Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Should I convert?
Options
Comments
-
In other words, they are members of a religion whose primary teachings are bigotry towards other religions and a sense of superiority over those who do not share their views.
Atheism is not a religion, it's merely a position that refuses to accept the existence of supernatural deities for which there is no evidence. If I claimed to you that I can levitate, would you believe me without evidence? Would your scepticism mean that you are also a 'bigot' with a sense of superiority?
There are over 4000 religions in the world - I gather from your post that to you all of them are equally valid. Do you fully accept the beliefs of Scientology? How about Jediism?
As Lawrence Krauss suggested, all religious people are also atheists; the only difference between them and 'true' atheists is that they disbelieve most, or all, religions apart from their own.0 -
How do you know she hasn't had any "independent" thinking? No one has forced her to do anything.
It pains you that someone has independently thought about following Islam because you detest those who follow religion.
I don't know why athiests hate those who follow religion when they themselves follow a set of beliefs.
I'm atheist, but I'm into logical science, and the proof system. When a people of many beliefs of all these religious Gods tell me they exist and want to spend the rest of their lives believing in such, I have to see proof that these so-called Gods exist, and as of today I see no proof anywhere.
I think logically, and my logic/independent thought, tells me so far in life that there is no God. Until the day you or any-one else can prove it, then I'll stick with science to seek answers to the real questions we have on so-called Gods in the sky/space/heaven - or dimensions.
Get your proof and forward it to me and I will change my thought.0 -
-
-
Bongalongherb wrote: »I'm atheist, but I'm into logical science, and the proof system. When a people of many beliefs of all these religious Gods tell me they exist and want to spend the rest of their lives believing in such, I have to see proof that these so-called Gods exist, and as of today I see no proof anywhere.
I think logically, and my logic/independent thought, tells me so far in life that there is no God. Until the day you or any-one else can prove it, then I'll stick with science to seek answers to the real questions we have on so-called Gods in the sky/space/heaven - or dimensions.
Get your proof and forward it to me and I will change my thought.
You see that is the fundamental flaw with atheist thinking. You say you need proof that God exists yet you have no proof whatsoever he doesn't.
In fact there is more proof of the existence of a supernatural being that controls and regulates everything than the opposite.
You see that's the problem. Science cannot provide you with the answers to the most fundamental questions and that is why you live a life of confusion not knowing why you are here or where you came from.
Science may try and answer how but it will never be able to answer why.0 -
Advertisement
-
What makes you think she is vulnerable? Just because she is thinking of converting to Islam?
Where in her statement does she mention that she is converting to Islam to meet a man? She merely asked how Muslim men would view her if she converted to Islam.
You should not make up your own assumptions not based on facts.
I sense a vulnerability based on her post, but I suppose it's only three sentences, maybe not enough to understand her life. She's raising a kid without a husband or partner, which is a challenging position to be in. She obviously knows very little about Islam, presumably hasn't been to a mosque, but has an idea based on what an old boyfriend has told her.
There are a lot worse things she could do than convert to Islam, but it's a massive decision that shouldn't rely on what people on the internet tell her.0 -
So you come across "some" Irish women who are thinking about Islam and you use your little experience to make such a big generalisation?
As humans we need structure. Talk to any Psychologist and psychotherapist and they will tell you that.
Why is religion or creed in your view not a good support system?
Religion gets inside peoples' heads and messes with their minds, from the traditional "Catholic Guilt" that still haunts many Irish people when they dare to do something that the church would frown upon, to the many religions who treat women as second class citizens, to the religions that turn people into robots having taken away the concept of free thought.
I was brought up in a faith, questioned it from 11 and finally was able to break free at 17 when I left home. Since then I have learned to love myself without judgement from any religious superior.
It is my belief that the OP would benefit from counselling and routine, possibly a return to education or a more structured workplace. These will provide everything she is seeking, without the shackles of any particular religion.0 -
The burden of proof is on you, not on the person that does not believe your god exists.You say you need proof that God exists yet you have no proof whatsoever he doesn't.
That's like me saying there's a spaghetti monster up in the sky controlling everyone, as he is the true god, and if you don't believe it you need to prove that he doesn't exist.0 -
-
You see that is the fundamental flaw with atheist thinking. You say you need proof that God exists yet you have no proof whatsoever he doesn't.
In fact there is more proof of the existence of a supernatural being that controls and regulates everything than the opposite.
You see that's the problem. Science cannot provide you with the answers to the most fundamental questions and that is why you live a life of confusion not knowing why you are here or where you came from.
Science may try and answer how but it will never be able to answer why.
Do you have any proof that Harry Potter doesn't exist?
What proof is there that a being controls and regulates everything?
Can you not recognise the human propensity for ascribing supernatural causation to phenomena we do not understand? We used to believe that gods controlled the weather - now that we understand it more, we have jettisoned this belief (although the belief persists in less advanced societies).
Do you fully accept and believe the teachings of Scientology, or do you only narrowly subscribe to one single religion?0 -
Advertisement
-
The burden of proof is on you, not on the person that does not believe your god exists.
That's like me saying there's a spaghetti monster up in the sky controlling everyone, as he is the true god, and if you don't believe it you need to prove that he doesn't exist.
There are those whose hearts are closed and no matter what anyone says their hearts will remain closed.
That does not mean of course that one should give up hope in such people. There is always hope until ones last breath.0 -
I just hope the OP thinks about this, and finds her true peace.0
-
Merry Prankster wrote: »Do you have any proof that Harry Potter doesn't exist?
What proof is there that a being controls and regulates everything?
Can you not recognise the human propensity for ascribing supernatural causation to phenomena we do not understand? We used to believe that gods controlled the weather - now that we understand it more, we have jettisoned this belief (although the belief persists in less advanced societies).
Do you fully accept and believe the teachings of Scientology, or do you only narrowly subscribe to one single religion?
Can you not recognise that we all did not come from nothingness. The big bang did not occur from nothing. Something must have made it occur and something must have put the substances there for the big bang to take place. It is a scientific impossibility.
Even evolution in the way that cells change adapt to its environment - does that happen out of nothingness? what occurs that to happen?
For you to think that everything around us and in the universe came from nothing is beyond imagination.0 -
-
Can you not recognise that we all did not come from nothingness. The big bang did not occur from nothing. Something must have made it occur and something must have put the substances there for the big bang to take place. It is a scientific impossibility.
Even evolution in the way that cells change adapt to its environment - does that happen out of nothingness? what occurs that to happen?
For you to think that everything around us and in the universe came from nothing is beyond imagination.
If you believe that something cannot come from 'nothing', where did your god come from? And if you believe that your god can come from nothing (or that he always existed), then why can't this belief be extended to the universe - thus removing the need for a 'creator' altogether?
For you to think that a deity created everything is certainly not beyond imagination.0 -
Merry Prankster wrote: »If you believe that something cannot come from 'nothing', where did your god come from? And if you believe that your god can come from nothing (or that he always existed), then why can't this belief be extended to the universe - thus removing the need for a 'creator' altogether?
For you to think that a deity created everything is certainly not beyond imagination.
God is beyond the realms of this universe so our human mind cannot fathom anything beyond this universe.
What we know is that he is one and there was nothing before him. Apart from that we do not need to know where he came from. All we know is that after death we will meet him and we will be given all of the answers to the mysteries of the Universe.
It is far more plausible and logical to accept that a creator created everything and continuously creating and regulating than to accept that we and everything in this world and the universe came from nothing and that nothing is causing continuous creation and regulation.
Even evolution needs a creator and regulator as cells cannot change and adapt by themselves without anything causing them to change and adapt.0 -
Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,857 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 28629
-
Can you not recognise that we all did not come from nothingness. The big bang did not occur from nothing. Something must have made it occur and something must have put the substances there for the big bang to take place. It is a scientific impossibility.
Even evolution in the way that cells change adapt to its environment - does that happen out of nothingness? what occurs that to happen?
For you to think that everything around us and in the universe came from nothing is beyond imagination.
Him
Something created the so-called big bang, and something created the thing that created the big bang to happen and something created the something that created the thing that created/caused the big bang. The thing that first started this progression is probably extinguished/dead at this time while humans die and planets die and also stars/suns die and so on.
basically the creator or this nothingness has also died a very long time ago. Maybe this nothingness was the all true powerful God, but died after its creation of this vast universe. The possibilities are endless out there. But to believe a man made of matter created it all just seems a bit lacking.0 -
God is beyond the realms of this universe so our human mind cannot fathom anything beyond this universe.
What we know is that he is one and there was nothing before him. Apart from that we do not need to know where he came from. All we know is that after death we will meet him and we will be given all of the answers to the mysteries of the Universe.
It is far more plausible and logical to accept that a creator created everything and continuously creating and regulating than to accept that we and everything in this world and the universe came from nothing and that nothing is causing continuous creation and regulation.
Even evolution needs a creator and regulator as cells cannot change and adapt by themselves without anything causing them to change and adapt.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I used to believe in a god. But he/she was very
unfair to me. I used to think God was fair and benevolent. It's not so.0 -
you really want to convert ? no drinking, no smoking and no bacon butties !!!! ARE YOU SURE ???0
-
Advertisement
-
It is far more plausible and logical to accept that a creator created everything and continuously creating and regulating than to accept that we and everything in this world and the universe came from nothing and that nothing is causing continuous creation and regulation.
No it isn't. Why does your god not need a creator if the universe does?
Dawkins is right, you do need an open mind for religion - you need to open it wide enough so that your brain falls out.0 -
Talk about being contradictory. You question giving religious advice then you promote your own beliefs.
You have just proven that nothing you say has any credibility whatsoever.
I didn't promote anything. I merely asked a question.
If he/she can't "decide" on a deity, then why pick one for the sake of it?0 -
It is far more irresponsible for you to make it out like she has a severe mental issue just because she is inclined towards Islam.
I think for all your comments about posters being biased you are more so. And I can understand you want to defend your faith but don't post lies. I do not think she has a 'severe mental issue'. I did not say anything like that. She says herself she is looking for something to give her life meaning and support. A religion cannot do that, it can certainly enrich an already meaningful life but people like the OP need to find in themselves the peace they need and not rely on external structures. It would be the same if she was thinking of becoming a Catholic, a Hindu or indeed leaving a church.0 -
Merry Prankster wrote: »Atheism is not a religion, it's merely a position that refuses to accept the existence of supernatural deities for which there is no evidence. If I claimed to you that I can levitate, would you believe me without evidence? Would your scepticism mean that you are also a 'bigot' with a sense of superiority?
There are over 4000 religions in the world - I gather from your post that to you all of them are equally valid. Do you fully accept the beliefs of Scientology? How about Jediism?
As Lawrence Krauss suggested, all religious people are also atheists; the only difference between them and 'true' atheists is that they disbelieve most, or all, religions apart from their own.
Firstly, I said New Atheism referring specifically to the collection of beliefs and arguments, above and beyond not believing in anything, espoused by you and everyone else just coincidentally parroting the same arguments from the same places and not even understanding where they come from.
Case in point, this bit you quoted form lawrence krauss isn't from lawrence krauss originally but from some earlier new atheist speaker, and, being a part of the canon it's repeated by him, and now repeated by you.
I also used the term religion not in the strictest sense of the definition, but in terms of your behaviours and how you go about what you think and I used it in this way in order to point out that there is little difference. You have a shared collecton of beliefs, not just a value system like you could say is just a culture , but a shared metaphysics, from which ye extract moral conclusions. Furthermore, your failure to recognise that you draw all of your beliefs from a communal pool with communal assumptions shows that you follow these beliefs blindly and unthinkingly. You think they are absolute truth, but you don't know how you have formed your beliefs. If you did you would not be so certain in how you assert them as non-belief.
I could list out like 20 beliefs that you and every one who thanked your post and who reads the likes of krauss etc. hold in common. I've done that before though, and if you'd like to see them you can search my posts. Beliefs external to the single sentence of non-belief in a deity, and which I have seen before time and again, making a conversation pointless, since you are clearly capable of little other than parroting these tenets. Just like you have parrotted and misattributed this argument but there about being an atheist with respect to other religions.
As to your catchphrases: It's not the case that all religious people are atheistic with respecto to all other religions. It depends on how they specifically describe theirs and other deities. Often people will say these are different descriptions of the same thing. That these other religions are misdescribing the same thing. Not htat htey desbelieve this thing.
Secondly, I don't value all religions equally, or all value systems, but I at least have a better understanding than the likes of you as to how this that or any belief is logically constructed. I'll say again, you, and everyone else spouting these same list of catchphrases from these same places are completely ignorant of this, and it's because of your ignorance of it that you are able to hold the views you do.
Every bigot whose ever existed has thought that he was correct in his bigotry. Justified by access to some truth that other people didn't possess. You and those like you share the moral and metaphysical absolutism that leads to exactly that bigotry you exhibit here and confound for righteousness.
Anyway, I doubt the OP is posting here anymore, but congratulations for showing her the one truth you have access to, and telling us all why adherents of any beliefs other than yours are evil.0 -
If he/she can't "decide" on a deity, then why pick one for the sake of it?
it's called pascal's wager. very interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager0 -
Case in point, this bit you quoted form lawrence krauss isn't from lawrence krauss originally but from some earlier new atheist speaker, and, being a part of the canon it's repeated by him, and now repeated by you.
Actually, I had this idea long before I heard Krauss mention it, as I'm sure most people who've given the subject any thought have. It's a pretty obvious observation.I also used the term religion not in the strictest sense of the definition, but in terms of your behaviours and how you go about what you think and I used it in this way in order to point out that there is little difference. You have a shared collecton of beliefs, not just a value system like you could say is just a culture , but a shared metaphysics, from which ye extract moral conclusions. Furthermore, your failure to recognise that you draw all of your beliefs from a communal pool with communal assumptions shows that you follow these beliefs blindly and unthinkingly. You think they are absolute truth, but you don't know how you have formed your beliefs. If you did you would not be so certain in how you assert them as non-belief.
I simply refuse to believe in something without any credible evidence. That is all - there really isn't much more to it than that.Secondly, I don't value all religions equally, or all value systems, but I at least have a better understanding than the likes of you as to how this that or any belief is logically constructed. I'll say again, you, and everyone else spouting these same list of catchphrases from these same places are completely ignorant of this, and it's because of your ignorance of it that you are able to hold the views you do.
Every bigot whose ever existed has thought that he was correct in his bigotry. Justified by access to some truth that other people didn't possess. You and those like you share the moral and metaphysical absolutism that leads to exactly that bigotry you exhibit here and confound for righteousness.
Anyway, I doubt the OP is posting here anymore, but congratulations for showing her the one truth you have access to, and telling us all why adherents of any beliefs other than yours are evil.
Who said anything about evil? How is choosing to disbelieve in something for which there is not a shred of credible evidence 'ignorant' or 'bigoted'? And what on earth is 'metaphysical absolutism'? Quite how you can make claims for the existence of something for which there is no evidence, and then label all sceptics as ignorant is beyond me.
As for that old chesnut whereby if you haven't read all of the religious texts then you don't know anything is a load of bunk. Reading every Harry Potter book cover to cover isn't going to make it any less fictional.
Anyway, we're both pissing in the wind here so let's call it a day.
OP: I hope you can find solace in whatever you choose.0 -
Firstly, I said New Atheism referring specifically to the collection of beliefs and arguments, above and beyond not believing in anything, espoused by you and everyone else just coincidentally parroting the same arguments from the same places and not even understanding where they come from.
Case in point, this bit you quoted form lawrence krauss isn't from lawrence krauss originally but from some earlier new atheist speaker, and, being a part of the canon it's repeated by him, and now repeated by you.
I also used the term religion not in the strictest sense of the definition, but in terms of your behaviours and how you go about what you think and I used it in this way in order to point out that there is little difference. You have a shared collecton of beliefs, not just a value system like you could say is just a culture , but a shared metaphysics, from which ye extract moral conclusions. Furthermore, your failure to recognise that you draw all of your beliefs from a communal pool with communal assumptions shows that you follow these beliefs blindly and unthinkingly. You think they are absolute truth, but you don't know how you have formed your beliefs. If you did you would not be so certain in how you assert them as non-belief.
I could list out like 20 beliefs that you and every one who thanked your post and who reads the likes of krauss etc. hold in common. I've done that before though, and if you'd like to see them you can search my posts. Beliefs external to the single sentence of non-belief in a deity, and which I have seen before time and again, making a conversation pointless, since you are clearly capable of little other than parroting these tenets. Just like you have parrotted and misattributed this argument but there about being an atheist with respect to other religions.
As to your catchphrases: It's not the case that all religious people are atheistic with respecto to all other religions. It depends on how they specifically describe theirs and other deities. Often people will say these are different descriptions of the same thing. That these other religions are misdescribing the same thing. Not htat htey desbelieve this thing.
Secondly, I don't value all religions equally, or all value systems, but I at least have a better understanding than the likes of you as to how this that or any belief is logically constructed. I'll say again, you, and everyone else spouting these same list of catchphrases from these same places are completely ignorant of this, and it's because of your ignorance of it that you are able to hold the views you do.
Every bigot whose ever existed has thought that he was correct in his bigotry. Justified by access to some truth that other people didn't possess. You and those like you share the moral and metaphysical absolutism that leads to exactly that bigotry you exhibit here and confound for righteousness.
Anyway, I doubt the OP is posting here anymore, but congratulations for showing her the one truth you have access to, and telling us all why adherents of any beliefs other than yours are evil.
I'm not really sure what the point is here? Is it that the OP is plagiarising? is being unoriginal? is engaging in 'Group Think'? that we are all engaged in 'Group Think'?....Are you suggesting that Islam is more of an original concept? requiring more individual thought? We are all influenced by other's, so truly original concepts, regarding the origin of the universe or other, are difficult to find, because we all learn from others, from what went before, true geniuses are rare....
I don't think though that in 2015, it is unreasonable to look for evidence regarding the existence of God, or the prophethood of Mohammad, an afterlife etc? Even if it's not original I don't think it's unreasonable to seek something more tangible than simply 'faith'. Theistic religions were established at a time when scientific knowledge was sparse. It was a not unreasonable explanation then, that a supernatural power was responsible for what was not understood. However knowing what we know today, the idea of a puppet master, or a God, even if s/he existed, caring what we do, punishing us if we disobey, talking to a 7th century Arab, it's really quite hard to believe. That's not original but it's nonetheless a legitimate viewpoint.
I could be wrong, maybe God does exist, maybe Mohammad was a true prophet, I'm not closed to that possibility, but again I need something more tangible to suggest it.
But my problem with Islam, above all other Theistic religions, is the 'controlling' nature of it, the suppression of all individual thought and the 'violent' response to even minimal dissent...it is an information control cult, that's what cult's do.....0 -
Merry Prankster wrote: »Actually, I had this idea long before I heard Krauss mention it, as I'm sure most people who've given the subject any thought have. It's a pretty obvious observation.
Fair play. It is not the knock down argument you see to think it is however. In fact, it's not really an argument all, merely the statement that people have chosen what to believe in phrased in a particular way.I simply refuse to believe in something without any credible evidence. That is all - there really isn't much more to it than that.
No you don't, yes there is.
I never used the word sceptics, and I explicitly used the term "new atheist" to describe the category that your beliefs fit in to. You don't know what the word evidence means.Who said anything about evil? How is choosing to disbelieve in something for which there is not a shred of credible evidence 'ignorant' or 'bigoted'? And what on earth is 'metaphysical absolutism'? Quite how you can make claims for the existence of something for which there is no evidence, and then label all sceptics as ignorant is beyond me.
I never made that point. The point I was making was that you don't know how a system of belief (any system of belief, and in particular and most importantly, your own) is in general constructed. This was a statement abotu what you don't know about reasoning, not about what information you lack with respect to particular religions. You don't understand reasoning or logic.As for that old chesnut whereby if you haven't read all of the religious texts then you don't know anything is a load of bunk. Reading every Harry Potter book cover to cover isn't going to make it any less fictional.0 -
What you should be doing is looking to remove yourself and your child from all organised religion.
Live life in a good way and with good values and teach your child the same, you don't need religion. It only gets in the way of living a happy and full life.
Tbh OP you sound like someone who need help, but not from a religion, but from a doctor.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not really sure what the point is here? Is it that the OP is plagiarising? is being unoriginal? is engaging in 'Group Think'? that we are all engaged in 'Group Think'?....Are you suggesting that Islam is more of an original concept? requiring more individual thought? We are all influenced by other's, so truly original concepts, regarding the origin of the universe or other, are difficult to find, because we all learn from others, from what went before, true geniuses are rare....
No it was not to do with group think nor was it referring to the OP at all. It was referring to anyone who repeats an argument without understanding it from start to finish. Anyone whose beliefs come not from their own experience and understanding, but rather come from some social expediency or other source.
It is not necsesary to have an original thought, but merely for the things you are saying to be grounded in your own reasoning and experience. You can read a book, and read it closely and unerstand the argument fully, and if you do so you'll know how it relates or doesn't relate to your own experience, an if questioned on this you will eventually get to the base of it and this could then be considered your own opinion.
But to simply repeat the final conclusion of some argument without understanding where it comes from, to parrot it in other words, is to follow that thing blindly.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement