From today I can call myself an atheist

Undergod · 28-04-2011 11:40PM

robindch wrote: »

Interestingly, I believe that the koran genuinely doesn't have any contradictions, since amongst its clashing rules and doctrines, it specifies that the rule or doctrine closest to the end of the book should take precedence.

That's pretty interesting; why is that? I recall someone here saying that the Qur'an is divinely inspired, which means my first thought that it was acknowledging its own fallibility can't be the case.

sink · 28-04-2011 11:41PM

Perhaps the last page was torn out.

"This is a work of fiction"

AhSureTisGrand · 29-04-2011 01:11AM

I hear it's actually meant to be read as if the writers forgot to put "/sarcasm" at the very end

dead one · 29-04-2011 05:40AM

kylith wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I can't watch videos on this PC.
Regardless of what one rabbi and someone who appears to be an immam say you are mistaken: Judaism is about 4000 years old (http://www.patheos.com/Library/Judaism.html,
http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/history.htm), Christianity is about 2000 years old (I don't think I need to post links for that), and Islam dates from about 622CE (or AD, if you prefer) (http://www.patheos.com/Library/Islam.html, http://www.allaboutreligion.org/origin-of-islam.htm) meaning that rather than Islam being, as you assert, the oldest of the Abrahamic religions, it is in fact the youngest by several hundred years.

See madame, Islam isn't newer religion, it started from adam and completed on muhammad, that is truth because that's what exactly quran teaches. You had given me reference about origin of Judasim and christianity But links have no reference from where these i.e "Judasim and christianity" came . These words were fabricated. You can read whole Bible, no where in bible Jesus used Christian for himself, even Jesus wasn't his original name, the name i guess came from greek. The name of Jesus is also fabricate by divine priests to make a new religion. All the prophets like jesus, moses, abraham, Adam, jacob were muslim according islam. They preached islam in their respective time.
i can give you reference from Quran if you believe.
"""""And Abraham instructed his sons [to do the same] and [so did] Jacob, [saying], "O my sons, indeed Allah has chosen for you this religion, so do not die except while you are Muslims."
http://quran.com/2/132
Or were you witnesses when death approached Jacob, when he said to his sons, "What will you worship after me?" They said, "We will worship your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac - one God. And we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."
http://quran.com/2/133
Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allah ]. And he was not of the polytheists.
http://quran.com/3/67

And [remember] when I inspired to the disciples, "Believe in Me and in My messenger Jesus." They said, "We have believed, so bear witness that indeed we are Muslims [in submission to Allah ].
http://quran.com/5/111
I am puting more trust in quran than history because history can be fabricated. It is history which makes men and woman salve for ages. So what makes you to trust history. Ma'am!!!!. Would you kindly brief it.

kylith wrote: »

And I'm not a sir. You can call me Ma'am, if you want

Thanks Ma'am.

dead one · 29-04-2011 05:53AM

Shenshen wrote: »

Have a quick look at where religions have taken humanity in the past... if you just go by the level of suffering and the number of resulting deaths, they outshine any ideology that ever took evolution on board.

Religions mean interpretation from original religion. Original religion is peace and mercy sent to mankind by God. If people falsely interpret original teaching, than what do you blame people or religion. Think on it.

Shenshen wrote: »

But don't let that deter you. Killing Jews is only bad if the Nazis do it, if people do it out of religious faith it's perfectly ok.

Who said ok to that.

Boulevardier · 29-04-2011 09:32AM

Jeepers, talk about being blinded with science!

Nevertheless, I would say that even assuming these particles behave as described, I consider it most unlikely that all we see around us came about in the same way. Common-sense may not always be right, but it is not always wrong either.

Someone asked me to describe the deist deity. I cannot do better than to refer people again to sites such as www.deism.com

MagicMarker · 29-04-2011 09:40AM

Boulevardier wrote: »

Nevertheless, I would say that even assuming these particles behave as described, I consider it most unlikely that all we see around us came about in the same way.

No one is saying it did, we're all happy to admit we don't know. Unlike you.

oldrnwisr · 29-04-2011 09:45AM

Boulevardier wrote: »

Jeepers, talk about being blinded with science!

