Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

is atheism religion?

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Atheism is about as close to religion as Abstinence is to sex.

    Complete opposites.

    People seem to want to change "religious" to simply mean "has strong views on a subject". That, to my mind, is a bit ridiculous. If that is the case I'm religious about a whole host of things, but it also makes the term a bit meaningless.


  • Options
    #33
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    oceanclub wrote: »
    Noone has said atheists don't have a serious interest in the topic of religion.

    What has been said is that atheism is not a religion.

    That's the last time I repeat myself on this.

    P.

    Indeed, and I haven't said its a religion. I just said, that in reality, many atheists bare a very close resemblance to the religious. In many cases, they have all the hallmarks of religiosity, without the deity.


  • Options
    #34
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Zombrex wrote: »
    People seem to want to change "religious" to simply mean "has strong views on a subject". That, to my mind, is a bit ridiculous. If that is the case I'm religious about a whole host of things, but it also makes the term a bit meaningless.

    haven't you ever heard the saying, 'He follows that, for example, football team religiously'? It is a word that does convey a certain kind of conviction. This use is not just a modern twist to p!ss off atheists tbf.


  • Options
    #35
    hivizman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,163 ✭✭✭hivizman


    JimiTime wrote: »
    haven't you ever heard the saying, 'He follows that, for example, football team religiously'? It is a word that does convey a certain kind of conviction. This use is not just a modern twist to p!ss off atheists tbf.

    I think that the point that we can use the term "religious" metaphorically has already been made - why various posters in the thread are getting a bit annoyed is that it is particularly unhelpful to use the term metaphorically when we are comparing atheism (and how some atheists behave) with the conventional understanding of religion in its literal sense (and how some adherents of religion behave).

    We are not identifying a distinctive "Islamic" take on the atheism v. religion debate in this thread. As I'm not a Muslim, I can't really offer this myself, but someone who gets involved a lot in such debates from the Muslim position is Hamza Andreas Tzortzis. His website (follow the link) contains various essays and videos where he discusses Islam and atheism. One example is a lecture he gave last year at Loughborough University:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzeTDDASSy8


    This is rather long, and I suggest you start about 12 minutes in to skip the preliminaries, and stop after about 60 minutes, when the question and answer session begins. Tzortzis sets out standard arguments of Islam against views ascribed to atheists.


  • Options
    #36
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,473 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    JimiTime wrote: »
    haven't you ever heard the saying, 'He follows that, for example, football team religiously'?
    Have you ever heard the phrase "He religiously doesn't follow football"? I haven't

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    hivizman wrote: »
    It may be correct to describe the way in which some people defend atheism as "fervent" - defined in my dictionary as "passionate, ardent, zealous". "Zeal" itself is defined as "intense (sometimes fanatical) enthusiasm; activity arising from warm support or enthusiasm; strong feeling", so it is not surprising that some people who feel strongly about the non-existence of a supreme being behave in similar ways to those who feel strongly about the existence of a supreme being. But that does not make their behaviour "religious", except in a metaphorical sense.
    Hi hivizman and thanks
    See, Christians have strong feelings for Christianity, Muslims/Jews have for Islam/ Judaism. Atheists at one place say atheism isn't religion then strongly attach themselves to atheism. They defend atheism like christian/muslim/jew, which makes it a religion. See, In my definition, Atheist is a person who doesn't have strong feeling for anything even atheism... By "strong feeling" i mean in religious sense. What is atheism and its reality. If it isn't religion then Why would someone care whether atheism is religion or not... See atheists like ocean club care that "atheism isn't religion". For example, there is difference between mango and orange and I start a topic with Title "Orange is Mango". It makes that person foolish who will come in my thread to tell that Mango isn't orange. They defend atheist in religious sense. Atheists defend "evolution" which is creation theory for religion of atheism. As in reality no one really know how life started on earth, was it a bang or life started in form of creation. Orthodox atheists take Darwin as Messiah. Darwin as a Prophet /Messiah gave them best possible definition of Life. The same way religion tells us that Adam was first human on earth. Now tell how i am wrong?


