argument.
At least religious people acknowledge, on whatever level, that they are conditioned and they have to rely on some super human effort/grace to be liberated from it. That i would say is a lot more objective, human and intelligent than deluding yourself you actually know !
strong>And yes the concept of God as a singular judgemental person started with the monotheists, of course we can put a time frame on it…. it’s only been in the last 3 or 4 thousand years men have seen god in that way… so before that?
Singular judgmental person? That is only one manifestation of god, which he naturally has to assume in relation to the world but not his only manifestation or his totality! Why do u have to insist on that particular notion to prove your arguments, its plain weak and only shows your weakness in understanding religion, not the weakness of religion itself!
Also your whole statement is one big assumption (not fact or science) (emerging out of atheistic/evolutionary theory, recognised by yourself or not). Where is the evidence that monotheism did not exist from the beginning? There isn’t any! It’s just an assumption that you take for granted, if you believe the rest of a philosophical tradition for e.g.: Darwinism, which maintains that men emerged from apes.
Even Darwin didn’t fully believe his own theory, and yes it is only that a theory, which has Hugh holes in it!!!It is by no means a scientific fact!you say it as though men without god would somehow be immoral murderous creatures with no control over their base instincts….
No man is without god, he only thinks he is! It is a veil he imposes on himself!
Religious systems (apart possibly from Christianity, understood in a particular way) are saying precisely that man is inherently good!!The precise reason religion is revealed is men have forgotten or lost touch with their natural goodness. Religions have assumed particular forms in relation to the society in which they were revealed for that very reason!I know what my opinions are on the matter.
I think you really need to question that ..assumption
-
@ Oigal – Truly inspiring words of wisdom! Silly me for not recognizing your genius before. Where can I sign up to be in your fan cult worship club? You see I have so long conditioned to being part of a cult that I would be lost in life if I left the one cult and did not have another to immediately be part of its membership. Please send me the deluxe Oigal membership packet and include my membership card, the Oigal magazine, the Oigal whistle to ward off theist and the Oigal energy bars in case I grow tired and weary from over stimulation from too much Oigal inspiration. You are the new one true way Oigal so lead me on Oigal please do!
-
@ Jamna – You think I am a man of little imagination? Jamna, you have no idea of what I was imagining about you after you revealed your Big Hand job Theory to me. My God (sorry Oigal), I so did look forward to your feminine touch to set me free from all my Irish Catholic guilt and then I could learn to use my creative side to twist and shape logical thinking into any shape or form that I may create and all in your shapely image of course Jamna. Hey Oigal I quit your cult as I have decided to become a Jamnite as it is so much more shall we say satisfying and stimulating. Not to mention the incredible release from all this theist tension! Anyone have a cigarette? I suddenly have the urge to smoke!
Jamna, nice story about the Killer Whales. I saw a film about that once. Scientist concluded that once the whales had eaten enough of the baby seals they helped any struggling little seals back to shore. The scientist thought that the whales did this to insure future food and not because of any compassionate feelings that they had for the little baby seals.
-
fanglong says:
I am a Buddhist atheist.
-
Everything in the universe is, is, is made of one element, which is a note, a single note. Atoms are really vibrations, you know. Which are extensions of the BIG NOTE, everything’s one note”. Frank Zappa
See the late and great Frank Zappa gets it!
-
No man is without god, he only thinks he is!
What does it mean ?
BTW — The unmoved mover’s theory, as well as the theory of the cause of all causes, these were devised by Aristotle. Each time one says God is this, God is that, one should not speak of “God” but of “this” or “that”. Man’s basic or core goodness is goodness but not God, and if the world we perceive had to be “created”, wouldn’t it be enough it were created by the causes and conditions of our perceptions ? No God, not even its non-existence. Just a quantum of solace here and a quantum of menace there. A slippery fake blue note. Homage to Zappa !
Hey Patrick, when I was fourteen they called me Paddy in Drumcondra, Dublin… Each time I see your name, which is also mine, around here, I think I wrote what I read : could have been sometimes, but I’d write “Janma” rather than “Jamna”… No problem.
