Responding to Atheists – A Collection of Posts & Comments

as salam `alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

Recently, (perhaps due to the “Foundations of the Religion” article) there was a heavy influx of atheists to the blog and various comments made by them. We made several posts dealing with several atheist claims and assertions, as well as some very useful responses to them in the comments. Hereunder, I have gathered all the posts related to atheists contentions, so that one can find them easily, bi idhnillah.

The Foundations of the Religion – If an atheist wishes to engage us, he or she may do so first by deconstructing all the arguments presented in this article, including the argument via the negation of an infinite regression. If they can’t (and they most certainly can’t) then there is no use even talking to them.

Someone Asked, “Is there a place for human accountability in Islamic beliefs?” – This is the age old free will versus predestination type argument that atheists try to use against religious folk. If they can’t attack the existence of God, they tackles this aspect next. Suffices to say that unless they can’t accept the completely rational arguments presented in the link above, then they will not likely get this either.

Someone Asked, “How do random things relate to the existence of God?”

Randomness and Infinity

Someone Asked, “Is Islam falsifiable?”

The above three links deal with science and religion.

Deviant Contention: Is there a flaw in the proof for the existence of Allah? – This was someone who apparently attempted to find a flaw in the negation of the infinite regression. A background in potential and actual infinities would be helpful in understanding this.

Someone asked, “If God is perfect, then why certain things, for example, the eye, imperfect?” – Apparently an attack on the argument by design.

Moderating Idiocy – A detailed account of some verbal atheistic acrobatics.

Some comments made on this blog that may help deal with this “complex stupidity” that we call atheism:

On Free Will & Predestination

On Atheist Acrobatics

On Beginning with an Unfounded Premise

There are probably more comments littered across the blog. Be sure to read thoroughly.

jazak allahu khayran

Ibn Mazhar




3 Responses to Responding to Atheists – A Collection of Posts & Comments

  1. loveProphet says:

    Hilarious, i’ve never seen atheists whooped this much in my life such that they cowered big time.

  2. ned says:

    I’ll have to apologize for intruding on this blog as it’s not my place to interfere in your beliefs.

    However, since I commented a bit angrily on some previous posts, to clarify, I’m not an atheist. I follow a spiritual teacher from India. You have to add one more category you’ll have to argue against at some point, and this is going to be quite hard: people who believe in the Divine and have even had experiences of the Divine, but have no attachment to organized religions. It’s these people, imo, who will lead us to the future — the age of organized religion is coming to an end.

    But let me explain why I had an emotional reaction on finding this blog. I found the tone of this blog so arrogant that I was extremely put off by it. You all act like you know exactly what the Divine is and what the Divine’s will is. From my perspective, this is just typical human hubris. Human perceptions are extremely fallible. If you study human nature with any sincerity at all you can’t possibly miss that. By contrast whenever I have met someone who is truly spiritual and has an awareness of the living Divine Presence, he or she has always struck me as being incredibly humble, compassionate and loving.

    I won’t be returning to this blog again. Good luck.

  3. Ibn Mazhar says:

    I shall try to respond to Ned’s comments as much as I possibly can, insha Allah.

    If seeing things as they are, is “arrogance” then I’d rather be “arrogant” than involve myself in some half-baked so called “divine experience” that ignores seeing things as they really are. I always thought that such experiences enable one to see the reality of things. If they are going to prevent me from doing that, then I’d rather not have such an experience after all.

    There are several things one could say about such “spiritual experiences”

    Firstly, they’re subjective. How can one arrive at the truth with something as subjective as that? The Sufis of Islam have spiritual experiences. The Yogis of Hinduism have spiritual experiences. The Catholic Saints have always bordered on heresy (from Catholicism) because of their spiritual experiences. Kabala has its own flavor. Yet, all of them interpret their spiritual experiences according to their pre-conceived notions and the experience is merely a validation of what they already believe to be true. Does this leave any doubt that one cannot ascertain the truth through spiritual experiences alone? One must first ascertain the truth through one’s God-given ability, called the intellect. Then one must practice the truth that one arrives at. And then one must attain the Ma’rifah that the Sufis speak of, through that practice. And as has been presented on this site, Islam is the only truth that can be arrived at via the intellect. If you’re in doubt, then try to dissect the evidence, and prove us wrong.

    Secondly, you’re following someone from India. If you’re so concerned about so called divine experiences being independent of organized religion, you’re no different from us in that you follow someone’s teaching too. How is following an organized religion different from following some random “baba” from India? So called “divine experiences” necessarily entail following the guidance of someone, be he independent of an organized religion, or not. By attaching yourself to the guidance of someone else, you’re pretty much doing exactly what you’re asking us to avoid. Is that fair?

    Thirdly, the age of organized religion is not coming to an end. Look at America and how many Evangelists you find there. Perhaps Europe is suffering from an existential crisis, but that is compensated by the immense Evangelical following one finds in the United States. Take a look at Canada where several denominations of the Christian religion exist and thrive. If the age of organized religion coming to end, then how do you explain this swelling in the numbers of the followers of these religions, despite the direct militant onslaught of atheism?

    Fourthly, independent spiritualists have always existed, and perhaps may continue to exist. Your claim that they are “leading to the future” is rather vague. As always, we’re not interested in vague expressions like this, but in anything that helps us arrive at the truth and makes us see the reality of things. Whether that reality forces us to become seen as progressive, regressive, arrogant or stagnant, we do not really care. We must see things as they really are.

    Now I’ll turn to some other comments you made.

    You said: “You all act like you know exactly what the Divine is and what the Divine’s will is.”

    I don’t think anyone on this blog ever claimed knowing what Allah is. That is against our prerogative. We do not investigate the “self” of Allah (other people use the words “essence” or “nature,” which in our view are inappropriate expressions). The reality of Allah Himself is beyond any human understanding. What we do show is that Allah must exist and what He must necessarily be attributed with, without any attempts to comprehend their reality. You’ll be hard pressed to find on this site any discussion on the “self” of Allah.

    You said: “By contrast whenever I have met someone who is truly spiritual and has an awareness of the living Divine Presence, he or she has always struck me as being incredibly humble, compassionate and loving.”

    Humility is a good thing. However, if humility, in your dictionary, means compromising the truth, then this is surely a false humility. When one is right then it is false humility not to be candid about it. False humility is also a tool that people like your “baba” use to cover up the fact that they have no real objective proof for what they say. On the other hand, being candid about the truth when you know that you will be exposed to harsh criticism, ridicule and even violence shows true humility. Such is the humility of the Prophets. For the truth requires us to see things as they really are and respond to each circumstance accordingly. If one is going to respond to each circumstance with a false humility wherein one says, “Who am I to say this is right,” then moral chaos will ensue.

    Besides, how are we even sure that a man who is displaying humility as actually being sincere in it? Moreover, is it not arrogance on your part to simply assume that someone is what you call “aware of the living Divine Presence” and then that such people are necessarily “compassionate” and “loving”, whatever that is supposed to mean? This is nothing but subjectivity on your part.

    If our search for the truth begins with any subjective “spiritual experience” we are necessarily deluding ourselves, simply because we’re allowing our ideas to be subjectively defined. For example, first you started without a definition of what a “divine experience” is or what it entails. Then you say that we must base ourselves on this “divine experience,” without proving such a link. On top of that you say that perceptions are highly fallible, yet you base your own beliefs on perceptions of what cannot even be observed objectively – so called “spiritual experiences,” which in many cases are no more than wishful thinking or hallucinations. If this isn’t pure folly (and indeed arrogance), then I do not know what is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: