A Muslim journey through Creationism and Evolution

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
19,003
Oh there are undoubtedly people who use religion to commit atrocities just like mao used atheism as a war cry to rally his troops.
Corrupt despots/psycho's like hitler*,stalin,mao are especially capable of doing this,you wont find the average man on the street behaving like this normally be they atheist or religious.
As i have already stated to you, you cant use atheism for anything. The people you have listed here used different sets of principles to commit their atrocities, Stalin used communism and Hitler used fascism. The fact that they might have been atheists is irrelevant, much like they both had mustaches, are we to presume mustaches are the source of all evil? Atheism doesnt have a set of principles or guidelines so its impossible to use it to justify anything, no two atheists are alike. Religion is quite the opposite however, it has a very clear set of guidelines and principles many of which have been used as a reason to commit atrocities.
 

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,657
Because I'm not answering for him, like I just said? :wtf:
Well I wasn't referring to you or replying to you,I wanted Soultax's opinion on those matters discussed not yours.

What does his beliefs have to do with your claims about Mao, Stalin and religion's role in atrocities committed over the years? That's what I was responding to.
I wanted his take on it,not yours or to go into a lengthy debate on stalin etc(which I frankly don't give two hoots about) that would detract from my main discussion point with Soultax,sorry for not letting you move the goal posts yet again buddy.I have better things to do with my time then go in pointless circles so yeah I'm continuing my discussion with soultax in this thread that is severely derailed and doesn't need further derailing from you.Thats the last from me on that.
 

Spizz

Goat Botherer
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
24,640
As i have already stated to you, you cant use atheism for anything. The people you have listed here used different sets of principles to commit their atrocities, Stalin used communism and Hitler used fascism. The fact that they might have been atheists is irrelevant, much like they both had mustaches, are we to presume mustaches are the source of all evil? Atheism doesnt have a set of principles or guidelines so its impossible to use it to justify anything, no two atheists are alike. Religion is quite the opposite however, it has a very clear set of guidelines and principles many of which have been used as a reason to commit atrocities.
Hitler was a Catholic apparently and mentioned god in many of his speeches.

The usual position taken by religious folks in these types of arguments are that if it's not a holy war, it's by default atheist.
 

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,657
:mad: I typed out a really good long reply and my browser crashed,how frustrating!

Lol I'll try to remember what I wrote and type it out again just now......
 

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
19,003
Hitler was a Catholic apparently and mentioned god in many of his speeches.

The usual position taken by religious folks in these types of arguments are that if it's not a holy war, it's by default atheist.
Yeah im well aware of Hitlers Catholicism, it would be unfair to say its the reason why he went to war and im unware of him ever using any religous reasons for going to war, fascism was certainly the motivator he used.
 

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,657
But if you are wrong, then there is a counterbalance of "Extra"(In the name of a false pretense) evil being perpetrated in the world that will never be rectified because there is no hereafter to apply the balance.
If I'm wrong in my beliefs then what?I know you seem to think that a world full of atheists would only be more peaceful because I bet you have been indoctrinated into certain morals by your family/people around you as you grew and most of them have come from religion and so you sound like a good person to me.Now you may not be able to admit it but that is the world we live in,it has been shaped by religion.

Lets say there was no religion and the world was reset right now with no morals or religion,what do you think would happen.Everyone would be interested in only doing whats good for them because why be selfless,you would gain nothing and die as nothing when instead you could reap maximum benefit by grabbing what you can.Eventually you would realize you can't do that completely alone and teaming up would be the best way forward and eventually people would start movements like communism, fascism and nazism,where the idea is the strongest will prosper and usually these will be based on one race/area to rule them all.

How is that better than religion?I don't believe this utopia you are trying to achieve can ever exist, human/animal nature would never allow it to.Sure some would think we can rise up above those animal instincts and form our own morals which are perfect but history has proven otherwise.

What I'm basically saying is that you have a hypothesis that religion causes wars.The alternate hypothesis is that atheism would not cause wars and then we'd all live happily ever after.We have already proved that both failed to produce that utopia you dream of,the atheist regimes thus far have proved that for us.While not in the name of atheism as such they have still failed and caused death/suffering in the millions.


In either scenario there is sufferring/atrocities.It starts to seem like a test the more you think about it after all,its a test of the individual not of the group/groups as a whole.What other purpose is there to life do you have an alternate hypothesis?
 
Last edited:

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
Lets say there was no religion and the world was reset right now with no morals or religion
The only problem I have with this post is that you lump morals and religion together. Sure it has helped to shape our world, but the most basic of them, "Do to others as you would have done unto you" is in fact far older than Islam and Christianity. We would still have Morals. Probably around about the same as we have today as most Morals are not gotten from religion. If Religion showed you a moral that you disagreed with, you would most likely reject it because you have your own moral code. You can say that it was formed by religion, but you cannot say that it would be absent if religion were absent.

Apart from that I do agree, **** will happen. But in that alternate reality when humans found another ideology to latch onto to cause harm or oppress others, I would be fighting those ideas too. I simply fight religion now because it is the most prevalent one in our reality today.

In either scenario there is sufferring/atrocities.It starts to seem like a test the more you think about it after all,its a test of the individual not of the group/groups as a whole.What other purpose is there to life do you have an alternate hypothesis?
The alternate hypothesis is that we are simply animals and **** happens. If we look into nature we see starvation and death, we see babies getting eaten while herds look on. We see old alpha males being beaten and then thrown from the pride to likely die of starvation or death by rival predators. We see a struggle for survival.
Human existence is simply the same as animal existence because we are all the same. It is no cosmic test. It simply is. There is no divine purpose to life. I know you don't like the sound of that hypothesis. But whether or not we find an idea attractive, does not determine whether that idea is true or not. I like the idea of an afterlife more than the idea of oblivion/nothingness. However, when I look at it objectively, with my feelings set aside, Oblivion just seems to fit our reality more than the afterlife does.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,029
I'm fairly certain you've had this explained to you before, but let's try again. Atheism has no ideology or content that can be used to fuel atrocity. Religion does. It's not alone in this, of course. There are many ideologies that has this potential, like nationalism for example.
The non-sequitur again. It doesn't matter. Just as people can twist religion they can twist atheism. And I'm fairly certain this has been explained as well, atheism isn't ideology free. One of its core ideologies is no accountability to a higher authority. So if you can get away with it in this life you've gotten away with it, which is a very dangerous ideology in the hands of unconscionable people.

This is proof of historical records of a war initiate by the leader of a religion, in the name of that religion, against another religion. And that religion's response is to wage a holy religious war in retaliation.

A 4 minute video if you care to watch it.
http://www.history.com/topics/crusades/videos#roots-of-the-crusades

Here a recounting of Pope Urban II's speech at Clermont that sparked the whole thing.
http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/urban%27s_speech.htm

Clearly this was religious. So now I would like for you to show me some evidence of Mao's "Kill for Atheism" battle cry if you please.
And on which side was it a religious war?

Further thoughts:
You see I have issue with the fact that an Omniscient God would allow this dichotomy in the possible way that his scriptures can be interpreted. He would make it cut and dry as to what he means. You would not have one group claiming that Islam is the religion of peace and be able to support that stance with scriptural excerpts. Yet on the other hand have a group that can run around blowing themselves and innocents up, and yet they can support those claims with scripture too.
These two groups might disagree with the interpretations of one another, but that does not change the fact that the interpretation is true in both cases.

God would not have left it up to interpretation IMHO. And a God that does, is just needlessly toying with us.
That is not a reasonable expectation. Absolutely anything can be used out of context. I can use Moby Dick as a justification for hunting whales. Will you blame Herman Melville for being ambiguous in his novel? No because in context none of the events can be used to justify it. It is only with religion that you blame a whole concept for the actions of just a FEW of its followers.

So in closing. I think that if harm can be done in the name of something, then that something needs to be revised or scrapped. Some may see that as a 'Militant' attitude. So be it, I have no qualms with fighting the bad in religion while it keeps the bad parts in it. Until such time as religion can cut away the bad and leave only the good behind, I will keep on doing it. And if your/any religion is unable to cut away the bad without destroying/throwing out the whole, then that is a problem with the religion itself, not with my attitude towards it.
So iow force your opinion the same way you criticise others for doing. The whole irony in this matter is that your hostile attitude can never do anything against religion. Quote the opposite you are failing to see that it's actually giving people an example of how not to behave and driving people towards religion. But the real tragedy is that you are alienating the only people that can change it. While you are wasting time antagonising people that have never done anything to you there is no chance to engage beliefs we deem false because we're too busy standing up against you.

The only problem I have with this post is that you lump morals and religion together. Sure it has helped to shape our world, but the most basic of them, "Do to others as you would have done unto you" is in fact far older than Islam and Christianity. We would still have Morals. Probably around about the same as we have today as most Morals are not gotten from religion. If Religion showed you a moral that you disagreed with, you would most likely reject it because you have your own moral code. You can say that it was formed by religion, but you cannot say that it would be absent if religion were absent.
Well, you can't really say that. From my religion's perspective moral codes were given down and not invented. Christianity and Islam didn't start out from nothing. They both have moral codes that date back thousands of years. To get a true picture you have to remove God entirely from the equation and there is no certainty that the "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" would then still exist. Religions would still exist because people will invent ideologies but do you really think they would be as tame as what we have if you remove the concept of reward and punishment?

Apart from that I do agree, **** will happen. But in that alternate reality when humans found another ideology to latch onto to cause harm or oppress others, I would be fighting those ideas too. I simply fight religion now because it is the most prevalent one in our reality today.
Fair enough you probably would. But that is not the current issue we are dealing with. You are fighting against ideologies where if you were able to succeed would open the door to other ideologies that are far worse. Do you really see that as something rational to do?
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,029
:mad: I typed out a really good long reply and my browser crashed,how frustrating!

Lol I'll try to remember what I wrote and type it out again just now......
CTRL+A CTRL+C usually solves this problem. There is also the forum auto-save feature and if using Opera the ability to save text.
 

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,657
CTRL+A CTRL+C usually solves this problem. There is also the forum auto-save feature and if using Opera the ability to save text.
Thanks I'll try that next time....I use opera how do you use this? sorry for the derail guys.
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
20,914
The finite seeks to judge the Infinite - what mental gymnastics!

The Truth is revealed - one is then free to either accept or reject it. Normative Islamic doctrine is not taken from personal judgements of societal and environmental observations, but is derived from Islam's canonical works, with the Quran at its core. God, who is necessarily defined as being beyond judgement operates on a dimension that we cannot even begin to fathom. Our knowledge of this Absolute Reality is basically naught, because our knowledge is limited to the spectrum of this tiny instance of life on Earth.

How arrogant can we be to assume that we can judge the Whole based on an infinitesimal part?
Simply, I want to know how this god, who we cannot begin to fathom and is undefinable, was defined in a book?
 

SaiyanZ

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
7,932
That was a "test"
Your browser crashing was a sign you failed :D
Yep, since he believes in God, he should believe that God censored him by making his browser crash. He cannot prove that God didn't cause his browser to crash. Hence Goddidit.
 

Jab

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
3,245
Yeah im well aware of Hitlers Catholicism, it would be unfair to say its the reason why he went to war and im unware of him ever using any religous reasons for going to war, fascism was certainly the motivator he used.
Though the Holocaust was influenced by hatred fostered by religion.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
41,627
Though the Holocaust was influenced by hatred fostered by religion.
The RCC also has a long history of fostering anti-semitism in Europe and elsewhere. You cannot really disentangle fascism's history from the RCC, either.
 

Girly

Active Member
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
91
The following is an account of my own journey through creationism and the Theory of Evolution (ToE)

My journey starts back in...............
I truly enjoyed your story in the OP.

Wayfarer, you have impeccable mannerism, style and knowledge. Most importantly, I don't think I ever came across someone online so consistent in being patient, respectful, sincere and honest. Hats off to you!!! You should open up a school (if you don't already have one)

So then evolution is not anti-religion and, just like having a spherical earth isn't, although some in the past objected on religious grounds to round earth.

The quran verses most interesting to me in your next post are

And God has caused you to grow out of the earth in gradual growth - Quran 71:17
O mankind, what has deceived you concerning your Lord, the Generous, Who created you, proportioned you, and balanced you? In whatever form He willed has He assembled you. - Quran 82:6-8

Your next posts also compare evolution of man to spiritual Hindu beliefs --- very interesting.

Keep the posts coming.............
 

wayfarer

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,623
Post redirected from: http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/445019-Introduction-to-Islam?p=18699182&viewfull=1#post18699182

Thank you for the comprehensive answer. I'm in agreement that (some) animals may have evolved over centuries with God's power. I however have my doubts over evolution of humankind as God only needs to say "Be, and it is". Why would He take the long evolution route with humans?
I think you mean millions of years. Anyway, that is not how the concept works, Zolani. Either evolution is true for all, or it's true for none. If He created some life instantly, why did He not create all life instantly by merely saying, "Be," and it is? Why did He create the Universe in 6 stages, why not just say, "Be," and it is? And why appoint angels as agency, why not "Be," and it is? God works the way He works, according to His Infinite Wisdom. Time (and effort) is not significant to God, as He transcends it.

In Islam, we understand that there are 3 sources of knowledge:

1. Knowledge by what can be observed with the senses and determined by instruments.
2. Knowledge that can be arrived at through reasoning.
3. Knowledge that comes from revelation.

The 2nd can generate knowledge where the 1st cannot, but should generally be consistent with it. The 3rd imparts knowledge that the 2nd could not attain in and of itself, but should generally be consistent with it. What you are doing, is having an opinion that goes contrary to the evidence. What you seem to be doing is bypassing number 1, and possibly 2 too, which is the worst way to approach 3.
 
Last edited:

Zolani99

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
754
Are we not focusing too much on the creation or evolution of the physical body and not enough on the soul?

The soul is like the pearl developing in the shell and the shell's only purpose is to serve as a vessel for the pearl. When the pearl is harvested, the shell is discarded as it has no value.

Scientists debate the origin of the shell, believers emulate the development of the pearl.
 
Last edited:
Top