From: acsormd@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A Reply to "Sources of 'Real' Atheism"
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:41:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <v-m1_r@rpi.edu>, johnsd2@jec306.its.rpi.edu.its1 writes...
>In article 6ro@acsu.buffalo.edu, acsormd@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond) writes:
>> 
>> 	In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful...
> 
>Personally, I dont think you need to borrow athourity from any
>god to post here. :) But whatever floats your boat.

	It's not a borrow of authority as much as it is a reminder 
	thereof. 

	Anyway...

	...delete... (go look at past post for those who need it)
	
	We were discussing an atheist's (not all athiests) claim
	that religion was not disciplined in nature.

>> Islam demands 5 formal Salah (prayers) a day at different intervals of
>> the day with intense concentration. In the month of Ramadan, according to 
>> the Islamic calendar, muslims must fast from sun-up to sun-down. These two 
>> practices indeed require discipline.
> 
>Certainly. But it seems to be they are busywork. They accomplish
>nothing that I can see, anyway.

	Giving flowers to my wife accomplishes nothing that I can
	see. A woman may sending divorice papers to her husband.
	Point being you can always see the benefits/downfalls
	of things.

	continuing...	

>> There are rights of Allah (God)
>> rights of muslims, neighbors, relatives, and humanity (not necessarily in
>> that order). There are also personal rights and responsibilities. All
>> these rights are described in full through Islam (which means submission)
>> and must be strived for. What these rights entail is not the point of this 
>> post. We are only illustrating the relevence of Islam to the above point.
> 
>You haven't demonstrated it to me, yet. "Islam" describes these
>rights, you say. What do you mean by "Islam"? Do you mean your
>holy book, the Koran (or is it Quran? There seem to be various spellings,
>and I dont know which is right) says this? Or is it a tradition? Is
>it really rights, in the same sence as "right of free speach" or
>are we talking about rules (as in "Thou Shalt Not Kill")? Each can be
>expressed in terms of the other (approximately); how does Islam express it?

	Islam is actually a "way of life". In terms of 'scripture', Islam
	is based on the Qur'an (spell it anyway you feel comfortable) and
	Sunnah (i.e. practices and sayings of Muhammad). By rights,
	I do mean freedom of speech and by responsibility I also mean
	a controlled freedom. Muslims are taught not to speak wrongly
	or degradingly towards other peoples or other faiths. This is 
	just not allowed. Yet a scholarly study of other faiths is 
	acceptable to base a view about those faiths.

	I think this point can be better shown through an example.
	Let's say I believe Trackta (I made this up), the hair god,
	is unfounded to be true in my mind. Thought I could give a
	discourse in why I find this Trackta to be false, I could not 
	speak bad of the Tracktarian's god. Why? Simply because they 
	in turn may speak bad of God (Allah) unknowingly and sin. 
	There is a multi-fold purpose of respecting each other's 
	beliefs, protecting one's belief, and protecting others from sin. 

	There is then a discipline here with the full application of
	the right with responsibility, and that is what Islam teaches.

>And what ARE these rights? Certainly the self-proclaimed Islamic states
>in the middle-east don't impress me much with their morality, anyway.
>I understand these aren't 'real' Islamic states- but if they are not,
>what is?

	An Islamic state follows Islam. So long as the governments
	of so-called states oppress and do not impliment Islam, it is
	not an Islamic state.

	Perhaps Sudan is on its way. I had heard (and therefore I do
	not claim this is 100% accurate) that the leader is a practicing
	muslim who also fasts on Mondays and Thursdays like Muhammad did. 
	I guess Egypt felt that part of Sudan belonged to them so a
	threat of military takeover of said land by Egypt was delivered.
	The leader of Sudan sent the message back that Egypt could just 
	take the land because Egyptians were Sudanese's brothers.
	There was no military action and the land remained Sudan's.
	(Again I just heard this from someone without a independent
	source to varify, but it is an example of how an Islamic leader
	may work.)

>> On the point addressing religion as a sign of a sick person. Who is 
>> more sick the one who believes something or the one who defines his
>> belief on a counter belief of the one who holds a belief?
> 
>That's a nice general phrasing. Let me put some specifics to it, and
>see if you still buy this position. If I may plagaurise from a previous
>article, lets define "unicornist" as someone who believes in
>invisible pink unicorns dancing in his walls. Therefore, an aunicornist
>is one who does not so believe. That's nice and parallel with the
>theist=one who believes in god(s), and atheist=one who does not believe
>in god(s).
> 
>So, who is sicker, the unicornist or the aunicornist?

	I disagree with this analogy not because it doesn't make your
	point but because my lack of belief in unicorns is not relevent
	to define myself where as I see atheist defining themselves
	with the unbelief belief. Is that clear? Let me reword it for
	further clarity. I define myself as a believer in God. An 
	athiest, by the nature of this term if he/she assumes it, 
	defines himself on his lack of my belief. Why the assumption
	of the term athiest? Why not another term? Why not aunicornist?
	Isn't it because there is something specific in the atheist
	form of unbelief?

	I mean to say, if I don't believe in unicorns I just don't
	address them. I do not define myself by them. So shouldn't
	the atheist just not concern him/herself with the atheist/theist
	arguements if he does not believe?

	I'll try to answer the rest of the post later, God willing.
	Thanks for the friendly exchange.

Ismail
Newsgroups: alt.atheism