Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A Reply to "Sources of 'Real' Atheism"
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 11 Nov 92 06:36:43 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <BxH35C.K6A@acsu.buffalo.edu>, acsormd@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond) writes:
> 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:
>>> 
>>> 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.

   Yes it does, it has an emotional effect on your wife and 
probably you as well.  Are you saying that the effect of prayers
and fasting is solely an emotional one for the pray-er?

>>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).

   What is your view of the Hadith?  Their origins are highly 
questionable and some directly contradict, in spirit if not in
word, what is said in the Qur'an, especially in the area of 
women's rights.

>>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.

   How does one "implement Islam" without being oppressive?
What exactly do you mean by that?

> 	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.)

   Sudan is a terrible example.  It is one of the most 
repressive countries in Africa.  The Christians and pagans in
the south are fighting a war because of the severe human
rights violations there.  When there was a famine in the 
south a few years ago the Sudanese government refused to 
allow food shipments to the area.

>>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?

   Just because you define yourself by belief in God doesn't 
mean that because an atheist doesn't he defines himself by
lack of belief.  It's not as much of a defining character
for atheists as it is for some theists.

> 	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?

   Because atheists are constantly being bombarded with religious
arguments designed to convert them.  If you constantly encountered
people saying that they had proof for the existence of unicorns,
would you ignore them or argue that they don't exist (or at least
that there is no reason to think they do)?

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"