Are you an atheist? (1 Viewer)

[Mike375]

It seems to me that every time someone is cured of some disease and the onlookers say "It's a miracle and proves that God exists" - these people must be ignorant of the Douglas Adams "Babel Fish" argument.

Mike, you need to hope that we cannot ever prove that God DOES exist, because the moment we do, His son's "only through faith" disclaimer is proved to be a lie, which completely destroys any chance of His existence. And we don't know if, at the time Jesus said those words, He was speaking as the Son or the Trinity - since the three are one. But if that was the Trinity speaking, then all three are destroyed at once by finding even the smallest scintilla of proof. And that is enough to show the absurdity of it all, which is (dis-)proof enough for me.

Except I am not discussion the Christian religion. Note I have said many times...Gor or gods or whatever...

As to not be able to prove a negative can't you prove the following:

80 cms does not equal 3 ft
300 grams does not equal 1 pound etc.

In the case of an atheist he/her has insufficient evidence that anything outside physics exists and that results in a belief etc.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mike:

OK, technically I left out a word. You can't disprove a universal negative. Saying "there does not exist an example of X" is a universal negative. Saying that 80 cms does not equal 3 ft is not a universal negative. It is a specific negative.

Regarding the other issue:

I still like the idea of the Budweiser Unicorn though. Can you order them on-line?

We can't get them in New Orleans due to a special property of unicorns. No virgins here.

Sorry, it's an old local joke.

 

[Galaxiom]

Saying that 80 cms does not equal 3 ft is not a universal negative. It is a specific negative.

Actually "does not equal" is a positive statement and hence can be proven.

 

[Minty]

In the case of an atheist he/her has insufficient evidence that anything outside physics exists and that results in a belief etc.

Mike you misunderstand / don't know what a belief is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
note the first couple of sentences please.

Your assertion above is wrong.

 

[Mike375]

Mike you misunderstand / don't know what a belief is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
note the first couple of sentences please.

Your assertion above is wrong.

"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty"

Do you have evidence there is no Gog, gods or whatever? Obviously you don't and neither does anyone else.

As a side note for the insects and little lizards in the garden we are like a god and with super natural powers.

Being a god or gods or whatever does not require them to be all powerful and all knowing. Let's not confuse a lack of belief in the Abrahamic religions as being a true atheist.

 

[Galaxiom]

"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty"

Quite different from not thinking that something is the case.

Do you have evidence there is no Gog, gods or whatever? Obviously you don't and neither does anyone else.

That does not make it a religious belief.

As a side note for the insects and little lizards in the garden we are like a god and with super natural powers.

The absence of the ability in a lizard to comprehend the nature of humans does not make us gods. Neither would the advanced technologies of an alien civilisation render them as gods.

You use the term "god" far too loosely in order to support your ill-founded assertion of atheism being a religious belief.

 

[Mike375]

You use the term "god" far too loosely in order to support your ill-founded assertion of atheism being a religious belief.

You seem to be suggesting your atheism relates to Abrahamic religions.

However assuming that is not the case atheism is a belief based on the evidence you have available. That is exactly the same situation as people who have a belief in "there is something there"

The bottom line is each side simply does not know. Both sides believe they have sufficient evidence to express a belief.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

My story may or may not be typical. I used to believe. One day after my mother reached stage three of Alzheimer's, I went to the Bible for comfort. However, in that state of mind, I could not find it no matter how hard I searched. All the words that seemed so important before were now useless to me. (Well, most of them. I still believe that 'forgiveness' is a good thing.)

In essence, the Abrahamic God's book didn't stand up to deeper inspection. All it did was to catalogue stories that, under scrutiny, were simply repetition of older legends. But the assertions of the existence of a God, and by extension, the existence of any being or entity holding that position in ANY religion, quickly fell apart too.

My introspection and my deeper inspection of the Bible led me to realize that many religious people are very much like that old country-western song, "Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places." People are looking for cause in a universe based on probability and statistics.

The writing is decent but not great, but Jean Auel's "Earth's Children" series shows a great bit of anthropology research into ancient customs where primitive people did not understand the basic concept of reality: Stuff happens! I find that series, which is a bit boring in some parts, nonetheless captures the primitive way of thinking that every event in every life is shaped by outside forces which they tend to anthropomorphize.

The Zen viewpoint, on the other hand, looks at questions as sometimes being wrong to ask in the first place. Q: "Why did this happen to me?" A: "Because stuff happens." Any other answer is an attempt to somehow make you feel special because some magical mystical being "has a plan for you."

I am also reminded of the movie A Few Good Men and the infamous scene between Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson: "I want the truth." "You can't handle the truth." And that statement, when transferred to people who cower in religious fear, is absolutely true. They can't handle the truth - that each of us, though perhaps special to our family and friends, is just another speck in an incomprehensibly large universe. In a small environment, we ARE special. In the greater scheme of things, we are like the countless grains of sand blowing in a desert.

 

[Mike375]

As far as the Abrahamic religions go I was out of them by the time I was teenager.

I have had many discussions with Born Again Christians and ones who have a high education ie. dentists, dental specialists and medical specialists.

For me the single big hole is the all knowing and all powerful God. Some answer that objection with something like.....He does not need to use his foreknowledge.......or we can't expect to understand the actions or thinking of such a being.

As a group medical specialists are in the main....something must be there .....and this is definitely a product of their occupation.

My beliefs swing around a bit but generally the core is there is some outside force but I think it is limited, that is, it is not in the after life category etc. I do believe in some form of mental telepathy and individuals differ how much they radiate and also differ in the receiving department.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mike, in re telepathy and other "powers of the mind" that you mentioned: The "psi" factor cannot be discounted but doesn't lead to supreme beings. It leads to "there are more things under Heaven and Earth ... than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (quoting the Bard). In other words, we know a lot but we don't know it all. And to that, I would agree. Hell, for all I know some of that stuff is a form of mental quantum entanglement. And given the tangled logic I so often see from the religious types, it couldn't happen to a nicer group!

I am also reminded of a quote from Arthur C Clarke that is relevant to the tendency of folks to anthropomorphize (DAMN that's an awkward word!) anything they can't understand due to their limited or totally lacking skills in science: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Folks say, "I'm cured and it was a miracle." But they don't want to hear someone add "Yes, a miracle of modern science."

I agree with you on the nature of the Abrahamic hole / gap. The logical inconsistencies associated with an all-knowing, all-seeing God figure acting as judge, jury, and executioner are SO extreme that it is almost nauseating.

 

[aziz rasul]

100% atheist, but if I found myself standing before the pearly gates (or the gate to hell) I could be persuaded to change my mind.

If you are sincerely seeking God, then I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that you will ‘find’ Him. Look at my post #5830.

Human reproduction process - one spermatozoon, out of 100's of millions, enters the egg and is secured, the fertilised egg becomes a clot and eventually implants itself to the wall of the uterus, referred to as implantation.

Moreover We placed him as a drop (nutfah) in a safe lodging. Then We created the drop (nutfah) into a clinging clot (alaqah).
Qur’an – Surah al-Mu’minun (The Believers) 23:13-14

 

[aziz rasul]

There are many Christians who are becoming Muslims over the past many decades as a result of close scrutiny of their Christian faith and come to the conclusion that the core message of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) i.e. the Oneness of God was the same. Here are some pointers.

1. There originally 79 Gospels, which were eventually whittled down to the 4 we have today.

2. In the original Greek manuscript written by man, the word ‘begotten’ doesn’t appear once. The English translators, incorrectly, have introduced this word in the Gospel of John a few times in the KJV version (Jesus (peace be upon him) is not speaking in these verses. If you read the NRSV version published in 1989 in the same verses the word is not there. This was decided by many Christian scholars at the time.

3. Neither Zakariya, John, Mary nor Jesus (peace be upon them) ever said that Jesus (peace be upon him) was the ‘begotten’ son of God.

4. In Mark 12:29-30 Jesus (peace be upon him) says, Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’. Compare this with the first commandment given to Moses (peace be upon him) and Qur’an 112:1 where God is asking Muhammad (peace be upon him) to say, Say, "He is Allaah, [who is] One,

 

[Vassago]

There are many Christians who are becoming Muslims over the past many decades as a result of close scrutiny of their Christian faith and come to the conclusion that the core message of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) i.e. the Oneness of God was the same. Here are some pointers.

1. There originally 79 Gospels, which were eventually whittled down to the 4 we have today.

2. In the original Greek manuscript written by man, the word ‘begotten’ doesn’t appear once. The English translators, incorrectly, have introduced this word in the Gospel of John a few times in the KJV version (Jesus (peace be upon him) is not speaking in these verses. If you read the NRSV version published in 1989 in the same verses the word is not there. This was decided by many Christian scholars at the time.

3. Neither Zakariya, John, Mary nor Jesus (peace be upon them) ever said that Jesus (peace be upon him) was the ‘begotten’ son of God.

4. In Mark 12:29-30 Jesus (peace be upon him) says, Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’. Compare this with the first commandment given to Moses (peace be upon him) and Qur’an 112:1 where God is asking Muhammad (peace be upon him) to say, Say, "He is Allaah, [who is] One,

I think the key phrase you have used here is "written by man." No matter how you spin it, people are not infallible. Most religious text says this very thing. In the far-off chance that God did speak directly to man, is it inconceivable that man could misinterpret what God has said? We can't even translate our own languages well, as you have pointed out.

 

[Galaxiom]

There are many Christians who are becoming Muslims over the past many decades as a result of close scrutiny of their Christian faith ,

And vastly more have become atheists for precisely the same reason.

 

[Galaxiom]

If you are sincerely seeking God, then I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that you will ‘find’ Him.

Humans have always imagined patterns in things, especially where they have been primed from birth to see them. God, by whatever name, is a human engineered delusion.

 

[aziz rasul]

One other issue, while I am in the mood, is this issue of Creationism v Evolution. Everyone I have talked and I mean everyone, either allies themselves to one camp or the other without at least hearing the other side of the argument. For me there are two facts

1. God exists, where the evidence can be obtained from the Qur'an.
2. Different humanoid species existed before Homo Sapiens, where the evidence can be obtained through carbon dating.

Hence I have no problem in accepting that different species of man existed before Adam (peace be upon him). God simply tells us in the Qur'an that Adam (peace be upon him) was a NEW creation. This does not imply, as people who believe in God, that other species of man did not exist before Adam (peace be upon him). After all, God has created millions of species of different things.

29.19 What! Do they not consider how Allaah originates the creation, then reproduces it? Surely that is easy to Allaah.

36.77 “Does not man see that it is We Who created him from a sperm-drop? Yet behold! He (stands forth) as an open disputer!”

35.15 O mankind, you are those in need of Allaah, while Allaah is the Free of need, the Praiseworthy.
35.16 If He wills, He can do away with you and bring forth a new creation.
35.17 And that is for Allaah not difficult.

 

[Galaxiom]

For me there are two facts

1. God exists, where the evidence can be obtained from the Qur'an. .....

Your every consideration starts with this delusion and infects every conclusion that you make.

Your brain is incapable of considering any other possibility.

I have previously debunked your claim that the Qur'an is supported by science. You never engage in debate but simply go away for a while then come back with exactly the same nonsense again.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

1. God exists, where the evidence can be obtained from the Qur'an.

But...

2. The Qur'an exists because it was written by the hand of a man, regardless of whether that man was a dreamer or a receiver of imposed dreams. And the moment Man gets his hand into anything, that guarantees it to be error-prone.

3. The ONLY thing for which religious people TRULY have to be thankful is that, whatever their religion, it WASN'T written by a government agency. Between political correctness, redaction, and the requirement to include appropriate references, either the Bible could not exist at all, or it could only exist in a 40-volume set taking up at least 8 feet of shelf space. (Which would make it slightly shorter than the Operations Guide to IBM's DOS/360.)

 

[Mike375]

Your every consideration starts with this delusion and infects every conclusion that you make.

Your brain is incapable of considering any other possibility.

I have previously debunked your claim that the Qur'an is supported by science. You never engage in debate but simply go away for a while then come back with exactly the same nonsense again.

You appear to be the same.

You should be more respectful of other people's views on this subject and for the simple reason neither side can prove anything.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You appear to be the same.

Mike, there is a concept in USA law that may be analogous to the situation about which you complain. In law, res judicata means "a matter already having been judged" - and this is the basis of the concept of "legal precedent."

The concept also applies in the field of scientific research. Once an experimental result has been observed and peer-reviewed, there is usually no need to go back and repeat the experiment. The exceptions would be cause by something new - such as a new contrary observation; a new and more sensitive measuring instrument; or a new mathematical model/theory regarding the thing being measured.

Lacking new information, there is usually no need to go over the same ground again and again. Other than as a teaching exercise, there is no need to re-derive DeMorgan's Theorem. There is no need to re-derive the basic gas law (PV=nRT, if your chemistry is rusty) from statistical considerations of molecular movement. There is no need to re-derive Kirchoff's laws of circuit behavior.

In this thread, we have had the dialogs and shown the lack of evidence or misinterpretation of evidence, including an explanation regarding the common misunderstand of what actually constitutes "evidence" to a rational mind. The teaching value has vanished. If we went over this stuff again, it would be like a remedial class which, to be gentle, is usually reserved for folks who didn't get it right the first time.

Your complaint about Galaxiom is made while overlooking the hard fact: we are faced with the absence of anything new in this argument. Having something new is one of the few ways of discarding or bypassing historical decisions. Please let us know where the "new" factor appears in this discussion.