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.

**dusk** · 10-15-2012

No it has everything to do with you missing the point or not understanding the metaphors.
The whole point of Bobbie's storytelling was to dumb down and visually demonstrate certain logic. Even some liberal theologians think it is pretty good in doing just that and getting people to explore serious philosophy.

The unicorn is pink because there is nothing more absurd than insisting on an invisible thing to have a color. Pink is also a nice shrilly fluffy color. The FSM is made of spaghetti for the same absurdity and because its followers like spaghetti. It is a metaphor for adding unnecessary traits to a deity for the sole reason of I like them or I like it more that way.
People didn't chose to follow malevolent gods or converted to such religions they follow the nice ones. The reasoning starts at some creator thingy. Traits are added that in the end make it a caring, omni-everything, human centric, loving, forgiving deity. There is also nothing above it.

The rest of the letter and the gospel is a lot of absurd evidence with funny but absurd conclusions and ending up with the 8 really nice I'd rather you do nots and a very tasty deity. Because the FSM adds other absurd traits while dropping some common ones like perfection which in many ways make it even more easily defendable.
The whole point of it is to be absurd otherwise it has no demonstrating effect and would just be seen as another "serious" religion by those who the letter initially tried to address. If you complain about it being absurd, you really are missing the point of the message. It is not supposed to promote a reasonable religion, it is supposed to demonstrate what weird stuff one can come up with using what goes in some settings (like Christian fundamentalism) for reason and logic.
It is the same as trying to teach a Math student what happens if one ignores all the rules like * before + and surrounding brackets and what not.

I can do non quick fix answer too, but hinting on the solution generally has more lasting effects if it yields any, than laying everything out there already chewed-for. It is not like there are so many possibilites for why an invisible pink unicorn should be pink and invisible.

**جوري** · 10-15-2012

Originally Posted by dusk

No it has everything to do with you missing the point or not understanding the metaphors.
The whole point of Bobbie's storytelling was to dumb down and visually demonstrate certain logic. Even some liberal theologians think it is pretty good in doing just that and getting people to explore serious philosophy.

No, not missing the point and there are no metaphors what it is, is nothing more than a childish travesty whereby you dodge the deep questions that are sure to plague all man kind. It is dumb I'll give you that much and not an exchange to explore more 'serious philosophy' rather exchange to complete non-philosophy!

Originally Posted by dusk

The unicorn is pink because there is nothing more absurd than insisting on an invisible thing to have a color. Pink is also a nice shrilly fluffy color. The FSM is made of spaghetti for the same absurdity and because its followers like spaghetti. It is a metaphor for adding unnecessary traits to a deity for the sole reason of I like them or I like it more that way.
People didn't chose to follow malevolent gods or converted to such religions they follow the nice ones. The reasoning starts at some creator thingy. Traits are added that in the end make it a caring, omni-everything, human centric, loving, forgiving deity. There is also nothing above it.

As stated prior and I really hate to repeat myself on the account you've nothing substantive to offer:

Originally Posted by شَادِنُ

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!

Grow up, you really need to collectively grow up I don't think anyone finds you amusing, informative, clever whatever it is you think you're doing here and patting yourself on the back you rather confirm all the stereotypes folks have of atheists and if you had any sense at all you'd know that it isn't flattery on our part nor cleverness on yours! - you're not even fit for an off off Broadway shows!

best,

**Iceee** · 01-05-2013

From what I am seeing from the last two pages, this seems like a theism vs atheism debate.

I'll start reading this to see what everyone is getting on about. Why can't we stay quiet about this issue and keep it to ourselves?

**Pygoscelis** · 01-05-2013

It would be great if we could, but we are talking about religions here that have a strong tendency to have followers who seek to push their views on the rest of us and shape society to fit it.

**جوري** · 01-06-2013

Quran 6:91-------------------Then leave them to their play of cavilling.

____________________________

Not quite sure I understand how religions with 'strong followers' are tending to 'push their views' - unless the intended religion here is indeed atheism?
This is an Islamic forum and the only ones raising objections as far as this thread is concerned are atheists the likes of 'Dusk' (see previous)

best,

**Abdul Fattah** · 01-10-2013

Hi Dusk,
Sorry to cut in here. In all fairness, I'm not a person who would even dream of denying the usefullness of an "argument ad absurdum". The problem however is not with the validity of the argument (i.e. pointing out the eronous logic some might have). The problem is that there's a current mentality of religion-bashing and people tend to take the argument ad absurdum much further and like pygoscelis pointed out attempt to ridicule religion as a whole. An example of that is saying that people assign attributes to God because they want to. Surely it would be erronous to do so, and if it is merely your point to show that people are prone to such erronous logic, then that could be a valid point. However, the obvious implication you'r making is that: since humans are prone to such false logic (whish still isn't a proven premise), the religions we have today must all have been shaped in that way. If that's the argument you're making, you're far beyond slippery slope, you're just down to pure speculation...
And not only that, but you pretend to be taking the "intellectual highground"?

Now that's why FSM and pinky the uni are idiotic...