-
@ Fanglong – Already gave Aristotle his due please see earlier post. As far as the philosophy it kind of reminds me of what we learned Freshman year. As an example “If a tree fell in the forest and there was no one around to hear it did it make a sound”? Anyway, good to see another Irish lad on IM.
I worked in Dublish some years back just off St. Stephen’s green and lived in Monkstown in the opposite direction from Drumcondra which is to the North of Dublin if memory serves me correctly? Along with some relatives and friends I saw, in Croke Park, the great County Kerry football team beat Tyrone after falling badly behind in the first half. The whole second half was a Kerry masterpiece and even the Tyrone crowd which was there in droves ,due to this being their first all Ireland , was in splendid awe and all gave homage at the end. Probably the greatest sporting event I had ever witnessed and believe me I have seen my share. The craic we had after the game wasn’t bad either as we partied well into the wee hours of the morning. Thanks for bringing back that memory as I have not thought about it in quite some time.
@ Janma – My sincerest apologies for misspelling your name and I will attribute to my general bad spelling habits. No harm was intended in any way.
Thanks for the heads up Paddy or Fanglong! You will have to tell me how you came to that name at another time.
-
Thanks Patrick..already been done..can I recommend some channelling from/to L. Ron. Hubbard. All in all not a bad plan tho to make a few bucks and a bit of power buzz.. do try and steer away from the gater aid model and new beginnings in the jungle if you can, they tend to be a bit unpleasant.
Sorry touched a nerve with the cult thing? Really quite a rant..not much substance but quite a rant. I did notice you dipped over and became a Jamite oh well one cults as good as another.
Bazza..
Hasn’t anyone else noticed that the atheist on this forum have to resort to moral arguments
Eer no they didn’t, the very dubious point was made that a human being could not be moral unless he had “religion” which of course is absurb.
There is no such thing as a private belief, that denies the interrelatedness of man with the rest of creation, if not metaphysically even socially. “ If you fail to bring forth that which is within you, that which is within you will destroy you.”
Thats just plain wacky..you to yours ..me to mine
if you believe the rest of a philosophical tradition for e.g.: Darwinism, which maintains that men emerged from apes.
No man is with god, he only thinks he is! It is a veil he imposes on himself!
As opposed to the alternative theory of spacemen, apples, snakes and people living for hundreds of years..ah bugger it I will go with Ape theory as the most likely at this time ok?
That is only one manifestation of god, which he naturally has to assume in relation to the world
Why?
I have so long conditioned to being part of a cult that I would be lost in life if I left the one cult and did not have another to immediately be part of its membership
In fact Patrick that would be probably very true (kinda sad but true) but therein is the difference it does not really matter to me or anyone else. It only gets ominious when those people begin to believe thier particular view of life the universe and everything
is the only way and there is no room for others. -
Glad to see you converting with such gay abandon Patrick..nothing like a spare cult up your sleeve.
Seriously tho, what is the difference between say your religion and ..mmmm..say the moonies. I know you think I am pulling the piss but it has always confused me as when does a cult become a religion…and vise versa
And..What makes you so much different to ABB then?
-
Personally I have always got a kick out the Scientologists for a Religion..
75 million years ago Lord Xenu was having a population problem on his planets. To solve this problem he had psychiatrists (Scientologists are extremely against psychiatry) inject a lot of aliens with something and they froze up. He put them into a ship and sent them to Earth. He placed them around volcanoes and then used hydrogen bombs to blow them up. Their souls were then sucked up with a machine and forced to watch videos imprinting false history and memories (they say this is the reason why there are other religions). I think it was for 30 something days that they watched the videos. After that Xenu released them and the souls (thetans) went into the bodies of the humans on Earth (thetans + bodies = body thetans). Thats how the body thetans I mentioned earlier came to be.
The best bit is they still manage to get people to give them money…aww THEY WALK AMONGST US
-
Andy says:
I know you think I am pulling the piss but it has always confused me as when does a cult become a religion…and vise versa
It’s a question i’ve often asked but never been given a straight answer. My theory is that a cult is followed by a few hundred and a religion is followed by a few million or more. And therefore excepted by governments and the voting public. What makes me angry is religion is not taxed like other businesses. And yet their leaders are living the good life at the expense of their poor followers. I wonder how much longer religion would last in the world if they were made to follow the same rules and laws as the rest of us.
