Should Jews, Christians and Muslims form an alliance against Atheists based upon their mutual love and devotion for the same God, the God of Abraham?

Asked by: Talib.ul-Ilm
Should Jews, Christians and Muslims form an alliance against Atheists based upon their mutual love and devotion for the same God, the God of Abraham?
  • Yes, they should.

    Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship in spirit, the same God of Abraham. The only difference is the Prophets accepted and the some differences in the nature of God.

    Atheists are against the God of Abraham. They are against Jews, Christians and Muslims, against the existence of our God.

    Because we all worship the same God, we should ban together when it comes to battling with Atheists. An alliance of inter-faith for this specific purpose.

  • Yes, I believe they should work together against atheists...

    ...But they should be careful not to become one religion. They all believe in the same one, true God, but if their customs and rituals were all melded into one there would be chaos. However, there is no reason why they shouldn't band together to fight against atheists peacefully, with words as our weapons and truth in our hearts.

    However, this SHOULD NOT turn into violence. That would be unacceptable and against our beliefs.

  • A very good question

    If you have faith in God, if you have faith God is the creator of the universe and author of the bible, if you have faith the bible is the moral guide to humanity. Then you have no choice but to kill all non believers as God commands. But if you think that you know more then God and can pick and chose what is right and wrong then must be an Atheist. Because faith is pretending to know things you don't know. In closing I would like to say god is imaginary. Question everything thank you for the question.

  • Love to see the result.

    I can just picture the first meeting of the minds. Their own theistic U.N. meeting. I would bet they start a religious war over who is in charge. After all, religion has been a key factor in not only wars but many civil actions as well. The Christians have even turned against other Christians in Ireland. When it's done and all the religious people have killed each other, us atheists will be the only ones left. Though we do fight in wars for our country, I would not participate in a religious war. I have no god to kill in the name of.

  • Keep Religion Alive

    One GOD (Yahweh) is gone, so is justice, and the peace and tranquility of GOD (Allah). GOD (O Theos) keeps us humble, and puts in us a desire to do what is right for our fellow human beings. This is why I think that we need GOD because he is real, but his (Spirit) dwells among us, we may not see him, but we do see his power, and his glory and his majesty all around us.

  • If it helps these religions unite and settle their differences then good.

    Most of the hatred and violence that takes place in the world is created as the result of Jews, Muslims and Christians hatred for each other. As an atheist, I am confident enough in my understanding of the universe around me not to care whether one billion Christians tell me I am going to burn in hell or a total of two and half billion Christians, Jews and Muslims gang together to tell me the same thing, I’d rather trust the evidence of scientific research than a collection of ancient superstitious tales.

  • Yes You Should

    The ridiculous part about it is that this alliance will resort to violence to fight atheists. There is no valid evidence for a God, and this will alliance will be as effective as it was individually. You have to present evidence to get a point across, not form random alliances.

  • This advocates utter hypocrisy.

    Anyone supporting this idea would be a hypocrite.

    Trying to claim that you should have the right and freedom to worship as you wish, while denying that others deserve that right is hypocrisy. Claiming that you have the right to promote your ideas and your religious position but no one else does is hypocrisy.

    And claiming that theists are somehow persecuted by atheists is the absolute reverse of reality.

  • Why should religion be aligned against atheists?

    Religion is not a war, it is a deeply personal relationship with God. Religion has no conflict with the unbeliever, only unbelief, and even then true religion is tolerant of other beliefs while being assertive of its factual nature.

    Even the God of Christianity and Judaism, the closest similarity between any religion, has very big differences such as the nature of God (one versus triune) and the law of God (Jewish law is kept in Judaism, while it is mostly not kept in Christianity). This is not even counting the differences between the Christian God and the Muslim God, or the Muslim God and the Jewish God To say all three religions share the same God requires a very loose interpretation of 'same God'.

    Posted by: TN05
  • Wouldn't be fair

    Even if I thought we did all worship the same God, there are so many more of any one of those religions than atheism it wouldn't seem fair, and I say that as a Christian. It would seem too much like the whole gym class picking on the fat kid.

  • I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    If people should choose to be atheist, I see no reason for other people to wage a war against them. You should be able to believe whatever the hell you want in life! Just because you don't agree with something does not make it wrong or stupid. I think our world needs to get over this obsession of others religion or lack thereof is. Stop sticking your nose into other peoples lives! It should matter more about who the person is than what they believe. Open your mind.

  • Why fight War?

    Can we just have peace. Not all atheists are bad people who badger on the god believing souls on this earth. Actually more often than not it is those who believe who try forcing their views down our throat. Why fight when we should all just get along and be friendly.

  • Why Persecute Atheists?

    On the one hand, it would warm my heart to see Jews, Christians, and Muslims all lay down their rocket launchers long enough to cooperate on anything. However, for their unity to come about through a project of hatred against the atheist minority is such an intrinsically ugly idea that I feel sorry for the hate-filled individual who carries enough darkness in his heart to wish for such a thing. I hope that he becomes enlightened enough to learn the merits of love, joy, and understanding instead.

  • No they should not

    I'll come out right now and say it. I'm a Christian, so why am I on the no side? Because our religions talk about peace, but whenever something religious comes up, people go ape**** and grab their guns. Plus, here's nothing wrong with being Atheist. A good religious person should be accepting of all people, even if that person belonged to another belief. I'll let God deal with them, but me, I have no problem with them, and neither should anyone else.

    Posted by: O.Z
  • Believe what you wish.

    There should not be an alliance between Jews, Muslims, and Christians against atheists. The Atheists should be left alone to believe what they wish and not have to be teamed up against because of their religious beliefs. It is not for the Jews, Muslims or Christians to attempted to convince or attempt to persuade atheists to believe in God.

  • It would seem impossible.

    Persecuting anyone because of belief is wrong in the greatest sense. An alliance against atheist would not work because most religions are so self righteous with their beliefs that trying to collaborate as one alliance would almost certainly end in disaster. Persecuting anyone over belief is illegal and the instigators being on a form of religious crusade against atheists does not excuse that.

  • Atheists Aren't Evil

    Marginalize or attack any group and you only created bloodshed, which I do not believe to be the purpose of either religion or atheism. Certainly, some religions promote evangelism/killing off the heathen - I say that whatever your divine directive, if you try to kill me, I am going to try to kill you right back. So let's instead just live with each other.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
AnonyFeline says2013-05-29T02:16:52.337
The question assumes there is some sort of skirmish between the the religious and the non-believers. This may be true to extremists on both sides of the spectrum, in each respective religion, and a few very key issues, but aside from these, both want the same things. As long as one camp is not infringing on the rights of another, is quite tolerant of the existence of the other, despite their beliefs and ways of life, then there are no need for alliances. The actual alliance should be established between rational individuals who allow the other to live in peace, while together educating each other about their benefits and possible liabilities. Religions pray on their own days, at their own times, and in their own manners, but as long as it doesn't significantly affect the daily life and liberties of a non-believer, then there is no reason to try and align yourself with one camp or another. It is important that a non-believer should not be subjected to an environment in which they are flooded with open public reminders of the believers (e.G. Church bells, calls to prayer, etc). It is also important that a non-believer not disrespectfully or violently protest the ideas and practices of the believers, even if it's a flying spaghetti monster, ancient alien, or tetragrammaton.
Bullish says2013-05-29T02:28:57.887
Lol. I love how this question is phrased. On another note, it would be nice if you guys stopped killing each other.
Talib.ul-Ilm says2013-05-29T02:31:21.927
I'd love that too, I think that instead, the killing should be channeled elsewhere. There is a disease to be battled, and quite a few white cells to do the battling.
TN05 says2013-05-29T02:40:06.617
Yeah, I'd like to see the killing stop as well. Moderates from all religions need to step up, overthrow the radicals, and take control of their freedom and their religion.
Jegory says2013-05-29T14:02:40.237
Yeah, the killing definitely needs to stop. The only way atheism should be "fought" is with diplomacy, not violence.
JohnSmith1 says2013-05-29T15:09:18.157
A better question would be if organized religion stopped would the world be a better place?
Openmindedperson says2013-05-30T15:53:24.080
This is probably the most opinionated topic. No on is right or wrong. But yet I see this topic in one form or another all over the net.
Every one has there beliefs and no one person or group of people should be allowed to force others to believe what the group believes.
I personally don't believe in god, but I believe in following a moral code: no murder in a form/or classification is justifiable, respect others (opinion & beliefs), help others less fortunate,etc..To name a few.
First problem with this topic is: assuming you can meld the very long history between Christians and Muslims (crusades anyone?), I bet if they joined they would be more occupied with internal fighting/arguing than fighting/arguing against atheism.
calculatedr1sk says2013-05-30T17:56:31.990
Your heart seems to burn with hatred against Atheists, Talib. Perhaps the fire of hell does exist - within you! If the teachings of the prophets are about love and peace, then you do them no justice at all.
Talib.ul-Ilm says2013-05-30T18:09:02.973
I'm about peace when Atheists don't insult or lie. When they do, that is when they declare war.
Talib.ul-Ilm says2013-05-30T18:10:03.393
Jews, Christians and Muslims can easily come together to intellectually cleanse the disease of Atheism.
Jegory says2013-05-30T18:14:54.613
That does seem a little harsh, Talib :D. I just meant it in the sense of upholding our beliefs and not letting them be swept away by atheism.
Talib.ul-Ilm says2013-05-30T18:55:58.713
Right. That's what I am saying too. Except that the best minds from Judaism, Christianity and Islam should come together to defend the existence of God, and intellectually combat Atheism. Guarantee they have no sway over the masses.
calculatedr1sk says2013-05-30T20:40:40.907
I guess I should repost this where people will actually see it...

