v197- 201:

Is it not a Sign to them that the Learned of the Children of Israel knew it (as true)? Had We revealed it to any of the non-Arabs, And had he recited it to them, they would not have believed in it. Thus have We caused it to enter the hearts of the sinners. They will not believe in it until they see the grievous Penalty…

From Maududi’s commentary:

Such were the conditions when this Surah was revealed. It begins with words of consolation to the Holy Prophet, implying, “Why do you fret for their sake?If these people have not believed in you, it is not because they have not seen any Sign, but because they are obdurate. They will not listen to reason they want to see a Sign which makes them bow their heads in humility. When this Sign is shown in due course of time, they will themselves realize that what was being presented to them was the Truth.

Deep down, we know Islam is true, if only we could be honest and admit it. But we are willfully rejecting Allah and his messenger because we are prideful and stubborn. We therefore have no excuse, and deserve the Hell that awaits us.

Linguistics and etymology. Denotative definition being strictly literal. Connotative definition, connotation, is the common tongue. Slang if you like. Swell can mean nifty or inflamed. Progressive can mean advancing. It can also mean Socialist / Communist. The idea here being the dangers of what Orwell called Newspeak in his 1984.

The point I sought to communicate wasn’t quite so devious or complicated. Some now claiming to pushing an atheistic in the courts (not here) are merely co-opting the term to lobby for restrictions of believers expressions of faith. Evangelists of non-faith as it were. The way the Soviets did it was to make all the churches state museums to reduce any diversion from government knowing what is best. Most can probably see how removal of nativity scenes constitutes a para-Constitutional limitation on free religious expression instead of simply not deciding to believe the content of the symbols. So there’s a point at which a word defining a group can often become co-opted by an activist element to mean more than simply a non-believer. What I’m suggesting is to watch for and be aware of the transitions from thought to advocacy to restriction to code while the word stays the same. Lenin was a master of it. The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals often tries it under a guise of protecting diversity (another co-opted code-word) or political correctness but typically gets smacked down.

Some of my post may have been truncated while editing it and I won’t be able to review it at this late hour. In any case my second paragraph above is the intended content.

The denotative definition of Atheism is the individual not believing. Nowadays when there exist political action committees of self-proclaimed atheists seeking to deny the free expression of believers and their rituals, effigies, and texts.
viking01 on May 26, 2008 at 6:14 PM

“Denotative definition?” OK, I have absolutely no way of guessing what you think that term means.

…At any rate, you can feel perfectly free to call yourself any sound you can make with your mouth. But what you expressed in your first sentence (before you negated it in your second sentence) is not a USEABLE definition in terms of communicating with other people.

If someone is not particularly religious, then he would simply refer to himself as “not particularly religious.” Another (and infinitely more likely) option is that he could simply refrain from theological argument altogether. Or, if he wanted to say precisely the same thing, but be a pretentious twat about it, he can always refer to himself as “agnostic.”

But, of course, the word Atheist doesn’t mean that. It is a different word (hence, the different letters and arrangement thereof.) What the word Atheist means to DENY the existence of God.

I suppose you could say that some people (none of whom have posted in this thread) are – I don’t know – maybe “introverted Atheists,” who sit in their basements and quietly disbelieve in everything without pestering innocent people about it.

And if so, then the folks you refer to in your second sentence (along with some of the people who’ve posted in this thread) would have to be described as “practicing Atheists.”

But that distinction isn’t really necessary, because it’s hard to imagine why anyone would have to refer to non-proselytizing Atheists at all. So there’s no problem with lumping them all together, as there is no chance that could ever result in anyone being unfairly attacked.

The ‘improved’ version of the argument you cite is no better. The probability arguments put forward are poorly conceived and based on much unverified data and poorly understood physics. I could play an equivalent game and say that the probability of humans evolving on Earth is one, since we are here. So the question is not could it happen, it did, but how. Whether intelligent life exists elsewhere is currently unknown. If E.T. showed up at our front door we would have an immediate answer. If not we could look for life elsewhere but we could never know for sure that it did not exist until all possibilities will have been checked.

The statements about ‘something from nothing,, Nothing from nothing,’order implying design’ usually indicate that one has closed down an argument before examining all the possibilities.The big bang is one scenario where theologians lurking in the bush ask about what happened before or about that dimensionless point with infinite mass. Our limited senses only allow us to perceive a three dimensional space sliding along a time line whereas current physical theories place us in an 11 dimensional universe. So that nothing you worry about has 7 dimensions to roam around in masquerading as something. So don’t worry, modern physics is nowhere near postulating creation ex-nihilo.