-
mmmmm? Interesting arguments Oigal and dandy Andy. This is the type of arguments one hears in any working class bar around the world where education is not at a premium. Let me ask you this if atheism is a movement and you are self proclaimed atheists and therefore part of the anti-God and anti-religion movement then are you not part of a cult yourselves gentlemen? This is by your very own words is it not? That gentlemen is what you call an exercise in logical thinking. You two should try it sometime and perhaps instead of the bitter complaining coming out of your mouths we could hear logical thoughts as to why you think God does not exist so that we to may become convinced. Unfortunately, you make a case for why atheism is so dangerous because your real objective is to ridicule God and the people of God. You don’t want your rights treaded upon but you gladly tread on people who happily believe in religion as if they were some type of vermin for you to destroy at all costs.
Back in early 1995 I landed at 2 am on a Ukrainian nuclear base airfield (they said I was the first westerner to do so) as the civilian airport was closed due to a white-out conditions snow storm. I was transported in a Russian cargo plane by 8 Russian crew members and our cargo was approximately 4 million USD worth of hepatitis B vaccine badly needed by health workers in Lvov. After I landed I was met by the military there and my passport checked and then by a Canadian priest who was from one of the wealthiest families in all of Canada. The weather was nasty and bitterly cold and to save the cargo from freezing and being ruined were volunteers from the hospitals receiving the aid. I was shocked to learn several of them were top doctors in the country and they braved the elements and had waited almost 12 hours (in unheated trucks) as our plane had been delayed in Maastricht, Netherlands until I gave the go ahead to take off after learning my Russian crew was too poor and to stay in Holland and that the volunteers to the man, in the Ukraine, would not leave if I would come. We did and we unloaded that plane and had the cargo safely placed into the various hospitals that same night. By 8 am I was on national TV there being thanked by the mayor of Lvov. What’s the purpose of this story you may ask? This whole operation was organized by the Catholic Church. All those volunteers were eastern rite Catholics and believe me it was not an easy thing to do at that time. The beneficiaries of the medicine were anyone who was a health worker in need of the shots. There was no asking if they were Catholic or not and our strict policy was never to propagate when distributing medicines or when giving any kind of medical care and I mean never. I could tell you dozens of stories just like this as people of faith have sacrificed their time, money, and even their lives for their fellow man but I never heard one atheist on IM ever speak one kind word about those good things that religion has done for the world. Shame on you atheist for being so closed minded!
-
ET says:
Sorry for party-pooping, but this thread needs a worldly intermezzo.
@ Lomboksurfer
C’mon Marisa, you green Martian sugar-baby goddess, bring back that bloody lovin feeling coz this site needs you to rock our world with your bloody presence. If you still can’t bloody well get into your happy zone I bloody well hell know what can and that’s a night out with this monster surf boy.
I just dropped by and may be a little late, but I have a better idea. Why don’t we organize a mud wrestling match between Marisa, Therry, Rima and Anita?
I’ll be the referee.
@Lairedion
Middle Eastern fairy tale books and charismatic desert dwellers like Yesus and Mohamed are not to be considered reliable proofs.
Don’t be too harsh. Some of these fairy tales like the Thousand and One Nights (Alf laylah wa laylah) are very entertaining. Especially the uncensored ones.
-
Every time one says God is this, God is that, one should not speak of “God” but of “this” or “that”.
As a Muslim i am very much in agreement with you there, or even as a Taoist: the Tao which can be Taoed is not the Tao.
Whoever said in what is He, held that He is contained; and whoever said on what is He held He is not on something else. (Sufi Saying)The unmoved mover’s theory, as well as the theory of the cause of all causes, these were devised by Aristotle
Yes you are right, but the way it was developed by Ghazzali was more in keeping with monotheistic tradition and that is where his influence on Aquinas was apparent. Ghazzali was influenced by Aristotle, but on the other hand was hugely critical of the philosophers, esp. Aristotle himself. He tried to place the concept of the unmoved mover into a larger context that circumvented the contradictions that you pointed out earlier in Aquinas theory. I don’t know much about Aquinas , but from what Patrick has said, it seems that he took Ghazzalis work backwards, not forward?
No man is without god, he only thinks he is! What does it mean
?
If you accept the reciprocity of being /non being or god and his creation, there can never be separation of the two.In Buddhism, every person is Buddha nature, however decrepit they are. The person has only not realised it, due to the influence of the coarser elements over the finer ones. In this Buddhism is no different from other traditions, every man has fitra (Islamic parallel with Buddha nature),it is a question of the degree to which he is aware of unaware of it.
In Islam this is explained by the concept of Tasbih and Tanzih (Immanence and Transcendence)I am a Buddhist atheist.
Is that Possible? Well yes it’s possible as categorisation in the mind of someone, but is that categorisation consistent with Buddhism itself, which I assume you have belief in, as it is a belief.
Buddhism is non theistic (even then it has an inbuilt capacity and need for theism), that is not the same as atheistic.
Please explain!I have never met an Asian Buddhist who is Atheist, even amongst monks, it is very much in my experience a western ( mis)understanding. As Buddha reputedly said, i don’t know anything about god; he didn’t say there wasn’t one.
Eer no they didn’t, the very dubious point was made that a human being could not be moral unless he had “religion” which of course is absurd.
Eer yes…the obvious escapes you, because precisely it is obvious… No religion says man is immoral without religion. read my post before commenting on it.
Here’s just one example from Lareidon ,As for moral standards, that old Ethic of Reciprocity (exists in virtually any religion and philosophy).
Aethism has no basis for morality,as it has no basis for existence,so it has to adopt it from religous systems.That’s just plain wacky..you to yours ..me to mine
Please read the line after it for context, before posting such an idiotic reply. Again you are demonstrating a philosophical position which you have unconsciously adopted. Traditional societies never were stupid enough to think, to me mine and to you yours! That’s a fairly new way of thinking, well at least on a large scale basis.
Sounds like Alistair Crowley to me (do what thou wilt, as long as there is no hurt to others). As if that is possible?
Why?
Maybe you might want to try working that out for yourself….I might comment on it later, as it is too time consuming and I have a real essay to do in the meantime.
-
@ Barry Prima – Yes one must consider Al-Ghazali and other Islamic philosophers as having at least some influence with the thinking of Thomas Aquinas as he studied them at great length and translated many of their works. However, Al-Ghazali rejected the works of Aristotle and the other great Greek philosophers and their meta-physical teachings on the grounds that they were non-believers. I would therefore based on that evidence give much greater credit to Aristotle or Maimonides rather than Al-Ghazali in the development of Thomas’ first proof the unmoveable mover. However, if you know something more about this then I would be happy to learn from you. Thanks Barry!
-
Hey ET – I almost forgot to thank you for the intermezzo as it was perfectly timed on your part and a good reminder that humor is the best medicine we humans have in life. If your the referee at that mud-slinging match then I want to at least work the corner as a cut man because this would be one ferociously bloody cat fight based on the build up already seen here at IM.
-
However, Al-Ghazali rejected the works of Aristotle and the other great Greek philosophers and their meta-physical teachings on the grounds that they were non-believers.
I am as unfamiliar with Aquinas as you might possibly of Al Ghazzali,so i am struggling a bit with where and what the influnce is.It certainly has given me something to think about and look into.
I just know of Al Ghazzalis influence on christian thinkers,many whom upon reading his works thought he was a chrisitan.However equally Ghazzalis work was very much of a chrisitan character,which ultimately was based on the understanding that personal experince or the love of god (Grace,Barakah) was the only way to know him.Al ghazzali is a difficult,because he maintained different positions in different works,to serve different purposes.The perfected man he says has 3 sets of opinions,one for his environment,one he teaches enquiries according to their ability to recieve them and one he believes in secret between himself and god and he never mentions except to his inner circle.
To complicate things,Ghazzali used philosophy to defeat itself?
It seems he took reasoning (questioning everything that can be questioned) to the point where it outreasoned itself and morphed into its opposite.In” Incoherence of the the philosophers”,he outwitted the philosophers by philosophical reasoning!He did seemingly reject the philosophers as unbelievers,because there pure abstraction of god created incoherence and lead to a loss of the soul.He maintained a very orthodox positions on certain things in certain books in order to rescue Islamic discourse from falling into the abyss.
