I know it comes as hardly a surprise.
Even though I think it needs clarification that I have been an atheist since much much before I read Dawkins, Dawkins just gave me some answers that I can give to the theists when they ask questions that they think proves that there is a God.
Questions like:
‘How can a creation as complex as this universe be created without a creator?’
‘How can something come from nothing?’
‘How could humans have evolved from apes?’
It surely helps that Dawkins is a zoologist... and a damn fine writer. It helps me to grasp what I find more believable- ‘science’... something testable, provable, solid, and believable.
Yes. As I said, I like Dawkins. Very much.
But, I have very strong objection in him being referred to as the high priest for atheists.
It makes atheism sound so much like a religion- any religion- whereas what it actually is- is a ‘way of thinking’. Logical thinking. I will be much dismayed if atheists, of all people, start to look up to someone or something, for idolizing or for believing blindly.
I will hate to see it happen.
I will hate to see atheism turn into a ‘religion’.
18 comments:
Just because some uppity-Christians zapped him once in a debate. He no longer debates with "Creationists"
So you are never likely to see his holyship being challenged. Yet he flaunts it nicely with book here and a TV appearance there.
I wonder why best of Islam i.e. man like Dr. Tahir Ul Qadri - Yes I have him on a pedestal never cross a word or two with like of Dicky Dawks?
may be because if you believe your IQ is a default 0.
@ Mohammad Amin,
I wouldn't call it 'zapping'.
One very frustrating thing about arguing with most of the religious lot is that it goes in circles- you say the same thing, and it comes back to the very same thing- and still it stays where it was initially.
An argument is not won by who speaks the loudest, you know?
Besides, that wasn't my point- atheists are not as concerned about having their 'views' challenged as the religious lot is... after all, religion 'does' expect you to 'believe' without any question asked.
Carnival of the Godless #128 – Not Quite Halloween Edition...
Yeah, it’s early for Halloween, but religious belief and dogma are scary year-round. Welcome to another edition of Carnival of the Godless, #128. There are some great articles to follow, many from blogs I’ve never heard of, but will a...
Richard Dawkins - is aggressive and closed-minded. That is my perception. There is a huge variety of suck ilk found in Islam.
I like science and I am fascinated by many many aspects of it. I am well versed in logic - Greek, Arabic Indian and Modern - you might be surprised to know that Logic is for example taught to many Islamic Scholars. It was Arab Muslims who translated added and conveyed such sciences to west anyhow.
But there are many other well-versed Evolutionists and writers who get their point across much better and without the un-necessary aggro.
"after all, religion ‘does’ expect you to ‘believe’ without any question asked."
No - that is either your experience and/or perception and/or misunderstanding and/or arrogance. But I do not find it so.
If you do not believe in God for mainly scientific reasons you DO NOT by default become a paragon of rationality and vice-versa.
@ Mohammed Amin:
I would respect your feelings for Dawkins.
I like him- but the beauty of the whole no-religion thing is in this little fact that I am free to agree or disagree with what he says.
He's nobody's God.
I disagree with some - but that’s okay. I don’t expect the whole universe to agree with me either.
Actually, YOU might be surprised to know that I know the history of alchemists and scholars who were Arab Muslims. But- what’s your point here?
Also, who’s claiming to be a paragon of rationality?
The point with Arab Muslim Scientists is that they were equally Islamic Scholars and Science scholars. In a way perhaps did not exist with Christianity or other religions.
I also mean - Europe has a long and traceable history of purposefully miss-informing about Islam. It cannot be conveyed here. European Scholars never research it and present that aspect and Muslims do not really give a hoot. Simple evidence - Islam is studied in west greatly and in so many Universities hardly any Muslim countries feels compels to bother with Western studies.
Before you point the "bigotry" go and read the history of some of the famous universities that have taught Islam for centuries for example University of London - SOAS. Islam study in Europe did not start for the reason "Understanding".
Strong miss-trust is hard to overcome and to truly try to understand some-one else reasoning is even harder. So these Muslim roots of aspects of science are hardly ever properly acknowledged.
Also, who’s claiming to be a paragon of rationality?
"Irrationality Itches"? Need I say more.
I have read the blog.
I am not saying you are against particularly against Islam. Point is in your blog there is tendency to lump all religion "as one lot". That is WRONG. And if you read Dawkins - he does the same thing. He thinks one is the same as other. And HE too ignore how Muslims actually view science
You have preconceived ideas and show a lack of willingness to understand why . I am not saying you have to agree with someones reasoning but at least first try to understand why someone came to the conclusion that they did. See as a religious scholar I do that. I do my best to try to understand people. And accept what people passionately believe. In that respect Richard Dawkins although fascinating is in my view a BIGOT.
After all I did come to this blog researching Atheism
I think in general it is more fruitful to explain your beliefs then attack others.
Although there is nothing wrong with it per se you seem to be a reactionary site. More to do with anti-religion then explaining Atheism.
‘Irrationality Itches’ - I do as with Dawkins think you overall are er IRRATIONAL in many ways.
@ Mohammed Amin:
Hmm... well... that is ‘wrong’ in ‘your’ opinion and you are, of course, entitled to one.
The thing here is- you seem to assume a bit about what others may or may not know of religions of the world.
I’m sure you want to say something along the line of this: some religions (or one particular religion) are (is) better than the others and hence should ‘not’ be classified with the rest of ‘the lot’, and they know nothing of that religion- it’s sayings or its rich cultural history.
I differ with you here-. However impossible it may seem to you that I may know (it’s wrong of you to assume otherwise) and THEN reject. It’s not just Islam- it’s any organized religion- they all have this strong self-righteous way of looking at others. What I find... let’s say, annoying... is that they actually assume that no one can ‘understand’ them and THEN reject.
It’s precisely this.
Perhaps- when Dawkins does this with his ‘beliefs’- you find it annoying- but if it’s yourself who’s doing it, you’ll turn a ‘blind-eye’ because in your eyes you are ‘defending the holy’.
As I said before, I read Dawkins- because I get to agree with him more than the religious preachers, but I reject (and am ‘allowed’ to reject) his ideas too, if I don’t agree with them.
I am entitled to my own reasoning, and opinion- just as you are.
Finally- this is not a site for only ‘atheism’, not all the writers/ contributors here are atheists, neither are all the posts are about religion. I don’t see why we need to ‘explain’ atheism here- that’s not this site’s purpose. Also atheism is not a religion that needs to be ‘preached’. As I see it, it is a ‘way of thought’. About this site being reactionary in nature, yes, it is! That’s the intent of this site- to react.
Once again, we never claimed to be the paragon of rationality; it’s you who thought we did. And yes, we can be irrational, too- just like anyone else, even you.
Not to make this too long...
But given what you have written. I find it mainly lacking in much reason, clarity and above all understanding.
Dawkins does PREACH atheism even if you dont. There is a difference between "stating your case" and "preaching". Again I find your attitude incredibly close minded.
And no - you DO NOT know much about religion. Forget other religion. You are woefully unaware of Islam. It is irrational . You must make yourself ITCH quite a bit, I imagine.
Again it is NOT just about culture and history. Its about people.
It’s not just Islam- it’s any organized religion- they all have this strong self-righteous way of looking at others. What I find… let’s say, annoying… is that they actually assume that no one can ‘understand’ them and THEN reject.
You saying to me I am making assumptions and what do you call this? Jeez! Have you not even bothered to read what I have been trying to say to you?
Do you know how tired and old this mumbo jumbo about "organised religion" being all the same. Sorry darling! But so much of what has been brilliant about this world has come from "religion" and "human tendency to believe". Art, Literature, Science, Philosophy, Music Architecture, Languages, Arts and etc .... its best examples have been religious based. If you want to put it that way. Incredible amount of human ingenuity is thanks to various religions. And given the vast breadth of this earth what you cannot fathom is that no matter how divided - if you put it all together the world is quite magnificent. You have to give everyone else there due deference.
And when you reject "religion" like that you are easily rejecting most of humanity. It is safe to say most people are believe in a deity. And not even you will be silly enough to argue against it.
Go on then - what do you know about religion. Forgetting others ... talk to me about Islam. Then I wont have to assume. Why generalise the way you do. Forget about everyone else what is it that you have understand and reject?
"paragon of rationality" was a jibe - that by your title you are saying "all religion and religious" are irrational. Which you have confirmed by your last comment.
And you failed to get even that....
Mohammad,
First, you come from a position stating Islam is morally and intellectually superior than other religions or school of thoughts. In your opinion if someone rejects Islam, only reason would be they have not known or understood Islam properly. This is bigotry.
This point stands irrespective of whether Pepper knows or doesn't know enough about Islam; many do and still reject it (I am not insinuating that Pepper doesn't). But in your eyes those many will always be the ones who failed to understand 'the true essence of Islam'. Blatant bigotry.
And by the way, when you mention a 'Muslim viewpoint' or how 'Muslims view science' you too are generalising by lumping all the Muslims of the world in the same basket. The gazzilions of sects and ideologies that exist within Islam doesn't view science or anything else for that matter the same way. Who is then the custodian of 'true Islam'? All you can do is actually talk about how you view science as a Muslim. The Muslim in the next country or even in the next room may disagree and may not even 'view' science at all. Who decides who is the better Muslim or understood Islam better? If you put yourself and your understanding of Islam as a representative of all the Muslims in the world, that too is bigotry within itself.
What is brilliant, has come from human brain, not religions. There are many not so brilliant ideas that have also come out of human brain. Religion is one of them. It is a by-product (not a source) of human ingenuity.