We perceive the universe as ordered since we are part of it. This is almost a condition for us to remain sane and is certainly necessary for survival. This perceived order does not imply that there is a creator. In any event, if there were some super creator entity would still be legitimate to ask who or what created the creator. The usual answer about god always existing does not suffice since the universe could also have always existed without this add on.

The denotative definition of Atheism is the individual not believing. Nowadays when there exist political action committees of self-proclaimed atheists seeking to deny the free expression of believers and their rituals, effigies, and texts. Whether to define such as an organized cult or assembly may be difficult to do therefore political action committee or secularist lobbying group may be the closest denotation. It may have no ritual to speak of besides seeking to limit the rituals of others. It can also easily be Marxists cloaking themselves as atheists (to make government their religion) at the expense of atheists whom are otherwise neutral.

I wonder how the Founders would view this. Many were Deists, some were probably agnostic or atheist yet one wonders if they expected activist groups of atheists (or poseurs claiming to be) to seek denial of the free expression by believers. Then again, they probably didn’t expect a Supreme Court to someday reinterpret Eminent Domain in such slovenly fashion or the Ten Commandments to be viewed as a threat. Ben Franklin got it right when asked what form of government our fledgling Congress had chosen: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

In other words: “Atheism means jabbering like an imbecile.” Looks like we’re all in agreement here.

logis on May 26, 2008 at 5:54 PM

If believing that comforts you so be it, but always remember that blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Like, for example, having my 6 year old daughter come home from school and asking me why her little Christian friends told her she was going to burn in hell for all eternity because she had no idea what god is.

Like that.

Jaynie59 on May 25, 2008 at 4:55 PM

Sorry, but kids can be cruel.

I would ask one thing of you – are you sure of yourself? Your children will follow you, wherever you lead.

Absolutely correct. Atheism is simply not believing in the nonexistent or the invisible, both of which “look” remarkably alike.
MB4 on May 26, 2008 at 5:08 PM

In other words: “Atheism means jabbering like an imbecile.” Looks like we’re all in agreement here.

I hope you’re not trying to say that atheism is a religion. That is prima facia nonsense…
Annar on May 26, 2008 at 6:49 AM

Absolutely correct. Atheism is simply not believing in the nonexistent or the invisible, both of which “look” remarkably alike. Atheism is the absence of religion. It is no more a religion than not believing in Bigfoot is a religion.

Thanks for such a great response. I don’t want to seem like I’m coming after you and I think you may have gotten that impression. My point in all of this is as follows:

I would be interested to know if your belief statement about there being no belief statements in a logical argument is or is not a belief statement? I also wonder what you have experienced that is ‘non-real’. That isn’t a sarcastic question but an honest one.

I also wonder if you were familiar with Anselm; I wasn’t trying to fully defend his argument. Hence why I mentioned Antinga’s updated version of it. I know what Hume did and I also know that Kant still believed in God.

I also find it interesting that God believers are accused of making others argue from a negative. “A-Theism” is simply a negation and stating that nothing came from nothing? I understand what you were saying and that is why I wasn’t mocking your beliefs, my simple point was that you have a very convenient straw-man god and I wouldn’t want to worship him/her either.

I hope you’re not trying to say that atheism is a religion. That is prima facia nonsense…
Annar on May 26, 2008 at 6:49 AM

Newsflash, Einstein: Anyone who injects himself into a theological debate is always (at least for the sake of that discussion) “prima facia” religious. And of course declaring yourself The Sole Arbitor Of Universal Reality within that discussion doesn’t make your Edicts any LESS subject to theological critique than everyone else’s. That’s why Atheists are always the ultimate zeolots: the most devout practitioner of any other religion can, in a moment of weakness doubt the existence of God. But no Atheist has ever done that – and none ever will.

Atheism is nothing but the theological version of moral equivalency: “My absolute lack of moral standards gives me absolute authority to condemn the behavior of others.” And by precisely the same token, the Atheist claims an absolute right to the ultimate high ground in every theological discussion into which he interjects his own personal beliefs.

But, as unlikely as it seems, you “unholier than thou” types are actually correct about one thing: your religion does differ in a very tiny (albeit significant) way from all others. The craziest Muslim extremist in the world at least acknowledges that he HAS a beliefs; he just suspects that all the rest of us have been duped by an evil God. But moral relativists sever that one tiny little thread back to objectivity. Your theology maintains that whatever you happen to believe from one moment to the next is by definition “real,” and that everyone who disagrees with you is (again, by definition,) mentally defective.

What you people fail to comprehend is that every belief has SOME degree of merit. For example: a wrongfully executed man returning from the grave in order to forgive his murderers is, admittedly, not a commonly observed event. Likewise, the theory that our ancestors’s spirits return in the form of farm animals has not yet been conclusively proven with absolute scientific certitude. But either of those beliefs – or any one of a hundred others – could form the basis of a very rich spiritual life.

However, the fundamental tenet of the Atheism – that there is no distinction between your belief and reality – isn’t just harmless pontification; it’s the very definition of psychosis.

I guess being in my third year of my Master of Divinity has sheltered me from the fact that people still use the argument that God could be a purple people eater or a yellow pokadotted walrus. (This is in no way insulting you or your point. Strangely I have heard such absurdities postulated in college, surprise, surprise) I understand what you are saying and guess that you have some good reasons to say it. I do wonder though if you have read Saint Anselm’s arguments or for a more modern treatment of the ontological argument, Alvin Plantinga? I’m just trying to help you not create a straw man ‘god’.
brotherbell on May 26, 2008 at 1:09 AM

The purplish point you so readily reject merely states that which should be obvious; proving a negative about an event in the universe is virtually impossible in all but the most circumscribed cases.

St. Anselm’s ontological proof for the existence of god was completely destroyed by Immanuel Kant and David Hume by observing that it contains the unjustified assumption that the real is more perfect than the unreal or that existence is more perfect than non existence; these are belief statements which should have no part in a logical argument. That argument is nonetheless better than those given by St. Thomas Aquinas which are truly vacuous.

A better argument, which plays on both universal and ontological arguments, was given by the Islamic philosopher Avicenna. It too has been refuted but it has served as the basis for many serious modern attempts. One such was published by William S. Hatcher in ‘One Country’ the on line Baha’i news letter, Vol. 10, Issue 2/ July-Sept. 1998. I have a print copy but it should be available on the Baha’i web site.

Good luck in your continuing studies.

It is indeed possible for one to have no religion. If one attempts to trivialize the debate by proclaiming that not having a religion is itself a religion of sorts then you’re playing a non serious word game.

I hope you’re not trying to say that atheism is a religion. That is prima facia nonsense since religion requires the existence of the supernatural in some form which atheists reject. Of course, one can again play around substituting your personal definitions where needed but that is just an indirect way of attacking the integrity of those who don’t agree with you.

And so the besieged victim pretends: Daddy doesn’t really want to hurt me; if I’m a better girl, he’ll stop. Israel pretends: Muslims don’t really want to destroy our state, and so we’ll give them land for peace. Jews in pre-Nazi Europe pretended: The anti-Semites are really right; we deserve a pogrom. Intriguingly, Levin writes:

- Diana West

I would go for something more snappy, like “Mohamed Onward” and “Sans historic Mohamed” – “MO” and “SHMO” for short.

I guess being in my third year of my Master of Divinity has sheltered me from the fact that people still use the argument that God could be a purple people eater or a yellow pokadotted walrus. (This is in no way insulting you or your point. Strangely I have heard such absurdities postulated in college, surprise, surprise) I understand what you are saying and guess that you have some good reasons to say it. I do wonder though if you have read Saint Anselm’s arguments or for a more modern treatment of the ontological argument, Alvin Plantinga? I’m just trying to help you not create a straw man ‘god’.

Concerning the CE/BC issue, I don’t know if I am willing to die on it’s shores. However, I must admit that the argument seems to fall in line with the recent hooplah over flag pin/non-flag pin. I do wonder if by letting little things go here and there just because they seem “small” doesn’t lead to bigger snow balls down the road? Sorry for such a cliche analogy but it works.

Yes, they did. And she also mocked him.

Robert, did poets in pre-Islamic Arab society play a role similar to skalds in Scandinavia or bards in Celtic societies? That is, the keepers of historical memory in a pre-literate society whose knowledge made them very influential with the general public? It makes more sense to me that Muhammad would, for example, have bint Marwan murdered because her words were likely to sway potential followers away from him, and not just that she was a rhymer who mocked him.

Which undermines confidence in the entire “inspiration” of the Recitation (al-Qur’an), since, if one group of “Allah’s word” turned out to “be from the Devil”, who’s to say that they weren’t all equally delusional and demonic?

Poetic justice, I call it.

(But, then logic hasn’t been a vital component of Islam since they over-ruled the Aristotelian influences upon Mohammadism in the early second millennium, and returned it to superstitious irrationalism.)

Islam is getting a bad rap these days, but only SOME of its core beliefs are based on nihilistic deconstructionism. Atheism consists of absolutely nothing else besides that.
logis on May 25, 2008 at 4:18 PM

I’m not sure what you mean. Atheists have nothing to deconstruct.
Annar on May 25, 2008 at 5:47 PM

That you should make at least some tiny little effort to try and understand your own religion before you criticize everyone else’s.

And, since I’ve heard the same sermon a thousand times: OF COURSE you have a religion, you dunce!

Robert Spencer on May 25, 2008 at 5:50 PM

Point understood. Thank you again for continuing this series.