Ah!  The Internet is the beginning of a new era of communications- we get yet another way to obfuscate and misunderstand one another!  But below are some of the fruits of interactivity, for you to peruse. 

& From Jameel: "You take things too Literally!"- Probably Right. 5/31/99

"As I have discovered through my altered states of mind, to put complete and absolute faith in one's perception, whether society classifies you as sane or insane, is folly" I am interested to know if you have decided what folly really is.  Did you > ever read Ecclesiastes and have you any comments?  The writer says "And I > gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that > this also is vexation of spirit." (Chapter 1:17)

I recall reading parts of it several years ago, but since then have only heard it in the song by the Birds.  So I don't have a great many comments on it. As for folly, it is an abstraction, a way of saying that one doesn't think a certain way of acting will get one ahead in the long run, or the short run- that it isn't advantageous.

At the moment, my denotations and connotations of folly don't come from the Bible, or any other scriptures for that matter.  At least I hope not.

When I speak of perception, it is not so much the perception of the eyes, the ears, and the nose, as it is in being grounded (or blinded?) in a worldview such as Islam or Christianity which makes one interpret events in a strongly charged fashion, as if life was a diametric battle between good and evil. I mention this in connection with affective disorders, because it is the case that the afflicted can often see themselves in a similar way. For instance, the suicidally depressed person may not recognize that he is no worse than anyone else, and delusionally think that he is the most worthless, the most evil human being possible.  On the other hand, a person in the throes of mania might think he was a Messiah of some type- in his euphoria he might think himself to be a paragon of virtue and perfection, emulating and believing everything that is right. Well, give the depressed one Prozac, and the manic one lithium, and it is likely that they are not going to see themselves and their beliefs in such a strongly diametric fashion.  Speaking by analogy, I don't think that being deeply depressed or insanely manic does one much good, thus the need for the lithium of skepticism whenever one comes across beliefs with a strong element of idealization/devaluation.

My complaint to God is that he encourages both views in some manner or the other.  On one hand, God is the Most Infinite, and we are all just little squirming worms who are wholly dependent on his beck and command.  So you have monasticism, penance, Salat, fasting, and other acts of mortification. On the other hand, God has his chosen, whether it be the Christian Coalition, Hamas, Jewish Defense League, you name it, who are striving for all that is good and pure, at least in their minds.  And these same groups find themselves emboldened to crush the other worms who haven't been sanctified from their worminess.

I can't say I fully understand the psychology of it "all," so maybe I should amend it so that it is more clear that I am speaking about myself, and the new understanding I have about my experiences.

There does seem to be patterns of belief which perpetuate themselves, in spite of the sheer fallaciousness of the belief.  Maybe to you, that may take the form of believers in "space brothers" and extra-sensory perception, but I would have to include more established religions in this as well, because they are not static, whatever the dogma may say about the eternal nature of the religion.  Bits and pieces of heaven and hell, Adam and Eve,. Gomorrah and Steve, have their basis in historical developments and cultural interactions, such as during the Babylonian captivity, where Zoroastrian beliefs in heaven and hell, as well as a judgment day influenced the Jewish beliefs.

"I have faith"------ (I like this statement but....) "that I will not be roasted alive in a pit of burning fire when I die" because I see the psychological underpinnings of my former faiths to be so clear, and the historical and scientific problems all three of them face to be even more manifest." But doesn't this statement contradict the paragraph you wrote above? Isn't there a better way to know that you won't be roasted alive than to have faith in your perceptions?  Where in the Hebrew Bible do you find anything about being roasted alive and why do you insist on the "Lake of fire" being literal in the Messianic writings?

As far as "faith," it is a figure of speech.  I am reversing the usual statement of a true believer, who is bygone sure that they are going to be received with harps, wine, and vixens upon check out time. It might be a contradiction, yes, but because of my peculiar life experiences, devils and angels at the present time seem to me to be preposterous (although I no doubt struggled to believe in them when I was ultra-religious,), such that I would have trouble believing even if I wanted to do so.

To understand my reference to being roasted alive, it would have to be in the context of my response to both literalist Islam and Christian Fundamentalism- which both try to suggest that to follow any other path would result in damnation.  Maybe they really don't follow the Bible or Qur'an, but it is the case that they are representatives (though not solely)  of the Christian and Muslim faiths.  And yes, many of them, insist there is a "Lake of Fire" of some type out there for those that disagree with them. 

Sure, I don't insist on a literal "Lake of Fire"-  I hope Jesus is in the sky, and loves us all, and has a paradise set aside for everyone. I hope Allah is the Most Loving, and that the punishment of Hell that he threatens all of mankind with has some universal escape clause. But I don't count on it, I have too many reasons to doubt. For the fundamentalist it's either this or that, doubt is given no place to reside.  Choose now!  Eternal life depends on it!  What if you die in two minutes!  That's too often the sales pitch.

My battle is not so much with those who have their faith, and it brings them fulfillment in whatever way.  It is with those who would without so much as a forethought to consign the majority of the human race to eternal suffering, and thereby think it meet to try to convert by any means necessary the rest of the earth. It is for those who could better themselves if they weren't constrained by the straightjacket of dogma.

IMHO, I think it would be wiser to first examine the claim that we have an eternal life to lose .  That doesn't seem to be the case, whether or not the majority of human beings think it is.  But if I am wrong, of course, we can all have a big laugh about it, unless our God is one of those humorless characters who will trounce on you for having a moment of fun. I am planning to write about this in more detail, and present the evidence I have come upon, although I can't specify when I'll get around to it.

You make a point about interpretation- the ways to do so are endless.  And because of this, I tend to not see much use for religious scripture in the search for ultimate truths.  The Qur'an is supposed to be for all times- as some would say the Bible.  I am not confident in these assertions, both books seem awfully limited by the times they were written in, and I don't think I would care to spend time trying to figure out what the Bible says about cloning, or genetic engineering.  It has nothing to say about what it knew nothing about.  Although there are probably busloads of theologians who'd disagree...

I enjoyed reading this article and look forward to read the others too.

As I enjoyed your response... Though I probably didn't answer your questions...

Take care my Old fruit cake ! :-)

God Bless
Jameel

& From Mr. Mahdi: "The Proof is in the Pudding!" Or the Egg Salad... 6/2/99

As salaam 'ala man ittba'a al-huda,

As salaam 'ala man ittba'a ad-daleel, who sees that there are multitudes who wish to guide, but few who wish to offer evidence.

"Sadiqi, it seems by your name and website that you are an atheist."

Handsome, debonair, and a good dancer to boot. Okay, now for the truth: that's a label dependent upon who's doing the labeling. Yes, to you I'm an atheist. (Woody: "To God I'm just the loyal opposition.") To me, I'm an agnostic who's atheist with respect to the religions of Abraham. And more, if you aren't opposed to me being something other than a two-dimensional caricature.

"Atheism it the easiest belief to refute for the simple fact it that atheism is based on rebellion from religion not on actual facts. "

Personally, I would think the belief easiest to refute in this day and age would be that the world is flat (Actually, it depends on with whom you speak...). Oxymoronically (instead of my usual moronically), as Atheism is based on unactual facts, I welcome the actual facts that are, in fact, not unactual.

"First of all, religion can not prove or refute the existence of God.  Creation is the greatest proof.  Atheism use the wrong tool for the job, hence, they will get the answers.  The issue of whether or not we were created by a Creator should be discussed on whether or not there is a Creator.  Religion is this case is totally irrelevant.  A tangible proof like Creation or the Quran is what should be considered in a discussion regarding the existence of God."

I may be elitist, but I don't think the average human being is capable of comprehending the relevant information with regards to Creation. They are only in possession of the "tools" to let themselves be indoctrinated- to become "tools" themselves.

I for one, would have trouble digesting a biochemistry textbook, let alone deciding from that I should conclude there is a God out there. In the Enlightenment there were some people who would agree with you I suppose, the Deists, but I don't hear much about them nowadays...

I see circular reasoning rearing its ugly head, in that the words "Creation," "Created," and then "Creator" are utilized. I am not sure how one could know that being hadn't always been in existence. It seems our language and limited minds can get the better of us when we gaze out into infinity for answers.

"For some reason, the main reason why people become atheist is because they beleive that the best way to get back at religion is to deny the existence of a Creator.  These atheists for some reason think that God and religion are the same thing."

I don't think that such a "main" reason exists. As far as "getting back at religion" is concerned, I think it an oversimplification and generalization. I for one, struggled for years to keep my belief in God. I don't know, I suppose I'm a "just gotta beeleeve" washout.