Nevertheless, I would say that even assuming these particles behave as described, I consider it most unlikely that all we see around us came about in the same way. Common-sense may not always be right, but it is not always wrong either.

Someone asked me to describe the deist deity. I cannot do better than to refer people again to sites such as www.deism.com

Nobody is claiming that our universe came about as a result of virtual particles. I was simply responding to your argument about something coming from nothing.

In any case, the big bang theory does not state that what we see around us came from nothing. The big bang simply states that the universe rapidly expanded from an initial hot dense state. Our current knowledge breaks down at Planck time after the Big Bang so any discussion about what preceded the Big Bang remains in the domain of hypothesis.

liamw · 29-04-2011 12:14PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

Someone asked me to describe the deist deity. I cannot do better than to refer people again to sites such as www.deism.com

www.deism.com wrote:

Deism is knowledge of God based on the application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature. The designs presuppose a Designer.

That looks awfully like a 'we don't know so it must be god' argument.

Also, which 'designs' necessarily presuppose a designer?

29-04-2011 12:15PM

liamw wrote: »

That looks awfully like a 'we don't know so it must be god' argument.

Of course it is. Why do you think I brought my old sig back!

Boulevardier · 29-04-2011 01:33PM

No, it isn't a "we don't know so it must be God" argument. It is more like a "We don't know, so God/Supreme being is a perfectly reasonable, common-sense hypothesis" argument.

After that, its probably down to gut instinct.

MagicMarker · 29-04-2011 01:38PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

No, it isn't a "we don't know so it must be God" argument. It is more like a "We don't know, so God/Supreme being is a perfectly reasonable, common-sense hypothesis" argument.

After that, its probably down to gut instinct.

There's a pen on my desk, I don't know how it got there and no one else seems to know. Is it reasonable to think a supreme being could have put it there?

Boulevardier · 29-04-2011 01:42PM

It is reasonable to think someone put it there.

You probably believe that the pen quantumistically put itself there!

oldrnwisr · 29-04-2011 01:44PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

It is reasonable to think someone put it there.

You probably believe that the pen quantumistically put itself there!

MagicMarker · 29-04-2011 01:45PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

It is reasonable to think someone put it there.

Is it reasonable to think a supreme being put it there?

AhSureTisGrand · 29-04-2011 01:49PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

No, it isn't a "we don't know so it must be God" argument. It is more like a "We don't know, so God/Supreme being is a perfectly reasonable, common-sense hypothesis" argument.

After that, its probably down to gut instinct.

I imagine it's better to think with your brain than with your digestive system

RussellTuring · 29-04-2011 02:11PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

No, it isn't a "we don't know so it must be God" argument. It is more like a "We don't know, so God/Supreme being is a perfectly reasonable, common-sense hypothesis" argument.

Why God?

29-04-2011 02:22PM

Deism, to me at least, is just an arrogant cop-out. It's a way of preventing yourself from saying "I don't know" when it comes to your understanding of the origins of the universe. No atheist will feign knowledge of how the universe came into existence, they don't have a problem acknowledging that they simply don't know. Why invoke a supernatural being when admitting a lack of knowledge and understanding is, by far, the more reasonable position?

Invoking a supernatural being for this one event that isn't understood is a true implementation of the god of the gaps.

Delirium · 29-04-2011 02:39PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

There's a pen on my desk, I don't know how it got there and no one else seems to know. Is it reasonable to think a supreme being could have put it there?

You're welcome

ghostchant · 29-04-2011 10:51PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

There's a pen on my desk, I don't know how it got there and no one else seems to know.

You might say it was a Magic Marker :pac:

liamw · 29-04-2011 11:28PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

No, it isn't a "we don't know so it must be God" argument. It is more like a "We don't know, so God/Supreme being is a perfectly reasonable, common-sense hypothesis" argument.

After that, its probably down to gut instinct.

How is it reasonable though? You don't appear to have any evidence of a supernatural deity.

When you say 'common sense' and 'gut instinct', that doesn't count for anything. If you can understand the cognitive predispositions of the human brain, you can understand why humans have constructed god/s for millenia. One example is hyperactive agency detection among others.

You should stop invoking a supernatural entity to fill this gap, understand the limitations/predispositions of your own brain, and just admit that you don't know.

Boulevardier · 30-04-2011 03:23PM

Unlike theists, I dont beleive the supreme being is necessarily a supernatural entity. It might be super-material, but that is not the same thing. I just do not think the physical universe can exist without an underlying cause which has attributes I would describe, crudely, as mind-like.

Sorry if this sounds unconvincing. Some people will know what I mean, others, including atheists, won't. Perhaps the atheist brain lacks some wiring. Cant be helped.

The Mad Hatter · 30-04-2011 03:40PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

Unlike theists, I dont beleive the supreme being is necessarily a supernatural entity. It might be super-material, but that is not the same thing. I just do not think the physical universe can exist without an underlying cause which has attributes I would describe, crudely, as mind-like.

Sorry if this sounds unconvincing. Some people will know what I mean, others, including atheists, won't. Perhaps the atheist brain lacks some wiring. Cant be helped.

It sounds unconvincing because it is unconvincing.

Why posit anything at all for which there is no evidence? Just because you "just do not think the physical universe can exist without an underlying cause which has attributes I would describe, crudely, as mind-like" doesn't mean that it must be so - your brain is as limited as the rest of ours. Why not just default to the position which most atheists and say "we don't know, so until it can be shown, we won't believe it"?

liamw · 30-04-2011 03:48PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

I just do not think the physical universe can exist without an underlying cause which has attributes I would describe, crudely, as mind-like.

Sorry if this sounds unconvincing. Some people will know what I mean, others, including atheists, won't. Perhaps the atheist brain lacks some wiring. Cant be helped.

No, my brain is pretty much wired the same as yours I'm sure. The only difference is I don't allow myself to fall victim to my own mental predispositions. You can do the same thing if you are intellectually honest.

MagicMarker · 30-04-2011 04:38PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

Unlike theists, I dont beleive the supreme being is necessarily a supernatural entity. It might be super-material, but that is not the same thing. I just do not think the physical universe can exist without an underlying cause which has attributes I would describe, crudely, as mind-like.

Sorry if this sounds unconvincing. Some people will know what I mean, others, including atheists, won't. Perhaps the atheist brain lacks some wiring. Cant be helped.

So you're not going to answer my question then?

MagicMarker wrote: »

Is it reasonable to think a supreme being put it there?

Funny how some people disappear after a question is asked only to come back a day or two later and carry on posting as if no question was posed at all.

oldrnwisr · 30-04-2011 05:26PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

Unlike theists, I dont beleive the supreme being is necessarily a supernatural entity. It might be super-material, but that is not the same thing.

Oh, I see your idea now is to make it harder to argue against you by making your definition of god nonsensical and vague.

Boulevardier wrote: »

I just do not think the physical universe can exist without an underlying cause which has attributes I would describe, crudely, as mind-like.

Why not? What evidence do you have for your position?

Boulevardier wrote: »

Sorry if this sounds unconvincing.

Gee, you think so?

Boulevardier wrote: »

Some people will know what I mean, others, including atheists, won't. Perhaps the atheist brain lacks some wiring. Cant be helped.

I think you're right there. I think that atheists and skeptics are missing the "willing to believe in bull**** for no reason" portion of our brains. Or maybe it's just switched off. Still though it's better to have a logical, analytical brain than none at all.

MRPRO03 · 01-05-2011 02:02AM

In my opinion and with experience of people who say they are atheists, treat atheism as a religion rather than an belief. They are basically doing the same thing that religious people or groups do. For Instance, lets look at Dawkins, I would call him a preacher, cause what he does is the equivalent of what a pope, pastor or high religious figure would do and that is to convert the people to their belief via speeches, TV, Books, Internet etc.

Dawkins is trying to convert people, but surely atheism is not about converting people but more about the individual making a decision on his/her own opinion rather than someone giving you ''the evidence''. If you are an atheist and you have freedom to make the choice, it should not be about trying to make someone else come to way of thought but that a single person comes to that idea of religion being bogus from a personal perspective.

Like, a forum for atheists, like what do atheists talk about ?, its a strange one for me, I am not trying to argumentative here, but atheism is belief of no god or diety, so there is nothing to discuss and yet, it has over 1000 threads, It really amazes me. Its like those atheist only clubs, only atheists can join, but atheism does not mean that all atheists are the same, it is not about joining a group but a personal decision for personal gain and freedom. Some of these clubs have the potential to get very dangerous and secretive as more people possibly join them.

Go on web, and you have countless websites about atheism, whatever you want to know about how to be a good atheist to how to promote evolution. It is crazy how much atheism has 'evolved' over the years, for many famous faces from Dawkins to Hawking, trying their best to ram it down your throat, they should stick their sciences, which is what they are good at and be a good atheist without trying to mock those with religious beliefs.

If you an atheist, you have no need to explain to people why you an atheist, it is your belief, simple as that.

Turtwig · 01-05-2011 02:19AM

*Grabs Popcorn*

The Mad Hatter · 01-05-2011 05:59AM

MRPRO03 wrote: »

Same old, same old, and - wow - lots of it...

Zillah wrote: »

I could easily become the greatest troll on earth based on my experiences on this forum. Such...things...I could say to atheists to trigger that twitch.

...That you, Zillah?

Undergod · 01-05-2011 08:24AM

Atheism =/= belief. Atheism =/= disbelief. Atheism = absence of belief.

MRPRO03 wrote: »

In my opinion and with experience of people who say they are atheists, treat atheism as a religion rather than an belief.

That may be the case for some people; I don't find it to be the norm on these boards at least. Also, atheism is not a belief.

MRPRO03 wrote: »

Dawkins is trying to convert people, but surely atheism is not about converting people but more about the individual making a decision on his/her own opinion rather than someone giving you ''the evidence''. If you are an atheist and you have freedom to make the choice, it should not be about trying to make someone else come to way of thought but that a single person comes to that idea of religion being bogus from a personal perspective.

Really? Atheists shouldn't be allowed tell others of their absence of belief? Why is "making someone else come to that way of thought" such a bad thing for non-believers to do, but evangelism is okay? Could you not say that people ought to come to the idea of religious faith from a personal perspective?

Seems like you've already got a position of "belief good, atheism bad" and are basing your argument on that.

MRPRO03 wrote: »

Like, a forum for atheists, like what do atheists talk about ?,

Many people are interested in making society more secular, it's not an interest exclusive to atheists, but you can see why there might be an overlap.

MRPRO03 wrote: »

It really amazes me. Its like those atheist only clubs, only atheists can join, but atheism does not mean that all atheists are the same, it is not about joining a group but a personal decision for personal gain and freedom. Some of these clubs have the potential to get very dangerous and secretive as more people possibly join them.

Theism does not mean all Theists are the same. Presbyterianism does not mean all Presbyterians are the same. Of course not all atheists are the same, I'm not sure what the point is.

How could a club for atheists get very dangerous? Is revolutionary comradeship to be found in the absence of faith, or in the cold, absent embrace of no gods? And how does it get more secretive as it gets bigger?

MRPRO03 wrote: »

Go on web, and you have countless websites about atheism, whatever you want to know about how to be a good atheist to how to promote evolution. It is crazy how much atheism has 'evolved' over the years, for many famous faces from Dawkins to Hawking, trying their best to ram it down your throat, they should stick their sciences, which is what they are good at and be a good atheist without trying to mock those with religious beliefs.

Evolution is not a part of atheism. Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. What do you mean by "how to be a good atheist"? How to be atheist well, or how to be a good person while being an atheist? While the idea of the first one is admittedly odd, the second one is interesting as one of the common responses to atheism is "where do you get your morals?"

Stephen Hawking? Where does he ram atheism down anyone's throat? I've certainly never heard him accused of mocking people with religious beliefs. And again; why should atheists not be allowed to promote their opinions?

MRPRO03 wrote: »

If you an atheist, you have no need to explain to people why you an atheist, it is your belief, simple as that.

If you are Baha'i you have no need to - I'm sure you can guess where I'm headed. Except atheism is an absence of belief.

From today I can call myself an atheist

Comments