Every major religion at their time of inception has been a liberal movement, a somewhat new idea (which is an offshoot of an old idea) for liberalisation of the society. They struggled to break the conservative, coercive means of their time and that was their appeal. And then as time passed by, they have become what they stood against, conservative, coercive force, resistant to modernisation. The problem lies of them being a faith based, self-righteous, unalterable practice. They work fine for a while until the society craves to modernise further with accumulation of more knowledge and understanding. If humans limited themselves to practice philosophy rather than making them into religions, things would have been different.
Art, literature, science, philosophy, music, architecture, languages are the product of human philosophical quest, not religion (which is itself a by-product of human philosophical quest). Many can't or don't want to make that distinction.
Who are you? Aaah have you come to side with lil pepper-kins?
You are wrong actually - I am a good representation of Sufism. Still a major group within Islam - severely. We as a group tend to shy away from politics. Things might be better if Sufi's took over the reigns but the whole point of Sufism is kind of "not-politics". Generally "Sufism" is pretty united. If a touch out of fashion.
You were so desperate to get the word "bigot" in there. You say I cannot answer for anyone else except myself and yet you lump all religions together - despite admitting it was wrong previously. Huh?
This point stands irrespective of whether Pepper knows or doesn’t know enough about Islam; many do and still reject it (I am not insinuating that Pepper doesn’t). But in your eyes those many will always be the ones who failed to understand ‘the true essence of Islam’. Blatant bigotry.
You what? Man! how do you even begin to answer this? No love! the point doesn't stand.
But that was the whole point - there is difference within difference with in difference. A part of humanity. But can we leaving our differences aside live as one world.
This stream started with Richard Dawkins and you too though unfortunately show the same closed-mindedness and severe lack understanding and wisdom. I doubt you have been outside Australia yet.
I am calling quits. Its getting too long and its hard to answer multiple ppl ... Good Bye
Religion is a faulty process. It starts with blind faith which encourages human to take things as dictated. It tends to kill rational thinking in human mind. Some people use religion for spreading good, some use it to spread ills and it is very easy to use it for the latter (like terrorism) as once one is trained to take things on blind faith, it just becomes a matter of which ideology they are fed.
Religion is like a dictatorship. Yes, at times you may have benevolent dictator who'd use their authoritarian rule for greater good; yet autocracy can never be supported as a system because it is intrinsically prone to abuse. I see religion in the same light. Of course, one religion can be better than the other (yet none can claim perfection really). But, I lump them all together as they all adhere to the same faulty process (I'd come from a different angle if I debate on comparative religions, which isn't the case here). Doesn't matter how great a message you pass through the mechanism of religion, the process should not be condoned. If any religious scripture had presented itself as just another book (without any claim of divine origin and binding injunctions), it would have been judged on its merit. Right now, they all are just followed based on their self-proclaimed supernatural origin. People fail to see faults in them because of blind faith even though some bring out better exegesis than the others. That is how I see it.
And Mohammed, you assume too much. Please don't.
We have no problem in taking differences. You have stated your opinion just as we have done here. We didn't block you or stop you from putting your comments and nor should we ever. Thanks for visiting us.
No need to mention how wrong I think you are. What I did assume I even more sure is correct.
Else actually deny what I assumed. You did make me smile though.
"I doubt you have been outside Australia yet."
So you assume that I am a westerner, born and brought up in Australia.
:) How utterly wrong you could be... I come from the Sufi heartland of South Asia, the denomination you claim to be follower of. I was born, brought up in a Muslim society and in a Muslim family. Culturally I am very much a part of the Muslim world that we discuss.
So again. Please don't assume.
I couldn't help but notice the smug undertone in your comments. This is exactly the self-righteous, bumptious attitude that faith trains you to: anyone who disagrees must be in "severe lack of understanding and wisdom". Very typical...
huh? I though when by assumption you meant regarding what we were discussing not “I doubt you have been outside Australia yet.”
and you don't call this assuming
I couldn’t help but notice the smug undertone in your comments. This is exactly the self-righteous, bumptious attitude that faith trains you to: anyone who disagrees must be in “severe lack of understanding and wisdom”. Very typical…
I am sorry to say but you do sound pathetic. And if you were brave you would not have to hide now - would you?
Plus if you really had much sense of what religion really is you would show it. Unfortunately you don't. That is not an assumption but a CONCLUSION.
No - its your line of thinking that anyone who is religious is "irrational" - which is extremely dangerous and a major Priest of that thought is Richard Dawkin.
All you've done here is basically proving my point.
Man! You are but a thicko!
“I doubt you have been outside Australia yet.” - was an intended insult. But I stand by it now. I don't think you have actually been outside of Australia.
Oh ... and I am very smug as I have a lot to be smug about :-)
Post a Comment