From: johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: A Reply to "Sources of 'Real' Atheism"
Reply-To: johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:17:52 GMT

In article 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:
>>> 
>>> 	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.

This is ->one<- of the things we were discussing on this
thread, but not the only one. (It happens to be one which
doesn't seem terribly relevant to anything to me...)

>>> 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.

This communications something, I should hope.

>	A woman may sending divorice papers to her husband.

This accomplishes something, no? Im not very familiar
with divorce law tho.

>	Point being you can always see the benefits/downfalls
>	of things.

Well, I can always try. :)

>	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).

I'd prefer to spell it correctly. :). What's the Sunnah, exactly? Annother
book, sounds like.

>	By rights,
>	I do mean freedom of speech and by responsibility I also mean
>	a controlled freedom.

Gotcha. That's what I wanted to know.

>	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.

Ok. Is this "taught not to speak..." business just teaching yer
kids good manners, or are we talking about An Official Holy Rule?

That is, do you burn in Hell (or what have you; as you can see
I know little about Islam. Hence all the questions.) for saying bad
things about other people's faith?

>	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.

What if the Tacktarians considered your (acceptable to you) scholarly
discourse to be an Insult to the Most Hairy One? Whose call is it?

>	Why? Simply because they 
>	in turn may speak bad of God (Allah) unknowingly and sin. 

I dont follow this... you CAN'T speak bad of Tackta because they
CAN speak bad of Allah, though in so doing they sin? Is that
what you are saying? If so, I don't follow big time.

>	There is a multi-fold purpose of respecting each other's 
>	beliefs, protecting one's belief, and protecting others from sin. 

Respecting other's beliefs, I agree, is basicaly good. Protecting
one's own beliefs can be good or bad depending on the measures used.
Protection others from sin sounds like a bit much. Remember, not everyone
agrees about what is sin, or even if it is meaningful. They believe
themselves right every bit as much as you do.

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

Im still not clear on whether this means "you have rights, but they
are strongly curtailed by obligations to follow certain rules" or
"you have rights, but you should know to control your use of them"

>>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.

Hmmm. Ok, its not clear to me what it would mean to implement Islam;
particularly how this coudl be done WITHOUT oppression. (I don't see
any way to implement ANY religion without oppression of other
religions); Perhaps you mean the part of Islam relevant to government?
THAT might be possible.

>	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.)

That's rather interesting. Egypt did NOT take the land that was offered?
Hmm. Does an "Islamic State" need more than just a (True) Islamic Leader?

>>> 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?

Yes, its clear. It tells me you don't understand atheists too well.
Atheism is only a small part of what an Atheist believes (or rather,
does not believe).

We do not define ourselves that way any more than you define yourself
as being 6 feet tall.

That you should go so far as to define yourself based on your
religious beliefs strikes me as dubious. I bet you are yourself
first, Muslim second.

>	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?

We ->are< aunicronists- most of us- but nobody cares! There's no POINT
it calling ourselves that. It is a matter of course. In annother age,
it might not be. Who knows?

As to why "atheist" instead of something else.. heck, why not? It rolls
of the tounge good.

>	Isn't it because there is something specific in the atheist
>	form of unbelief?

No; Atheism itselve is very vague.

>	I mean to say, if I don't believe in unicorns I just don't
>	address them.

We have no choice but to address the theism thing; we are surrounded
by theists and their influence. In the U.S. we have "In God We Trust"
on all the coins. We have a president who thinks that if you don't
believe in God, you can't be a patriot or a citizen. (not for long
now, but still). There's pressure to have organized prayer in schools,
and to teach Genesis as literal scientific fact.

Can we ignore this? Even naming ourselves "atheist" does something;
Remember that walking down the street we look like any joe theist.
People who see us tend to assume that we are just ordinary blokes-
here, that means Christians. The more we separate ourselves out,
the more  Joe Public will realize that not everyone does believe.
If Joe knows his best friend is an Atheist, maybe he'll think twice
about supporting a theistic agenda.

We'd call ourselves aunicornists if there was a Universial Unicornicide
Bill about to be passed. :)

>	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?

Well, it's also fun to argue the point. There are no doubt atheists
who do NOT feel this way, but they aren't argueing with you. You
probably have seen some; you just didn't know it.

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

Well, thanx for the information about Islam.
But as for me, this God of yours will actualy have to get up and
STOP me if he doesn't want me to answer your next post. His desire
in this matters little to me. :)

Dang, now where'd I leave that lightning rod...


---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.