Im a bit confused by your portrayal of Aquinas,as Ghazzalis main argument was that the attempt to estblish a reason based theology was futile and lead ultimately to unbelief(if you contemplate too much onthe nature of things,you become detached from them as the Chuang Tzu says).
If that is what Aquinas was purpoting,then he seems to be at odds with AL Ghazzali.Also it is Unchrisitan as well..so im more perplexed.
As far as im aware Aquinas came to the ideas of Aristotle and the greeks from Ghazzali and the sufis,not the other way around(it has to be rembered without the moors,the greek philosophical tradition may have been lost to the world).
It seems from what youre saying he took it back to Aristotle and divorced it from Al ghazzali?The unmovable mover (Al muta)was articulated by Ghazzali as not Allah himself but the vicegrent of the the creator(who is not the first cause,as he he rejects the concept of the philosophers that something cannot come from nothing)in the first heaven.So whilst the Al muta could be explained by reasoning in a relative sense,the al malul was outside of it.
So i imagine his rejection of aristotle and the philosophers was on the grounds that it compromised and reduced god to what in effect was the first Heaven,which is argubaly where Buddhism is situated?
To confuse us more although Al ghazzali was a hugh critic of Emnationist theory, the very concept of the al muta is emnationist in a manner of speaking.
I think what Al -Ghazzali was doing was attempting to reconcile all the different ideas into one great theory of eveything,even whilst acknowledge that in the end it was impossible for “he who knows god ,is stopped from speaking!”
The way i understand it,he exhausted all the possibilities of explanantions,if only to show they were exhaustible and ultimately unreliable,in an attempt to remind us to get back to the very basic and simple truths. -
Patrick, is it possible to do something good for people without religion? I would help sick people myself not in any religous guise but as a human being who cares. And I certainly wouldn’t put down the working class if someone didn’t support my views.
Whatever you think of atheism is fine. Your taxes are not paying for anyone who wishes to be one.Anyway you provided a positive view from a religious organisation. Here is a negative one from good ol Indonesia…
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24603698-661,00.html
-
The argument is always the same, namely: if you do good things but do not attribute them to God then it is the devil deceiving you.
This is an argument I have been hearing from my religious friends since I was a kid. I respect my friends and their faith and their commitment to their respective religions. I, however, feel that I can do good things and bad things and neither are necessarily attributable to either God or the Devil.
Yet, the response to this will be, “see, this is God giving you free will to reject him!” or the argument will go, “this is how the Devil operates, he lulls you into this false sense that God does not exist!”
It is a never-ending and cyclical debate.
I do not care what anyone believes in. I only hope that whatever you believe in makes you feel that you are a better person for your beliefs. I do not try and force my lack of belief on you and would expect the same degree of courtesy that you would not try and force your beliefs on me.
The proposition is a simple one. If God does exist, then I will have a hell of a lot of explaining to do at the pearly gates, but that is my business, my choice, and the risk I assume. If I want to be saved, then I need to save myself.
Nice day to all!
-
@ Rob – mmmmm never mentioned the devil ever during these discussions and I don’t think Barry Prima has either. Actually Barry is right about many things he says but the one point about no atheist here has been able to prove that God exists is undeniable. Where is the counter argument except the arrogance of “I don’t believe and to do so is ridiculous”? Fanglong has mentioned Slavoj Zizek and he is a rather intriguing atheist who they say is very difficult to pin down because as soon as he states one position is liable to be off in a very different direction only moments later. If Zizek has something to say what is it? Fanglong please explain and I am willing to listen.
Back to you Rob and Andy if you cannot accept that something was first then what is your explanation how this universe or world got started? Thomas Aquinas has made his case for me so now what is your case besides “I have a hell of allot of explaining to do at the pearly gates” or “look the religious are bad, bad bad”! because lets face it when atheism has had its chances to rule societies it has been a nightmare. nightmare, nightmare!
Comment on “Atheist Threat”.
Related Stories
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2025
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
I appreciate your honesty janma. I agree with your last comment 100%