Home > Atheism, Dawah (For Non-Muslims), God, Hamza Andreas Tzortzis > Islam or Atheism: Which one makes more sense? [+ Q&A]

Islam or Atheism: Which one makes more sense? [+ Q&A]

Our minds are assailed by a plethora of competing ideologies that lay claim to our acceptance. An ideas faithfulness to objectivity and rationality is the measuring stick to its reality.

We attempt to address two divergent modes of thinking, each of which claim to appeal to our rationality : atheism and Islam. Islam being the epitome of a monotheistic faith that professes itself as a way of life, we thought would be a good test subject to be compared to the supposed-by-some rational appeal of atheism. Which one makes more sense? You decide!

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis is an international public speaker on Islam. He is a writer with articles, essays and commentaries on political philosophy, the philosophy of religion and society. Hamza is an intellectual activist actively engaging on issues pertaining to religion, social cohesion and politics. Hamza is also a researcher with a recent publication on non-Muslim perceptions on Islam and Muslims.

Play Full Playlist- Click Here

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

  1. loneliberalpk
    January 24, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    Too often have I seen theists simply throwing a bunch of videos at the faces of their opponents, without understanding a word of it themselves! It simply shows that one’s allowing his/her theistic heroes (Naik, Yahya, Tzortis etc) to do their thinking and talking on their behalf.

    It would behoove your visitors if you could provide a summary of Tzortis’s arguments in your own words. Most people would never watch an entire lecture unless they have some idea of what they’re supposed to be watching and how weighty the arguments are going to be.

    • January 24, 2011 at 10:34 pm

      Im sorry but I dont have the time to type up all the points he made in the lecture. But heres a brief outline of the topics discussed:
      1. Rational basis for the existence of God, those who deny this are being irrational
      2. Proving the Quran is indeed from God
      3. that Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him) is a True Prophet of God
      4. the talk is followed by an extended Q&A session with the atheist/humanist guests who were unable to disprove any of the conclusions reached.

      Take some time and watch the lecture. It could change your life. : )

  2. loneliberalpk
    January 25, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    1) The example from the sinking ship and the movie “Unthinkable” made no sense. Firstly, the argument itself is non sequitur because all not ALL Atheists would agree to chug 30 people off the boat, and not ALL Muslims would choose not to. Even still, in this argument..

    Atheist saves 270 human souls
    Muslim saves 0 human souls

    Needless to say, I’ll go with Atheism because it deals in logic, not sentiments. If the other videos are going to be the same as this, then I’m hesitant to view them.

    Don’t get me wrong! I would love to listen to the theistic side of the debate (which I often do, and many like William Craig, put up a decent argument), but I’m not going to waste time on a cocktail of red herrings, non-sequiturs and ignominious exploitation of argumentum ad ignorantium.

    • January 27, 2011 at 5:45 pm

      The example you mentioned is just the introduction to the analysis- it does not form the basis of the Islamic argument. The argument presented in the lecture is based on using rational deduction to make sense of the world around us, as this is what Allah commands us in the Quran, and by doing that we arrive at the conclusion of the Islamic world view. The speaker himself is a former humanist.

      And just to clarify somethings you said:

      “not ALL Atheists would agree to chug 30 people off the boat, and not ALL Muslims would choose not to.”
      The issue being discussed is not what people would do, we are looking at what world view each system / philosophy projects and what its based on. Thats why we need to distinguish between Muslims and Islam. Islam is perfect, Muslims are not. Similarly the atheistic world view is one of arrogance but Im sure there are many atheists who are humble.

      “Atheist saves 270 human souls
      Muslim saves 0 human souls”
      Atheist would murder 30 innocent people.
      Ideally Muslims would let nature run its course, if its written in destiny (Qadr) that 300 people would die then that will happen and if its written that they will all survive then that will happen. Murdering 30 inncoent people will not make any difference.

  3. loneliberalpk
    January 28, 2011 at 11:57 am

    “Incorrect. Atheist would murder 30 innocent people”

    Not exactly. If you’re keen on letting nature run its course, demolish all the hospitals and jettison all safety gear from aircrafts and ships. If you see a child drowning in the sea, don’t risk your life to save him…because if you die, you’d have killed one innocent man in an attempt to hinder nature’s course!

    Human race has survived this far by actively intervening with the course of nature. By ridding ourselves of the diseases it inflicts upon us, rescuing ourselves from the disasters it sends our way, defying gravity with aircrafts and crossing terrains that nature would not allow us to.

    Choosing to let 270 people drown to death despite your ability to save them is a crime greater than allowing 30 people to die for the greater good.

    • January 29, 2011 at 12:00 am

      Building hospitals, using and researching medicine is permissable (halal) and infact encouraged. Whereas murder is prohibited (haram). Theres a world of difference between the two scenarios.

      This is an issue that even your fellow atheist intellectuals cant seem to agree over. See the lecture “Moral Side of Murder | Harvard University” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY
      That Harvard lecture is a clear demonstration that atheists follow nothing but baseless conjecture (and Allah mentions this in the Quran- see my next post).

      The reality is that atheists have no basis for morals as morals require external guidance.

      Ask yourself what do you base your morals on? How do you know what is right or wrong? Most atheists argue that morals are based on the society around us, so if a society deems something acceptable then its acceptable- this is the system used in here in the West. But that then creates bigger problems for its proponents, as it means that the Nazi’s who carried out the holocaust which involved murdering millions of people was ‘morally correct’. Nazi society agreed that that was the right thing to do. so if morals are to be based on society then you would have to accept that. But nobody would accept it. This is because the truth is that morals are not based on society- they are based on guidance from the Creator. You accepting or rejecting guidance from your Creator does not in any way change the fact that He is your Creator and that He has sent down Guidance to show us the way to live our lives.

    • January 29, 2011 at 12:10 am

      My last comment. Watch the lecture and read the literature in the resources for non-Muslims section. I believe theres enough material there for anyone who is sincere.

      Heres the reference to the Quran that I refered to in the previous post.

      Surat Yunus 10: 33-45

      Muhsin Khan translation

      Thus is the Word of your Lord justified against those who rebel (disobey Allah) that they will not believe (in the Oneness of Allah and in Muhammad SAW as the Messenger of Allah).

      Say: “Is there of your (Allah’s so-called) partners one that originates the creation and then repeats it?” Say: “Allah originates the creation and then He repeats it. Then how are you deluded away (from the truth)?”

      Say: “Is there of your (Allah’s so-called) partners one that guides to the truth?” Say: “It is Allah Who guides to the truth. Is then He, Who gives guidance to the truth, more worthy to be followed, or he who finds not guidance (himself) unless he is guided? Then, what is the matter with you? How judge you?”

      And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth. Surely, Allah is All-Aware of what they do.

      And this Quran is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah (Lord of the heavens and the earth), but it is a confirmation of (the revelation)which was before it [i.e. the Taurat (Torah), and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.], and a full explanation of the Book (i.e. laws and orders, etc, decreed for mankind) – wherein there is no doubt from the the Lord of the ‘Alamin (mankind, jinns,and all that exists).

      Or do they say: “He (Muhammad SAW) has forged it?” Say: “Bring then a Surah (chapter) like unto it, and call upon whomsoever you can, besides Allah, if you are truthful!”

      Nay, they deny that; the knowledge whereof they could not compass and whereof the interpretation has not yet come unto them. Thus those before them did deny. Then see what was the end of the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers, etc.)!

      And of them there are some who believe therein, and of them there are some who believe not therein, and your Lord is All-Aware of the Mufsidun (evil-doers, liars, etc.).

      And if they belie you, say: “For me are my deeds and for you are your deeds! You are innocent of what I do, and I am innocent of what you do!”

      And among them are some who listen to you, but can you make the deaf to hear, even though they apprehend not?

      And among them are some who look at you, but can you guide the blind, even though they see not?

      Truly! Allah wrongs not mankind in aught; but mankind wrong themselves.

      And on the Day when He shall gather (resurrect) them together, (it will be) as if they had not stayed (in the life of this world and graves, etc.) but an hour of a day. They will recognise each other. Ruined indeed will be those who denied the meeting with Allah, and were not guided.

  4. loneliberalpk
    January 30, 2011 at 11:39 am

    “The reality is that atheists have no basis for morals as morals require external guidance.”

    Morals are relative to the circumstances we find ourselves in. What may be moral in one situation may not be moral in another. For example, killing a person is clearly wrong. However, killing a crazed gunman who’s shooting random innocent people on the street would be acceptable. In fact, it would be immoral NOT to shoot him.

    By your logic, the sniper shouldn’t kill a suicide bomber despite having a clear shot, even when he knows that the bomber is going to end up killing 50-100 innocent people if not stopped.

    There are no such thing as objective morality. I dislike religion because it hampers people’s ability to think for themselves and arrogantly assume that the moral code of the 7th century will apply perfectly to the 21st, despite the complete change in our situation.

    We are defined by our ability to morph and adapt to our changing environments. That’s how we have survived the test of nature so far and evolved to what we are now. Religion, though it catalyzed mankind’s moral evolution at one point, has outlived its usefulness and is simply anchoring us to a time period we’ve flown past.

    • Mohamad
      June 10, 2012 at 10:25 am

      The fact is, killing 30 people would yes, let 270 survive, but If a here-after exists where we will all come back to life and death will never occur after that (to a human being)

      Then why would I murder 30? Rather I’d pray to Allah to survive and I would try looking for an alternative method.

      If I do not, then my time on earth ends? but If you truly believe in a hereafter then that should not matter to you unless you are a infidel (one without faith) or rather one who truth has been revealed to him/her yet denies it because it disagrees with his desire and he is weak to the whispers of the shayton.

      honestly, I’ll take off my clothes and throw it into the ocean, after which I would throw my luggage, and If that doesn’t suffice I would attempt to swim back to the nearest shore. but I would not force any of the 300 people to their deaths, If the volunteer not to die but to at least try to survive by swimming for as long as they can towards what they believe is the closest land then that would be the morally right thing to do.

      So, Yes and No, If it saves 270 people yet only 20 are willing to risk their lives then I’d rather accept fate then kill the other 10 people.

  5. loneliberalpk
    January 30, 2011 at 11:50 am

    “Nazi’s who carried out the holocaust which involved murdering millions of people was ‘morally correct’”

    You’re speaking of a fascist party that was adjudicating matters across the board, without any accountability. That is not true for democratic systems, where laws are made to protect citizens from such disasters.

    Just like a person who is stoning a 13-year old girl to death will find the practice “morally correct”, thanks to his religious convictions, will need to be guided to the right path not by a blind believer (because religion happens to be the problem here), but by a logical mind that recognizes that the 7th century has long past and their moral codes no longer apply to our time.

    By the way, I don’t believe in the Quran, so I can’t be swayed by evangelical arguments.

  6. February 3, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    Read up on the history of the rise of Nazism. They enjoyed popular support, hence their actions were representative of what society believed should be done. So your belief that morals are based on the circumstances prevailing in society is incorrect. There is a need for objective morality as there are many things that are fundamentally wrong.

  1. January 29, 2011 at 1:04 am

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: