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.

**Hulk** · 10-12-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

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

Wait a minute, are there still atheists under the belief of likening God to imaginary characters like santa/flying spaghetti monster/etc? How can you not get this? When believers say God we mean the Creator of the Universe. We are saying that everything around you did not appear out of nowhere.

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

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

Of course you can, just like how a goldfish in a fishbowl enjoys his life not reflecting where his food comes from as long as its there in the bowl.

As believers we recognise that God/The Creator is the source for everything. This is why we only eat meat that has been slaughtered in His name. We try not to be the kind of person who wakes up in a palace with a table full of food and just because he doesn't see where the owner is he deems himself as the owner.

**Aprender** · 10-12-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

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

Sorry to burst your lovely utopian bubble but some atheists are filled with angst, miserable and depressed.

**CosmicPathos** · 10-12-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

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?

Lack of meaning and reason to exist should make an intellectually honest man who does not want to be deluded anxious, sad and depressed.

**CosmicPathos** · 10-12-2012

Originally Posted by Aprender

Sorry to burst your lovely utopian bubble but some atheists are filled with angst, miserable and depressed.

and I applaud these well meaning men. They are terribly looking for peace yet they cant find it and instead of deluding themselves, they do begin to become angsty and miserable. And that is very honest of them.

Building communities, eh? Why so, when it is meaningless in the grand scheme of things? Why invest energy in such undertakings of being kind to humans when one day human species will be extinct anyways? Perhaps you dont think as much as you think you do.

**M.I.A.** · 10-12-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

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?

individually. yes.. family and friends are the basis of your society.. how smooth does it run.

as a society..as a whole. no.

i know its pathetic but you would expect people to take things seriously or at the very least.

even in jest, not lose sight of there objectives.

its not about fighting over things that dont exist,

its about what you believe in...

and those are tested constantly no matter which faith you are.

you either go with the flow are swim against the tide.

i mean if we were all saints then you would need to be really good to stand out. as it is, its a talent contest every day.

and a part of me thinks that having people who act in your best interests rather than theres is what makes society move forward.

i mean scientists for example achieve so much because thats there goal.

thats what they want to achieve.

they might do it for themselves or for humanity but without acceptance they would just be books on shelves.

no less important in content.

similarly i dont see religion as something that holds society back, i mean people often talk of culture..often as something that has become diluted or lost.

the values of society have changed. and its not a case of multiculturalism being the culprit...or anything else for that matter.

rather the moral teachings of those that have already gone that are missing.

**dusk** · 10-12-2012

Originally Posted by Hulk

Wait a minute, are there still atheists under the belief of likening God to imaginary characters like santa/flying spaghetti monster/etc?

Hey the flying spaghetti monster is the reason for gravity. Unless you float around without weight it cannot be imaginary.

**MustafaMc** · 10-13-2012

I find references to FSM to be insulting and disrespectful to my Creator and, therefore, I will be leaving this discussion.

**Pygoscelis** · 10-13-2012

Originally Posted by Hulk

Wait a minute, are there still atheists under the belief of likening God to imaginary characters like santa/flying spaghetti monster/etc? How can you not get this? When believers say God we mean the Creator of the Universe.

Yes, we atheists know what you mean. We are just not convinced that this God you speak of exists. And there is no need to speak of Santa or Spaghetti monsters or whatever. We can speak of other gods like Zeus or Vishnu. We can speak of faeries, ghosts, zombies, witches, space alien visitors or vampires. And we can speak of any other being that you and I don't believe to exist, and may figure is imaginary, but others have or do genuinely believe in.

Originally Posted by MustafaMC

I find references to FSM to be insulting and disrespectful to my Creator and, therefore, I will be leaving this discussion.

Ironically it is a muslim brother that brought up the FSM in this thread, in the quote above.

I agree that the Flying Sphaghetti Monster is insulting, because it is specifically designed to mock religion. But other gods, faeries, alien visitors, etc, are not. Atheists see Gods like mulsims see these alleged beings. Other people believe them to exist and you simply don't (I am assuming). I hope that does not insult you too much, because it is simply our view, and I can think of no more polite or respectful comparisons to give. Perhaps you can suggest some.

Theists know something to be obviously true and must wonder why atheists don't see it (or sometimes they think atheists are rebelling or in denial). Atheists see theists claiming to believe something fantastic for no rational reason (or sometimes don't believe theists actually believe what they claim to but go along for social acceptance). At the end of the day, the raw truth is that you see me as blind and I see you as self-deluded. We can both strain to be more politically correct in stating our views of each other, but that won't change them. And I see no reason why either of us should be insulted by each other's view. They simply are what they are, and we can co-exist and have civil and constructive conversations just fine.

Of course you can, just like how a goldfish in a fishbowl enjoys his life not reflecting where his food comes from as long as its there in the bowl.

Some atheists are content to do exactly that, and don't care how life on earth arose or how we got here or what if anything will happen to the human race in the long term. Others do look into it and come up with theories and ideas.

**Pygoscelis** · 10-13-2012

Originally Posted by Aprender

Sorry to burst your lovely utopian bubble but some atheists are filled with angst, miserable and depressed.

Sure, as are some theists. But that isn't what CosmicPathos said. He said atheists SHOULD feel that way.

Originally Posted by CosmicPathos

Lack of meaning and reason to exist

I don't lack meaning in my life. There is plenty. It just wasn't invented by ancient people and handed down in some book. It is genuine and my own.

Building communities, eh? Why so, when it is meaningless in the grand scheme of things? Why invest energy in such undertakings of being kind to humans when one day human species will be extinct anyways?

Why eat when you are only going to get hungry again? Why make your bed in the morning when you are only going to sleep in it that night? Why enjoy any recreational activity when you know it won't last forever? Is the answer not obvious?

Am I misunderstanding you or do you seriously only enjoy your life because you hope something will come afterwards? That would sound like an incredibly empty life to me, like sitting in a waiting room awaiting your passage to the next better place. When you think this life is all you get, it becomes that much more precious, wonderful, and joyous. And it becomes that much more important to do right by your fellow man and engage in productive and happy societies for yourself while you are around, for your children and grandchildren afterwards, and for your friends and fellow human beings.

**جوري** · 10-13-2012

Originally Posted by MustafaMc

I find references to FSM to be insulting and disrespectful to my Creator and, therefore, I will be leaving this discussion.

I posted a nice rebuttal to that rather awkward piece of atheist literature (can't find it atm) not their finest achievement unfortunately but at the end of the day shows how their own imagination lacks in coherence and stretch so rather than meeting all the way on a level it devolves to that sad end of an otherwise intense debate. It isn't worth it to participate further and I have found that kind of debate to be most prevalent when they're at a loss to keep up.

**Ramadhan** · 10-13-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

But other gods, faeries, alien visitors, etc, are not. Atheists see Gods like mulsims see these alleged beings.

Do people believe that faeries. alien visitors created everything?

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Other people believe them to exist and you simply don't (I am assuming).

We muslim believe God (swt) created everything.

**CosmicPathos** · 10-13-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

I don't lack meaning in my life. There is plenty. It just wasn't invented by ancient people and handed down in some book. It is genuine and my own.

You have created this meaning. You could equally chosen to have no meaning in life. Hence, this is not true meaning of life but only a subjective permutation of your neurons, and as such I dont consider it to be a meaning, no matter how beloved it is to you.

**Pygoscelis** · 10-13-2012

Originally Posted by CosmicPathos

You have created this meaning. You could equally chosen to have no meaning in life. Hence, this is not true meaning of life but only a subjective permutation of your neurons, and as such I dont consider it to be a meaning, no matter how beloved it is to you.

And I think the exact opposite. I would say that meaning we create and accept for ourselves is the most important kind of meaning. It is the only meaning that we hold within us as true. Other "purpose" can exist, such as your purpose to the bacteria within you as being a dwelling for them, but that isn't the same thing, and I don't see why that should keep you from being miserable, angry, or agnsty. The only meaning that will have such an emotional component will be meaning that you have internalized and taken upon yourself as important. That may be meaning suggested to you by society, or family, or a perceived God or maker, or it may be meaning you find on your own.

Also, I must say that declaring somebody's subjective meaning in their life invalid is exactly what those atheists who mock religion with the FSM do. It is disrespectful for the exact same reason. It trivializes and dismisses what they hold dear.

**CosmicPathos** · 10-13-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

or it may be meaning you find on your own.

Since we keep on evolving, it implies the meaning we find ought to keep on evolving. I dont hold such changing meanings dear. You are free to do otherwise.

**M.I.A.** · 10-14-2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM&t=1m13s

the science is particularly interesting.

...i mean to think your world....and mine could work on a delay upto six seconds!

...and we cant even perceive it, or are at worst programmed not to.

is really quiet amazing.

and i dont know how far the implications go.

just think about it the next time you have a normal conversation.

paranoid.

at least you know..

at the very least you are being watched by your brain.

it makes a very good point of having rigid morals.

and it takes me to a point that an i think dusk made a while back, living and enjoying life.

i mean if a person does not second guess themselves every now and then.. ie changing from the path of least resistance.

then what would they know and learn about resistance?

**dusk** · 10-14-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Also, I must say that declaring somebody's subjective meaning in their life invalid is exactly what those atheists who mock religion with the FSM do. It is disrespectful for the exact same reason. It trivializes and dismisses what they hold dear.

The FSM ridicules the practice of making biased assertions using bad logic. It doesn't ridicule subjective meaning, it doesn't even touch on the issue. It ridiculous fundamentalist epistemology.
The gospel is a collection of unreasonable assertions to demonstrate exactly that and was a reaction to keeping this kind of unreasonable reasoning out of public science education. Anybody who feels severely insulted by the FSM or worse yet thinks that is valid logic which is only used disrespectfully should consider to start reading some better theology and epistemology.
The FSM gospel was intended as a mirror for christian fundamentalist and all those that see themselves in the mirror should probably consider reevaluating their philosophical world view.

**جوري** · 10-14-2012

Logical & empirical thinking will naturally point to the existence of a creator!
The argument for God doesn't deal with the nature of God, that is in fact another topic which you can't gauge if you don't accept the premise, and you can't introduce your own idea of said creator without providing evidence to why we should collectively draw that same conclusion! The Onus therefore is on the atheist to prove that unicorns and spaghetti are the creator!
Everything created requires a creator- FSM's and teapots, whether visible or invisible are composed of parts and require a creator- if it is immaterial then why the hell is it composed of spaghetti?
The argument ultimately degenerates not because of the theist's inability to respond rather due to the absurdity of the claim and does tend to highlight atheists as immature beings who when lost for a cohesive and logical debate would rather throw tantrums akin to those of two year olds.

best,

**Scimitar** · 10-14-2012

this thread has become the longest running joke now...

the atheists can rant all they want. We know why they are here - on a Muslim forum. I prefer not to indulge them any more, thus I advise the rest of us to do the same. Let them wax...

**dusk** · 10-14-2012

Originally Posted by شَادِنُ

if it is immaterial then why the hell is it composed of spaghetti?

For a similar reason that the invisible unicorn is pink.

Hint, it is a metaphor.

If you complain about the absurdity of the claims you are missing the point.

**جوري** · 10-14-2012

Originally Posted by dusk

For a similar reason that the invisible unicorn is pink.

Hint, it is a metaphor.

If you complain about the absurdity of the claims you are missing the point.

Nothing to do with my 'missing the point' whatsoever and everything to do with your inability to string together a meaningful sentence which is your quick fix answer to anything that is clearly over your head!

best,