  • Options
    #38
    Tomk1
    Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Tomk1


    Apt place for OP's post is The Tunderdome, but some good replies, so might get an interesting debate going (yet again)
    JimiTime wrote: »
    I often see this 'not collecting stamps....' argument. Its a total misnomer. In practical terms, people who declare themselves atheists, are very rearely just simply 'without belief in God' etc. They are serious enough about the topic to stand against it. In reality, to call yourself atheist usually indicates quite an interest in the topic, and usually quite a vicerol objection to it. So you see, from a strictly difinitive, sematic side, atheism is just a word that means 'a belief that there is no God or gods'. In reality though, atheists are mostly made up of people who have an interest and conviction in what they are rejecting etc. Not playing chess is not a hobby, but if I label myself based on this not playing of chess, and in turn get involved in the conversation about chess, and have a conviction as to why I don't play it, then that can be a bit of a Pseudo hobby.
    Good point, the problem of the 'stamp collecting' analogy is it's a hobbie/special interest, so puts a religious person on the defensive, like in their head 'did you just call my religion a hobbie'
    Likewise I've never heard of non-stamp-collector-activists, the analogy fails to explain why people feel the need to speak out against religion. (note: not the same as being against religion).

    The anti-chess-club analogy could work, if society deemed it necessary that everyone learns chess and plays online/school once everyday, chess being taught as a subject in school with exams, and even having to wear a dress-code with a chess symbol. Those that stand up for their right not to play chess, are not a club, more a common interest that's been cast upon them, they may form groups, have great writers, have renowned leaders, for their cause, the freedom not to play chess. Some people may have chess boards for show, but never play, even though they were taught the rules-comandments, they know all the names of famous players even IBM's deepblue. But when they say they want to leave the chess-club are refused on the grounds once a member always a member.... I could just keep going on.

    The point is the nonstamp-collector analogy doesn't address any relavent parallel issues.

    I don't know an analogy that works, maybe workers rights and unions, or even better; slavary and the anti-slavary movement, being a collection of all sorts to stand up for Human rights, the scale of involvement spaning from 'I don't agree with it' right up to activist who campaign against it. From an atheist-movement perspective the analogy does share many parallels. Of course comparing religion to slavary wouldn't go down well with religion-folk, and they have to have the right to practice their religion, therefore wouldn't win many arguments, but a close analogy, maybe even too close.

    So if saying an analogy of religion = (believers who are slaves to their god the master) and atheist = (do not want to be slaves to a master) therefore atheism is not in the same boat.


  • Options
    #39
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    28064212 wrote: »
    Have you ever heard the phrase "He religiously doesn't follow football"? I haven't

    Exactly. Which is why the not collecting stamps etc is such a poor analogy. Atheism is like the exception to the rule. People who are not into collecting stamps, playing chess, football etc, simply couldn't care less about them most of the time. Atheists on the other hand, in real life (i.e. outside of dictionaries) often know more and have more conviction about the topic of religion/gods etc than those who have labels such as Catholic etc.


  • Options
    #40
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,959 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    I see lots of plays with words here, and don't see the point. Just because we have a word for the absence of (whatever), it doesn't make the word an example of (whatever). Silence is not a type of sound. Abstinence is not a sexual position. Atheism is not a religion. Nothing is not a weird kind of thing.

    The word may only exist in relation to (whatever), but that's just a side-effect of how we use language. Besides - as I'm going to keep saying - theists do not get to tell atheists who we are or we think, any more than vice versa. You can try, but you will be ignored, because we get atheism - because we live it - and you don't. Getting confused about this because of how the words are defined is like confusing a map with the territory.

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Options
    #41
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    bnt wrote: »
    because we get atheism - because we live it - and you don't. Getting confused about this because of how the words are defined is like confusing a map with the territory.

    QED.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,959 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    JimiTime wrote: »
    QED.
    Er ... what? I suspect you are reading something I did not write, so if you're going to take my words as a confirmation of your bias, you've missed my point entirely. Hard to tell, if you think a cryptic TLA adds anything to this discussion.

