Atheism's Opposition with Nature..

**Al-Warraq** · 07-13-2012

One of the claims of atheism is that it is a return to mother nature, i.e. it tries to reconnect man with Nature. But this claim is not true, because on what scientific and logical basis it was assumed that connecting with nature leads to atheism and denying the existence of God? What is the evidence for that?

Also, human beings are part of nature, and I don’t think atheism says that humans aren't part of nature! All those people have religions, and intuitively know of the existence of god, they differed in the kind and number of gods but they agreed in His existence, and atheism is an exception of the rule, excluded from human nature.

Besides, the human mind is part of human beings, i.e. part of nature, and man's natural mind also intuitively knows that for each created there is a creator. Atheism, however, opposes that with no conclusive evidence from nature itself, and this is an unnatural position.

Moreover, why does atheism like changing nature by allowing to manipulate its laws in the name of science and gaining control? This is what Transhumanism propagates which is an atheistic doctrine. And why does Atheism waves the slogan of Man's victory over nature? Which is represented by Nietzsche's atheist superman who will overcome nature and become a god.

Human emotions, aren't they part of nature? They are the immaterial nature of Man in contrast to his material nature (body). Why does atheism oppresse the human feelings and doesn’t consider them proof of anything? It doesn’t even admit that the human emotion is independent and not even admit its existence! And its place is given to the mind and science. Atheism is even proud of overcoming feelings in the name of rationality, and that is an opposition to nature. Where is, then, the respect for nature and the desire to connect with it as atheism claims? It's just a way to pass unnoticed into the minds of people by misusing people's love of nature.

If atheism were the only method to fellow on earth, it would be, according to what is mentioned above, enough to ruin Earth, the environment, nature and human beings. Because it doesn’t respect nature's structure and laws and aspires to alter it. Atheism wants to rip apart the material nature, and the moral nature of humanity and yet it keeps claiming itself to be a natural position!

Which one really is wanted to go to the other: the atheist to nature or nature to the atheist who carries Nietzsche's desires?

Homosexuality isn’t found in nature because it has no purpose, and yet atheism defends it in the name of freedom. Also drugs and alcohol aren't part of Man's nature, they are artificial and poisonous, i.e. not natural, and the human body doesn’t need them as nutrition and they are harmful to it, but atheism sees no problem with them, it even encourages using them, as one of thousands of oppositions to nature from atheism.

Also, world literature since the beginning of history is centered around mainly on two major themes: God and Love. And both of them are denied by atheism because they are not susceptible for science labs.

One of man's genuine natural characteristics is the especial care given to values and morality. Atheism, however, wants interests to be ahead of morality, contrary to human nature, and doesn’t not admit morals as absolute facts.

Atheism wants to make up a forged history for nature, that serves atheism more than the truth, as in the unnatural and unscientific evolution theory. Atheism presents nature different than what it really is, and wants us to believe that bulls suddenly jumped into the sea and became whales! And fishes evolved to be humans. If we believe in that then we should believe in the myth of the mermaid as a missing link as its half fish - half human!

Atheism advocates struggle and tries to found it in nature, advocating power and Capitalism as a consequence, even though struggle isn’t dominant in nature, it's harmony and submission to the laws of nature that is dominant. The human nature hates fighting, it loves peace and harmony. Struggle destroys nature, look what wars did in the environment and living beings, things balance with each other, not struggle with each other. Atheism tries to depict that water is struggling with the soil, while it is actually consistent with the heights and swags of the earth.

Atheism distorted the true image of science and nature because of the idea of randomness, even though nature is built on order, else science would not exist, because science is a record of nature's order and laws.

Atheism is actually an enemy to nature.

**GuestFellow** · 10-11-2012

I think we are way off topic.

**جوري** · 10-11-2012

You weren't impressed with his erroneous conclusions when he tried to impress us with his punnett square and you're not impressed with his find KSA on the map although he clearly channeled ms. south Carolina for that one what's an atheist gotta to do to loan his statements some credence around here?

**GuestFellow** · 10-11-2012

^ Asslamu Aliakum,

Is your post referring to me? :/ Just making sure.

Well I did a quick skim over the topic pages...it had nothing to do with atheism opposition with nature. I mean...I don't think members are even discussing that.

**Pygoscelis** · 10-11-2012

Originally Posted by MustafaMc

From reading your post, I can see how one without faith would see these books as collections of mythical stories from the past and fanciful and imaginary dreams about what is beyond death.

If God is out there, he hides well. If he exists and has the kind of power attributed to him and wanted to be seen and known to all, he would be. The world looks a lot like we'd expect it to look if there were no gods. And miracles seem to be something in the holy books (story books) and not something observable today.