"As for those who believe that science can prove the non-existence of God, think again. "

I agree with you. Science can't prove the non-existence of the Almighty Snuffalufigus, and the co-quasi-redemptrix Barney Mujaheed, in whom he was incarnated as both dinosaur and mammoth, whom he sent to fill the world with snuggles and snuffles.

There is a maxim: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on theism. If we don't use this maxim as a method, then we might as well believe in anything that walks by, because there is no shortage of claims that would better belong in the pages of the Weekly World-Wide News.

"No God means a non-existence of an entity, which mean nothing.  If you understand the reality of atheism, it really says that nothing equals something. "

I don't think anyone who has given a fair hearing to both sides would think it that simple- so simple, that the countering views about the fundamental riddles of existence are presented as arithmetic. The reality you espouse is your reality, how you view non-belief.

God means the existence of everything, which means something. Yet that something means nothing in comparison to that everything, from which everything else and nothing flows.

"This means that nothing is what is behind the existence of Creation.  We came about as a product of chance. "

Product or quotient, divisor or numerand? It depends upon what level we are speaking, natural selection is not exactly chance.

On that note, congenital birth defects, Huntington's Chorea, sickle-cell anemia, and Down's syndrome are the most magnificent works of the Creator. His creation of viruses like Ebola come in a close second.

I must ask of the creator- whose side are you on anyways?

"There is no empirical evidence to prove that nothing can equal something, if nothing means something that doesnt exist, how can nothing cause or create the existence of something?  Also laws of the universe exists. These laws are intangible, and can not be created by a materialistic evolution. "

Well, I've begged God time and time again to change the fundamental "laws" of the universe, so I could beat the deadline, so that a loved one wouldn't die, so that the world would be at peace.... So that a super-model with a genius level IQ out there has a predilection for geeks, and I happen to meet her at my next Star Trek convention, and she agrees to be consigned to the gender roles of the Ferangi...on that note enough of my twisted mind.

Which brings me to the topic of other intangibles, for I am reminded of a hadith where Muhammad says the people will ask eventually, "Who created God?" The answer for those in the know: B-O-B. Bob. Bob sculpted God to sculpt the laws of the universe. "Who created Bob?" Shayk Khalid. "Who created Shayk Khalid..." Deng Xiou obviously, it's so evident from the creation that he and he alone was the original emanation from the godhead.

"If evolution was a fact, how does a materialistic interpretation of creation explain the existence of laws and processes that are not material? "

Laws and processes are of human construction, models of how the world we observe works. They are not the tangible thing itself, but that doesn't make them supernatural. They are mental simulacra of reality.

"Evolution itself is a process, and a process is an intagible reality.  Where did the process of evolution come from?  You cant say nothing because nothing can not cause or create something because nothing doesnt exist.  Also, saying that the universe is eternal is also incorrect.  The universe is limited, every single entity has definable attributes that are limited.  If there was no Creator, who or what imposed limitation and definable attributes on these entities?  Again, nothing and chance?  Nothing doesnt cause are create anything and chance doesnt set definable attributes and create laws and process that are systematic. Things that are systematic are not a product of chance, there is not empirical evidence to prove that."

I'm speechless. When God was handing out brains, he probably gave me one of those defective models labeled "kufr." I just don't know when God will start implementing a quality control programme. But just like some auto-makers he doesn't seem to care if his defective manufacturing causes billions of his products to catch fire and burn.

Or we just found the St. Aquinas of Islam...

"And to conclude, as I has said before, atheism is based in rebellion from religion.  Atheists use atheism as an excuse to not believe in something.  We need to understand the true nature of atheism and we should try our best in inviting to Islam the system of life in accordance to Quran and Sunnah."

To conclude, maybe I didn't answer the rhetorical questions, but I wonder if the questions presume too much about nature and the supernatural to make sense to anyone but the people sharing the same presumptions.

As far as atheists believing in nothing, I've seen nothing to suggest that this is the case. Whether it be humanitarianism, rationalism, or politics, many atheists are likely to believe in a great deal of things, just as theists. Less of course my suspicions that they are all evil alien invaders from the planet Xebulon are correct, in which case the veneer of normalcy is but a small part of their plot to subjugate the world and make everyone believe in nothing- so that they will all rot in H E L L FOREVER~!!!

Or then again maybe they just want what about all of us want or would claim to want: peace, love, and happiness.