    "Living as an atheist" is no more a religion than "living in sobriety" is a form of drinking. We may define the absence of something in terms of that something, in words, but it still doesn't make the absence a form of that something, even if the absence is a positive thing. Play on words all you like - it's just sophistry, and not reality.

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Options
    #43
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    bnt wrote: »
    Er ... what? I suspect you are reading something I did not write, so if you're going to take my words as a confirmation of your bias, you've missed my point entirely. Hard to tell, if you think a cryptic TLA adds anything to this discussion.

    "Living as an atheist" is no more a religion than "living in sobriety" is a form of drinking. We may define the absence of something in terms of that something, in words, but it still doesn't make the absence a form of that something, even if the absence is a positive thing. Play on words all you like - it's just sophistry, and not reality.

    I didn't say it was a religion. My point all along, is that in REAL life, its more than simply the absence of a belief, and that in practical terms, atheists generally bare much of the conviction and fervour etc that is usually associated with religiosity. The fact that you 'Live it' confirms that there is more to it in your case than some strict dictionary definition. I suppose, the religiosity (or rather the pseudo religiosity) of atheism is in the people that label themselves with it. So while atheism is not a religion, those who jump under its banner bare a striking resemblance to the religious in terms of their behaviour, fervour and conviction.


  • Options
    #44
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I didn't say it was a religion. My point all along, is that in REAL life, its more than simply the absence of a belief, and that in practical terms, atheists generally bare much of the conviction and fervour etc that is usually associated with religiosity. The fact that you 'Live it' confirms that there is more to it in your case than some strict dictionary definition.

    In REAL life, atheism is simply an absence of belief.
    Now, as you said, atheists do generally care more about theism, than non stamp collectors care about stamp collecting. But thats because for most atheists the reasons they have for their atheism, and the environments they live, in makes them that way. Stamp collector groups generally dont try and claim full moral authority, wedge themselves into political or educational institutions and they dont denounce the evils of non-stamp collectors with misinformation and scare mongering, as certain religious groups have been known to do.
    Atheism doesn't need to care about that, as its just the lack of belief. Atheists do.


  • Options
    #45
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,959 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I didn't say it was a religion. My point all along, is that in REAL life, its more than simply the absence of a belief, and that in practical terms, atheists generally bare much of the conviction and fervour etc that is usually associated with religiosity. The fact that you 'Live it' confirms that there is more to it in your case than some strict dictionary definition. I suppose, the religiosity (or rather the pseudo religiosity) of atheism is in the people that label themselves with it. So while atheism is not a religion, those who jump under its banner bare a striking resemblance to the religious in terms of their behaviour, fervour and conviction.
    What conviction? What fervour? Again, you're projecting your learned biases on to people you don't know. I'm talking about it here because it's interesting, but this is just an internet forum, not my life. When not on the internet, I think I've mentioned my atheism about twice in the last decade.

    Of course religion influences my life, just as meat influences the life of a vegetarian. I only ever need to mention religion in response to other people's religious beliefs - just as a vegetarian only needs to mention the fact that he doesn't eat meat when it's on the menu. This is Ireland, religion always "on the menu" - but that doesn't make it real. When the plate comes out of the kitchen, it might be hot, but there's no food on it. :cool:

    Please stop trying to tell atheists who they are and what they believe, in contradiction to their own words. How do you know what you think you know? The media? Religious teachings? Other biased, subjective sources with their own agendas? You have some real live atheists here telling you that you are wrong about them. Persisting in trying to tell us who we are is just arrogant. Who are you, to try to tell other people who they are?

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Options
    #46
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    In REAL life, atheism is simply an absence of belief.

    As I've repeated, I don't doubt its definition. The words definition is not in question
    Atheism doesn't need to care about that, as its just the lack of belief. Atheists do.

    I don't really mind how the words and semantics are jostled, as i said, in the real world, most atheists I've come across are not simply people who lack belief. Those who care enough to call themselves atheists, usually wear it as a religious person would wear their religion. I've met a lot of irreligious people. Those who simply don't contemplate the question. I can say though, 100% of the people I've met who have identified themselves as atheists are a lot more evangelical about it than most of the "Catholics" I know. Again,like I've repeated, its not a religion, but those who identify as atheist usually bare all the resemblances of religiosity.


  • Options
    #47
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    bnt wrote: »
    What conviction?

    You're the one who said you 'Lived it'.
    What fervour?

    Just check the A&A forum.
    Again, you're projecting your learned biases on to people you don't know.

    No, I'm using my powers of deduction based on my real life experience to say that there are a lot of atheists out there who resemble the religious in their behaviour. Does this mean atheism = religion. No. As I've said all along, it means that there are a lot of atheists who's atheism takes on a form of pseudo religiosity.
    I'm talking about it here because it's interesting, but this is just an internet forum, not my life. When not on the internet, I think I've mentioned my atheism about twice in the last decade.

    Fine, maybe you are not the type of atheist I'm talking about. I don't even know why it matters tbh. Its just an observation.
    Please stop trying to tell atheists who they are and what they believe, in contradiction to their own words.

    ha ha. I'm not telling anyone what they believe. I'm telling people what I've observed. They can poo poo it if they wish. It doesn't matter to me that an atheist doesn't agree with my observation. We're just giving our opinions. I think I've articulated mine quite well, and its fine if you disagree.
    You have some real live atheists here telling you that you are wrong about them.

    No-one has said I'm wrong about them. I haven't been specific in who I'm talking to, so its up to anyone who reads what I've said to decide if it applies to them. If it doesn't apply to you, then fine. What I've said is not actually a criticism anyway, just a behaviour observation based on atheists I know/met/converse with. Its not like I've insulted anyone.
    Persisting in trying to tell us who we are is just arrogant. Who are you, to try to tell other people who they are?

    Oh dear. I haven't told you or anyone else what you are or aren't. You can be whatever you want to be, and I can form my own opinion based on what I observe. Simples!


  • Options
    #48
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I don't really mind how the words and semantics are jostled, as i said, in the real world, most atheists I've come across are not simply people who lack belief. Those who care enough to call themselves atheists, usually wear it as a religious person would wear their religion. I've met a lot of irreligious people. Those who simply don't contemplate the question. I can say though, 100% of the people I've met who have identified themselves as atheists are a lot more evangelical about it than most of the "Catholics" I know. Again,like I've repeated, its not a religion, but those who identify as atheist usually bare all the resemblances of religiosity.

    There is no jostling on our side. As I said in my second post in this thread, its a case of seperating atheism from atheists. Both the irreligious and the evangelical atheists have the simple lack of belief, but that doesn't mean that their reasons are simple.
    In real life, atheism is simply a lack of belief. However, atheists have complex reasons for lacking that belief, and that can result in them being assertive or evangelical etc.


  • Options
    #49
    cursai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    I don't think atheism is a religion categorically speaking but the way its feverishly defended, discussed and debated would make some of its subscribers religious in their approach of it. I haven't seen any other topic or belief that is basically 'not collecting stamps' so frequently discussed, emotionally charged and analysed.
    Just saying like.


  • Options
    #50
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    cursai wrote: »
    I don't think atheism is a religion categorically speaking but the way its feverishly defended, discussed and debated would make some of its subscribers religious in their approach of it. I haven't seen any other topic or belief that is basically 'not collecting stamps' so frequently discussed, emotionally charged and analysed.
    Just saying like.

    But why do you think that is though? Atheism is simply the lack of belief, but a lot of atheists are more assertive than that simple lack of belief. Thats because of the pervasive presence of religion in politics and education and other parts of life that they shouldn't be in (unless individuals choose so for themselves). As I said here, stamp collector groups dont generally try to gain control of schools or claim absolute moral authority, so non-stamp collectors aren't constantly fighting for equality, rationality and fairness.


  • Options
    #51
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    There is no jostling on our side. As I said in my second post in this thread, its a case of seperating atheism from atheists.

    I have, which is why I have said the definition is not in question.
    Both the irreligious and the evangelical atheists have the simple lack of belief, but that doesn't mean that their reasons are simple. In real life, atheism is simply a lack of belief. However, atheists have complex reasons for lacking that belief, and that can result in them being assertive or evangelical etc.

    Thats really what I'm saying. Many atheists wear their label like a religious person wears theirs, and tend to resemble the religious in their fervour. That doesn't change the meaning of atheist, but it does call in to question the reality of what it becomes to people who label themselves as one.

    I hope you try see such separation in what what Christianity teaches, and what many Christians do too ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Thats really what I'm saying. Many atheists wear their label like a religious person wears theirs, and tend to resemble the religious in their fervour. That doesn't change the meaning of atheism, but it does call in to question the reality of what it becomes to people who label themselves as one.

    It doesn't, at all. Atheism doesn't become something else just because atheists can be assertive or fervourent. They are not (necessarily) assertive or fervourent because they lack belief in god and they don't (necessarily) lack belief becuase they are assertive or fervourent. Just like how "vegetarian" just means "don't eat meat" regardless of how many vegetarians join PETA, atheism is simply a lack of belief, regardless of what atheists do or don't as a result of that lack of belief.


  • Options
    #53
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It doesn't, at all. Atheism doesn't become something else just because atheists can be assertive or fervourent. They are not (necessarily) assertive or fervourent because they lack belief in god and they don't (necessarily) lack belief becuase they are assertive or fervourent. Just like how "vegetarian" just means "don't eat meat" regardless of how many vegetarians join PETA, atheism is simply a lack of belief, regardless of what atheists do or don't as a result of that lack of belief.

    Again, I'm not getting into the semantics of the word. I know what it means. I'm only observing the religiosity of atheists. It seems that when people decide to self identify as atheist, there are common traits that go beyond the commonality of non-belief.


  • Options
    #54
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Again, I'm not getting into the semantics of the word. I know what it means. I'm only observing the religiosity of atheists. It seems that when people decide to self identify as atheist, there are common traits that go beyond the commonality of non-belief.

    Yeah, but that means that there can be more to self labeling as "atheist" than simple lack of belief , not that there is more to atheism than a simple lack of belief, which is what the thread is about.

    Atheism is not a religion, it is simply a lack of belief, much like how non stamp collecting is not a hobby. However, non stamp collectors don't have to deal with stamp collector groups in facets of society they have no place being in, so (a) non stamp collectors don't have any reason to even talk to stamp collectors about it, never mind be assertive about non-stamp collecting and (b) they don't even need to self label as "non-stamp collector".

    I agree that atheists can be the same as the religious - they can evangelical and fervourent. But that is not simply a result of their atheism. Its because the environment they are in results in them being that way (or because that's simply the type of person they are).


  • Options
    #55
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Which is why the not collecting stamps etc is such a poor analogy. Atheism is like the exception to the rule.
    Not really. Atheism basically means an absence of a belief in one or more deities.

    What happens over in A+A if you take a look breaks down roughly into the following headings:
    • People laughing at the silly things religious people do because of their religion
    • People getting upset at the nasty things religious people do because of their religion
    • People discussing other interesting topics, posting interesting news clips etc
    • People having a laugh in general
    Where religion is there at all, the common thread amongst all of these is the human element of religion. I can't recall a single discussion -- indeed the idea is really quite silly -- of people discussing how strongly they feel the absence of the one or more deity figures which they don't believe exist, and almost certainly wouldn't "worship" even they did.


  • Options
    #56
    hivizman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,163 ✭✭✭hivizman


    Well, it looks like we have established (as if this was needed) that atheism is not religion, and the fact that some atheists defend their position forcefully, like the way that some adherents of specific religions defend their positions forcefully, doesn't turn atheism into a religion.

    In an earlier post in this thread, I linked to a talk "Rational Discourse on Islam and Atheism" given by a Muslim speaker who often appears on YouTube, Hamza Tzortzis. Having watched the video in detail, I was struck by the extent to which his arguments in favour of Islam were similar to those put forward by Christians.

    Tzortzis tries to establish three propositions using logical arguments:

    1. The existence of God
    2. The status of the Qur'an as the revelation of God
    3. The status of Muhammad as God's final prophet and messenger.