I can see how you may perceive people of faith as being backward and lacking in intellectual capacity

This I disagree with and I hope any atheist here would. Brilliant people can be religious. The smartest ones are often the most resistant to shaking their faith, because they are more apt at coming up with explanations for observations or experiences that may not match it too well. Michael Shermer wrote an excellent book on that. If you have a belief going in, say one that you were indoctrinated with as a child (before your mind was developed to be too critical) or say one that you accept based on something other than logic (such as emotional content - ie, "my wife is not cheating on me"), then the smarter you are the stronger your conviction is likely to be.

**Pygoscelis** · 10-11-2012

Originally Posted by شَادِنُ

I have felt the same about western Ideology. It is far inferior to all the cultures of the east and in fact western theology as we know it finds its roots in the east but with a funny spin to it. If left to their own devices without our aid they'd be praying to Thor and Odin, but then they too a highly spiritual Middle Eastern philosophy and brought it down to the lowest common denominator animalizing it in fact.
Their constitutions were written by men with poor hygiene sporting women pantyhose and funny wigs to hide their lice. So I am beyond flabbergasted as to why they wish to export that to us, impose it on us and under some intellectual bullying because they'd rated themselves civilized. I haven't read anything by any western scholar that compares in richness and imagination to anything written by ours (and I am not just talking about religion) To this day regular literature like Robayaat Al'khyaam has them confused.

As an outsider looking in, I don't see that huge a difference between the Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Judaism, Christianity). They are far more alike than they are different from what I have seen. Different would be even further east. As to which is better, I suspect your bias would be screaming out, regardless of which of these religions is yours, so of course you say Islam is superior.

**Pygoscelis** · 10-11-2012

Originally Posted by GuestFellow

^ Asslamu Aliakum,

Is your post referring to me? :/ Just making sure.

Well I did a quick skim over the topic pages...it had nothing to do with atheism opposition with nature. I mean...I don't think members are even discussing that.

We tried at the start of the thread. It started with a guy making a bunch of groundless assertions and straw men about atheists and what we believe. I corrected it. There wasn't much else to be said. The thread went off topic from there, like way back on the first page or so. Since then we've had a fun chat about evolution and now other stuff.

**جوري** · 10-12-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

As an outsider looking in, I don't see that huge a difference between the Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Judaism, Christianity). They are far more alike than they are different from what I have seen. Different would be even further east. As to which is better, I suspect your bias would be screaming out, regardless of which of these religions is yours, so of course you say Islam is superior.

It isn't a question of superiority given they were all at some point revelations from the God of Abraham. It's a question of which is most correct. I have given the analogy before although with different examples that aspirin and Tylenol and naproxen and ketorolac are all used for pain relief but which would you give someone with a cluster headache? Only one answer will score you a point on your test and if you actually also use the test to do well by your patient. And as I said before it's a solo journey of discovery that must be walked alone!
I don't subscribe to the notion that god is only the god of Israel nor do I accèpt the coñcept of a god who dies and has a mother etc. If I am not at peace with the core tenets then it doesn't matter how lovely the rest!
I need both my heart and mind to be happy hence the choice and it was a conscious decision - it isn't easy to change your life mid twenties especially when comfortable in a particular lifestyle and the change you make requires dedication and hard work!

**CosmicPathos** · 10-12-2012

I would have given atheists some credit had they lived their lives as skeptical misanthropes. On the other hand, they claim to be humanists. This deceptive claim of humanism really gives away any scholastic credibility that atheism otherwise could have. Being not sure of why we evolved and why we exist and being sure of the certainty of non-existence after death, after looing precious life, should make EVERY atheist angry, miserable and angsty. If they are not, they have deluded themselves, much like the religious ppl they portray as deluded bunch.

**M.I.A.** · 10-12-2012

Lets assume that is valid conclusion. What makes a creator?
What is its intent?

well i guess its just a test of character, i mean similar to those monkey experiments you see done by scientists.

except a particular constraint is put on it, the inclusion of the devil.. religions concept not of evil, but of evil personified and embodied, with intent and direction.

A pantheistic god that is immanent in the order of the universe?
A deistic god that engulfs everything in a panentheistic way?

i think of it as the opposite, nature and the system is not divinity personified but an artifact of the creator.
i think by observing it, the natural conclusion is that there is a creator.

i mean if there were no scientific evidence then that would be the most widespread conclusion.

and indeed with scientific discovery it should also have been the widespread conclusion, but its the rejection of a creator.. probably dismissed out of spite.

A personal human centric one seems odd given the scale of the universe and the time it existed, will exist with the short time span we will be around in our current form. Would be a narcissist's first choice obviously.
Is there a sentient god with other intentions and us being just the stepping stone. Maybe it is all about the cyborgs that come after us.
A creator thing responsible for order is a very generic thing.

well thats it really, the top end of the evolutionary scale cant see past itself, i mean evolution is best shown in things with variation and short lifespan, flys etc.

i mean if there is a god then the time constraints are really a non issue.

as for the augmented humans of the future, you seem to underestimate yourself. if you made a man of iron.. you would work to make him of flesh.. scientific progression.

it may take some time though.

i mean its like bicentennial man or something..

anyway for something of science that is not mainstream.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...n_1957777.html

**dusk** · 10-12-2012

Originally Posted by M.I.A.

and indeed with scientific discovery it should also have been the widespread conclusion, but its the rejection of a creator.. probably dismissed out of spite.

It is more the various specific claims people of different religions made over the centuries that have been found to be false. The creator is rejected because the gods and their stories that have been claimed to be the true one have been pushed back again and again. If ask scientist they don't say that there was definitely nothing before the big bang, they simply argue that anthroposophical gods that some people in the past made up aren't the answer. There is the M-Brane theory, the indeterminism in energy fluctuations. After all everything can come from Nothing because if there are no laws that keep it from coming about or confining it that there are no limits.
Among one of the most striking discoveries is the non existence of determinism in the quantum mechanics. That changed much in philosophies which previously was assumed to be impossible and simply not logically possible.

Originally Posted by M.I.A.

well thats it really, the top end of the evolutionary scale cant see past itself, i mean evolution is best shown in things with variation and short lifespan, flys etc.

Indeed. The next logical steps seems that humans use genetic knowledge, prosthetics, AI and other stuff to make themselves better, rather than wait on selection in successive generations.

Originally Posted by M.I.A.

as for the augmented humans of the future, you seem to underestimate yourself. if you made a man of iron.. you would work to make him of flesh.. scientific progression.

Iron, flesh you think to simple. Immunity to desease, halting of aging and decay, increasing of intelligence, adding of new abilities like infra red and UV sight, phones integrated into your body. There is quite a lot that might change with humans in just 500 years and our planet should still be around for a good billion.

Originally Posted by M.I.A.

anyway for something of science that is not mainstream.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...n_1957777.html

The idea isn't new. Awesome paper.
The philosophy of time in regards to simulation is also really interesting.
One can call god to be whatever is responsible for the simulation one is currently in.

Originally Posted by CosmicPathos

Being not sure of why we evolved and why we exist and being sure of the certainty of non-existence after death, after looing precious life, should make EVERY atheist angry, miserable and angsty.

Do you also get angry about not existing before you were born? I sure know why you need to believe in your religion. I for one think that worrying about non existence to be inane. I don't know any atheist that is angry or miserable because life ends. Most just don't spend their days worrying about an after life but instead try to enjoy the life they are in. Humanism is just a philosophy on how to go about helping shape a society that "humanists" want to enjoy their life in, rather than alternative societies. Humanism again isn't an Atheist invention but a Christian one and is simple a philosophy that works as secular humanism just as well if you remove the magical god stuff.

**Pygoscelis** · 10-12-2012

Originally Posted by CosmicPathos

Being not sure of why we evolved and why we exist and being sure of the certainty of non-existence after death, after looing precious life, should make EVERY atheist angry, miserable and angsty.

You don't get to tell us what we believe or what we should feel. No more than I get to tell you that being enslaved to a cosmic tyrant who threatens and bribes you, demands your obedience without question despite unethical demands, and demands bigotry and hatred from them should make every theist angry, miserable, and angsty.

**جوري** · 10-12-2012

That is in fact a testament to resurrection!
As we have come from the nothing to life, from the dark of night to day light so shall we be raised again to eternal life.
What seems like nothing to you is a great testament to the something that awaits. It is no small feat to exist in fact it is the exception and for so brief a while so how can one be anything but happy of it?

Originally Posted by dusk

Do you also get angry about not existing before you were born?

20 55 1 - Atheism's Opposition with Nature..

Minha khalaqnakum wafeeha nuAAeedukum waminha nukhrijukum taratan okhra

20:55 From the (earth) did We create you, and into it shall We return you, and from it shall We bring you out once again.

**CosmicPathos** · 10-12-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

You don't get to tell us what we believe or what we should feel.

Its not a matter of belief. It is a matter of next logical deduction from the starting premise that "we are here because we are here and we dont know why." No where I said it was a belief. Try again.

**M.I.A.** · 10-12-2012

Originally Posted by dusk

It is more the various specific claims people of different religions made over the centuries that have been found to be false. The creator is rejected because the gods and their stories that have been claimed to be the true one have been pushed back again and again. If ask scientist they don't say that there was definitely nothing before the big bang, they simply argue that anthroposophical gods that some people in the past made up aren't the answer. There is the M-Brane theory, the indeterminism in energy fluctuations. After all everything can come from Nothing because if there are no laws that keep it from coming about or confining it that there are no limits.
Among one of the most striking discoveries is the non existence of determinism in the quantum mechanics. That changed much in philosophies which previously was assumed to be impossible and simply not logically possible.
Indeed. The next logical steps seems that humans use genetic knowledge, prosthetics, AI and other stuff to make themselves better, rather than wait on selection in successive generations.
Iron, flesh you think to simple. Immunity to desease, halting of aging and decay, increasing of intelligence, adding of new abilities like infra red and UV sight, phones integrated into your body. There is quite a lot that might change with humans in just 500 years and our planet should still be around for a good billion.
The idea isn't new. Awesome paper.
The philosophy of time in regards to simulation is also really interesting.
One can call god to be whatever is responsible for the simulation one is currently in.
Do you also get angry about not existing before you were born? I sure know why you need to believe in your religion. I for one think that worrying about non existence to be inane. I don't know any atheist that is angry or miserable because life ends. Most just don't spend their days worrying about an after life but instead try to enjoy the life they are in. Humanism is just a philosophy on how to go about helping shape a society that "humanists" want to enjoy their life in, rather than alternative societies. Humanism again isn't an Atheist invention but a Christian one and is simple a philosophy that works as secular humanism just as well if you remove the magical god stuff.

...i think your missing the point of what i have written.

anyway you are incorrect and correct that something can come from nothing, but i doubt the god line of "be and it is" is something you ponder on.. neither do i.
anyway im not much of a physicist but i recently saw a video about the construction or programming of the web being similar to actual world construction!

it does not detract from the old god i mean these new discoveries and theories are still trying to grasp an old universe.

im not much of a fan about determinism but if you point me in the right direction of study il have a look.. still not much of a physicist.. and im sure it applies differently in such field.

as for the next logical step being prosthetic's, you definitely missed the point.

the most perfect of machines would be a self repairing, self reproducing, self aware, sentient and self programming machine.

can you guess what it is yet?

i guess i was looking at it from a different perspective.

Originally Posted by dusk

One can call god to be whatever is responsible for the simulation one is currently in.

i guess thats as close to an admission il ever get, but yes you can.

if you are two then god is a third and if you are three then god is the fourth... very loosly paraphrased and i dont know ayah numbers etc.

but you can only move forward from that step.

have fun.

Originally Posted by M.I.A.

Do you also get angry about not existing before you were born? I sure know why you need to believe in your religion. I for one think that worrying about non existence to be inane. I don't know any atheist that is angry or miserable because life ends. Most just don't spend their days worrying about an after life but instead try to enjoy the life they are in. Humanism is just a philosophy on how to go about helping shape a society that "humanists" want to enjoy their life in, rather than alternative societies. Humanism again isn't an Atheist invention but a Christian one and is simple a philosophy that works as secular humanism just as well if you remove the magical god stuff.

no i dont.

i mean when i sleep i dream, but i dont control my dreams.

i dont get sad at the thought of my life ending, i get sad at how other peoples lives have ended.

...its something to work against.

heres something your not grasping, i dont worry about an afterlife.. i have been told to work towards it.

what i will get i do not know. what i have done deeply concerns me.

its like not understanding what your mouth, your hands, your body have done to.. the people around you.

its a test of what you have done to yourself and the people around you.. and most dont see beyond themselves.

and when you do.. then its an increase in awareness and responsibility.

i did have a very fun life before islam.

its like driving a car, there are laws and good practice. respect for one often leads to development of the other.

but i cant remove god from the equation, it seems like he made the place and then walked away.

sure there may not be magic in it anymore.. but someday there might be again.

its not like athiesm is the answer.

again, have fun...and enjoy your life.

its not like these nutters are worth bothering with.

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

You don't get to tell us what we believe or what we should feel. No more than I get to tell you that being enslaved to a cosmic tyrant who threatens and bribes you, demands your obedience without question despite unethical demands, and demands bigotry and hatred from them should make every theist angry, miserable, and angsty.

lol sounds like modern society, maybe the modern workplace.

if you think god is the same then i guess you have not met moses AS... im kidding neither have i.

but it is always a case of perspective, i mean sometimes you just cant get a day off.. the irony does not escape me.

we are all trapped in the invisible prison..

some just misdirect there anger others dont know any better.

someday you'll just be able to walk out, hopefully.

...yeah went off at a tangent there, thats as much venting as i do.

**Pygoscelis** · 10-12-2012

Originally Posted by CosmicPathos

"we are here because we are here and we dont know why."

And such refreshing honesty is supposed to make us feel miserable? Can't we just enjoy life and build happy and productive socieities where we are all good to each other? Why should bother us that we don't fight over who has the better imaginary friend?

**Aprender** · 10-12-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Can't we just enjoy life and build happy and productive socieities where we are all good to each other?

Would be nice if it was that easy, huh?

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Why should bother us that we don't fight over who has the better imaginary friend?

Rude.

**Aprender** · 10-12-2012

Originally Posted by dusk

he argument against suffering is often it seems to me a reason to leave a faith you are already in. When I hear former Christians talk about why they lost faith it is rarely because of the credibility of the bible as most aren't inerrancy types, but about "why does god allow for such an unfair world, suffering, ...?"
For those teens that you talk to I think it is more what I said. The suffering argument to them is more one that aimes primarily at the religion they are currently facing and one we atheist think is non partisan, not insulting and easy to understand from any perspective. IMO it is the general goto response if people don't want to enter anymore in depth discussions because they aren't interested in philosophy or the topic in general.
This is just an argument but not the reason for disbelieve. The reason is that they mostly see no reason to believe in it and also no indication why one religion or holy book should get any more credit than any other.

That most Atheist argue against the Judeo-Christian god is simply because this was and still is the dominant religion in societies where most Atheist live and can speak freely (while they could not in the past). You can argue best against what you know best. Many philosophers after dismantling Christianity think there won't be anything worthwhile in anything remotely similar. How remote depends on the person.

Great cartoon to understand atheist reasoning and the term atheism in general.

You don't get to tell me what atheists believe. I prefer to ask them on an individual level and get answers from them myself. Everyone is different. You have no right to make generalizations about the beliefs and personal feelings of the atheists of the world.

If I wanted to know what you believe as an atheist and why, then I would have given you the same courtesy of asking you for your personal beliefs instead of making assumptions.

**dusk** · 10-12-2012

Originally Posted by Aprender

You don't get to tell me what atheists believe. I prefer to ask them on an individual level and get answers from them myself. Everyone is different. You have no right to make generalizations about the beliefs and personal feelings of the atheists of the world.

If I wanted to know what you believe as an atheist and why, then I would have given you the same courtesy of asking you for your personal beliefs instead of making assumptions.

I didn't imply that I know it exactly but I do have an edge over you in understanding atheist view points and definitely know a very wide spectrum. I did spend quite a lot of time debating and analyzing different world views down to the most basic differences. You can also bet that most atheist unless they are very firm in philosophical debates (or particularly rude) aren't likely to be as honest when talking with you than when talking with other atheists.
My post was trying to give an alternative interpretation on your observations. Especially with religious people or people strongly leaning towards one political party, the interpretation of alternative view points are often skewed and simplistic.

Everyone is different and understand different viewpoints isn't quite as straight forward as you might think.

**Pygoscelis** · 10-12-2012

Originally Posted by Aprender

Rude.

Far less rude than telling people they should be angsty, miserable and depressed (when clearly they are not).

**Aprender** · 10-12-2012

Originally Posted by dusk

You can also bet that most atheist unless they are very firm in philosophical debates (or particularly rude) aren't likely to be as honest when talking with you than when talking with other atheists.

My post was trying to give an alternative interpretation on your observations. Especially with religious people or people strongly leaning towards one political party, the interpretation of alternative view points are often skewed and simplistic.

Everyone is different and understand different viewpoints isn't quite as straight forward as you might think.

You speak in assumptions. It's dangerous. You already assume that in talks I had with other atheists that these people are somehow random strangers and that I was already a Muslim. I was not. And because of that they wouldn't feel open about talking to me. Mr. Dusk you don't really know me. I am very easy to talk to in person and people find it easy to open up and tell me many things in confidence. Atheists or not.

You also assume that I am not capable of reading between the lines. That's dangerous too. As I said before, if I wanted your view point and extra analysis on what you think, believe and feel as an atheist, I would ask you for your personal opinion. I respect and I am perfectly fine with you feeling the way that you do about your outlook on life. It is yours. They are your conclusions. But don't go trying to generalize and analyze an entire outlook based on a snippet of something that I shared on the forum here with you.