Anyway, Talib, how is that any different than the situation as it already exists? For example, Christian apologists like William Lane Craig frequently borrow from Islam with arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Islam itself is already overlayed on top of Christianity, just as Christianity in turn is constructed over the foundation of Judaism. Judaism, to take things even further back, was heavily influenced by Egyptian paganism as well as Zoroastrian traditions.

The part I think people have the most trouble with is the "against atheists" part. Why do you have to be "against" anyone? Why do you need a target, a scapegoat... Is that how you think love operates? Is that how doctors treat "disease" where you come from?

Ghandi suggested that we should be the change we want to see in the world. If he's right that this is the way to bring about change - and I think he was - then perhaps you should have instead resolved something more like "Jews, Christians, and Muslims should demonstrate God's love by seeking cooperation, love, peace, and mutual prosperity and respect." Why do you even need to mention atheism? But if you do, why couldn't it have been something like "...In order to help atheists see the truth and beauty of God, and willingly seek him."

Instead, you've chosen language which suggests extreme hostility towards those who are different from yourself, even referring to atheism as a "disease." I hope you will reflect on your position - even pray on it if you feel the need to - and come to the realization that you are tyring to walk down a dead end by dividing people for their beliefs, or lack thereof.

Peace be upon you, Talib.
Quan says2013-06-08T14:00:04.403
How are you to intellectually combat Atheism when blind faith is inherently anti-intellectual?
Jegory says2013-06-08T18:02:33.150
Theism isn't blind faith; it's logic, which is not at all anti-intellectual. Theists merely believe the universe had a cause and a purpose. How does this look against the atheist "it's all random, it appeared by chance". It is clear you have no grasp on how infinitely small the chances actually are.
calculatedr1sk says2013-06-08T21:59:29.883
Jegory, what is clear is that you caricature your opponent's position into something other than what it actually is. For example, evolution is a combined process of mutation (random) and natural selection (not random).

You are also misrepresenting your own position. Theism is NOT just asserting that a God exists. Even if God exists, that only gets you to Deism, which was the position of many great men like Einstein.

Theism is saying God exists, and by the way we're on chummy terms. I know him, what he wants, and although there's no evidence for the claims in this particular book, x, y, or z, you had better believe it anyways, and do what it says, or else.
Jegory says2013-06-09T08:36:01.630
I'm just saying there's no absolute proof for evolution or the BB either and it wasn't as likely to happen as you think. Did you know that the possibility of us having the second law of thermodynamics was 1 part in 10^10^123??? Are you actually saying that evolution is more probable than God??

Nothing can be less probable than that. That's why theism is logic; believing in the logical answer rather than the infinitely small chances of life occurring on its own.
Quan says2013-06-10T01:06:52.150
It's quite the leap to go from the universe having a cause, to the cause being not only being a god, but a specific god defined by specific attributes outlined by a specific religion. Accepting any specific god is in every way done on pure, blind faith. Also, evolution is a very well supported scientific theory. So well supported, in fact, that even most religious folk are at least compromising that it is the process through which god has created us. Only the most delusional would still insist that there is no evidence of evolution yet the existence of any specific god is proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
calculatedr1sk says2013-06-10T03:31:13.607
Jegory, I suspect that you have gained most of your knowledge of evolution not from scientists, but from preachers. That seems rather like going to an air conditioning repair man for eye surgery, does it not?

I am truly sorry that you have been mislead by men who don't understand what they are talking about, and I hope that you will take the time to hear both sides. Start with Richard Dawkins. Be as skeptical as you like. The evidence very clearly supports evolution. Http://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=aUFOlyt7ErE
Jegory says2013-06-10T06:41:01.857
I'm not denying evolution; I'm just claiming that there IS a God that created it all. The odds of life evolving by chance are too infinitely small to even imagine God didn't create it all.
calculatedr1sk says2013-06-10T13:44:55.950
You still misunderstand the concept. The whole point of why religion has been so traditionally hostile to the idea of evolution is precisely because God is NOT required in order for the model to work. Moreover, evolution better explains (by far) the DNA evidence, species distribution evidence, and fossil record evidence that we observe than the young Earth Creationism myth which is described in the Bible. The evidence indicates that there was no Eve, created from the rib of Adam. There was no Garden of Eden. There was no talking snake. Then again, everyone over the age of 11 or 12 ought to be able to realize this anyway.

Whoever in the modern world would still holds on to such absurd, primitive ideas as Biblical myths does so for emotional reasons, not because the evidence supports it. After all, if the Bible was wrong here, then maybe it means the Bible is wrong in other places - like where it says you will get to see your loved ones again in Heaven. For some, that is understandably difficult to accept, and so they'll cling to the comforting lie. I get it. But I won't agree with it.
Jegory says2013-06-10T16:37:28.533
I, along with LOTS of theists, don't take the stories in Genesis literally. Why do you think we take it literally?

The Bible is a historically accurate document. There is lots of evidence to support it, especially the existence of Jesus.

Evolution doesn't need God to work? Consider this:

- if the "resonance" between nuclear ground state energy levels of helium and beryllium was out by 1% there would not be enough carbon in the universe to sustain life.

- if the ratio of nuclear strong force differed by 1 part in 10^16 then no stars could have formed

- if the ratio of the electromagnetic force-constant to the gravitational force-constant were increased or decreased by 1 part in 10^40 then we would have a universe containing either only big stars (too hot to sustain life) or only small stars (too small to manufacture chemical elements)

- if the ratio of expansion and contraction forces acting just after the Big Bang had altered by as little as 1 part in 10^55 then the universe would either have expanded too quickly, so no galaxies formed, or too slowly so that it quickly collapsed

- unless our universe fell within a very tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes, corresponding to an accuracy of 1 part in 10^10^123 then there could be no second law of thermodynamics

This isn't opinion. It's fact, courtesy of John Lennox. Look at the above. Realise how small the odds are. And then tell me evolution doesn't need God to work.
Quan says2013-06-10T17:04:05.117
This is the classic junkyard tornado argument. The argument fails in its understanding of both evolution and probability. Evolution occurs through generations of natural selection, not randomly in a single moment. Also, the probability of something that has already happened is irrelevant (effectively 100%).
Jegory says2013-06-10T17:41:56.813
I'm not talking about evolution per se, but the appearance of life in general. It is inconceivable to think that it just happened by chance. The universe had one chance at this and everything corresponded perfectly. How does that NOT point to the existence if God?? If you wanted proof, this is about as close as you're going to get to it.
Quan says2013-06-10T18:45:46.447
On the contrary, your assertion that "the universe had one chance" is fallacious, as is your assertion that improbable events do not occur. You simply cannot make a valid probability argument after the fact. Any long sequence of events is extremely improbable, yet it happened nonetheless. What has happened has happened, 100% of the time. Also, while science still has a lot to answer for, there's no value in trying to solve a problem by creating an even bigger problem. Can you answer the questions "what's the probability of the existence of your God?" and "what created your God?" without rejecting your own premise? Your argument is one that has been made countless times and rejected all the same on the basis that it is self-defeating.
calculatedr1sk says2013-06-10T18:46:54.060
Read your statements once again, and tell me how you are saying anything other than "if the universe were different, then it would be different."

You admit that large sections of the Bible do not provide accurate accounts of how humans really came to be, and so the Bible's stories ought better to be thought of as non-literal? That seems to me like a polite way of saying non-true. And yet, you still try to salvage the pieces you want to continue believing in by claiming that it is a historically accurate document? Well friend, Kansas is a real place. This can be verified by scholars and historians. Does this mean that you think The Wizard of Oz should also be thought of as a "historically accurate" account? What about the Oddessy and the Iliad? Are they "accurate history", or are they properly placed in the fiction aisle of the bookstore?
Jegory says2013-06-10T18:57:28.057
Quan: You atheists claim you are open-minded. You claim you listen to the evidence. You claim you make logical conclusions and make no claims. So look at the facts again. Don't question them, don't doubt them; just look. Look and then tell me what conclusions you draw from them. Tell me, honestly, what you see.

And then tell me God is any less probable than that.
Jegory says2013-06-10T19:00:25.837
Calculatedr1sk: I said GENESIS should not be taken absolutely literally. The rest of the Bible, especially the bits referring to Jesus, are accurate. Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny Lucian, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are just some of the few who wrote about Jesus. They are all independent accounts, yet each backs each other up. How is the Bible not historically accurate now?
calculatedr1sk says2013-06-10T21:22:34.560
Jegory, I'd be glad to debate you properly. I'm already in the middle of the debate, which I've listed below, but we can have just the same topic and resolution if you like.

Jegory says2013-06-10T21:29:44.827
It would be my pleasure. If you want to PM me when you've finished that debate, we can arrange it in more detail.
Quan says2013-06-10T22:25:46.713
I am looking at the evidence and drawing logical conclusions. The evidence is overwhelmingly in support of evolution and the big bang more so than any other theories. I acknowledge that these theories do not have all of the answers, nor do they claim to. But I have no interest in a god of the gaps. I would not reject evidence that was unquestionably in favour of the existence of god because I have no personal investment either way. But until then I'll treat it with the same skepticism I do the loch ness monster. I want you to take your own advice and stop cherry-picking evidence and doing mental gymnastics to convince yourself that the existence of any god, let alone your specific god, can be proven in any capacity.