    For proposition 1, Tzortzis mobilises the Cosmological Argument and the Argument from Design. The Cosmological Argument takes the form of establishing (or asserting) that the Universe had a beginning, that everything that has a beginning must have had a cause, so the Universe had a cause, and to avoid an infinite regress, there must have been a First Cause, which is identified as God. The Argument from Design focuses on "fine tuning" - the minuscule probability that the central physical constants underpinning and making possible a universe in which human life is viable would have turned out as they are, which is taken to imply, using "inference to the best explanation", that the universe could not have come about through chance, and hence must have been created through divine design. These arguments have been rebutted many times.

    Tzortzis defends the status of the Qur'an as revelation by identifying statements made in the Qur'an that are now regarded as scientific or historical fact but that could not have been known at the time of its revelation. There was a long thread on this forum about 18 months ago where this approach was debated in detail.

    I was really surprised to find Tzortzis defending Muhammad's prophethood using the old "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" argument used by many Christian apologists to support claims reported in the New Testament about Jesus. Tzortzis argues that the reported facts of Muhammad's life make it impossible to assert that he was a deliberate liar, and that the emergence, growth and success of Islam as a religion disprove the claim that Muhammad was deluded. So all that is left is the position that he must indeed have been a prophet. But it is hard to use the "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" argument to defend the status of Muhammad while at the same time denying the prophethood of, say, Joseph Smith - after all, he was prepared to die for his beliefs and was actually killed for what he believed, and Mormonism has not been without success as a religion.

    Tzortzis finished off for good measure by claiming the necessity of God to justify morality.

    It's not surprising that Tzortzis's "rational defence of Islam" is so like "rational arguments for Christianity", because leading Christian thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas took many of the standard arguments for the existence of God from Muslim thinkers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes).

    I'll continue my search for a distinctive Islamic critique of atheism, so if anyone knows of one, please contribute to the thread.


  • Options
    #57
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    hivizman wrote: »
    In an earlier post in this thread, I linked to a talk "Rational Discourse on Islam and Atheism" given by a Muslim speaker who often appears on YouTube, Hamza Tzortzis.

    I thought I recognised his name, there was a thread on the A&A forum a while back about his debate with Michael Nugent (Atheist Ireland) in UCD February 2011 (I believe he had a number of debates in universities around Ireland at the time). I didn't make the actual debate, but it was recorded and put online.
    I talked about Hamza's points in this post, but he mainly sticks to point 1, as you describe it, hivizman, in the debate (ie he was more driving towards the existence of a general monotheistic god, he was light on specific reasons for the muslim god).


  • Options
    #58
    hivizman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,163 ✭✭✭hivizman


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I talked about Hamza's points in this post, but he mainly sticks to point 1, as you describe it, hivizman, in the debate (ie he was more driving towards the existence of a general monotheistic god, he was light on specific reasons for the muslim god).

    Thanks for this - we obviously had a similar reaction to what must have been the same line of argument. From a quick flip through some of Hamza Tzortzis's other YouTube videos, I get the sense that he has done a crash course in arguments for the existence of a monotheistic god and has been largely "preaching to the converted" by going round university Islamic Societies where he is unlikely to face much of a challenge. He could just as easily have been a Christian apologist as a Muslim one. :)


  • Options
    #59
    beerbuddy
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭beerbuddy


    I think that this form lacks is a definition of religion and without an agreed definition the rest is moot.


  • Options
    #60
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Atheism isn't a religion, nor is theism.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78952980&postcount=827
    hence it is proved

    Atheism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion... they are also deeply committed to their religious beliefs.. Closing threads--- banning people.. These are clear proof.... It doesn't matter to what extent you may deny... ... Religion is a difficult thing to define... These people seem fail to defend their religious belief and at last.. The protectors and guardians of this religion has no choice except you know what i mean... Every action you do has a reason and I am here to explain all kind of these reason.. i am not a ordinary human.. I can see what you can't see... This is very exact purpose why i had posted this thread here... I knew what would happened in A&A foram..


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement