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.

**جوري** · 08-30-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

But evidently you do care so very much.

Meh, you've found me out- I like to spend my free time engaging those with the vision of Mr. Magoo and the wit or Rose Nylund!

I have yet to see a thread on atheism (or any non-muslim religion) where you failed to rush in to "score points" (as you put it) or where you failed to snidely belittle the kafir and tell everyone what you've decided atheism (or the other person's religion) is.

Not to score points though simply to state the obvious- I so hate wasting my time circumambulating!

You always insist you know what they believe better than they do, and completely ignore what they actually believe.

Didn't they teach you in school never to use the words always or never?

That isn't comparative religion. That is just childishness.

That is in fact an adequate assessment of your person!

It would be like if I came in here and started telling you all what I've decided Islam is and how it is inferior, without letting any of you speak what you as muslims actually believe.

And that's in fact what you do all along, the mere idea of someone being here for well over half a decade and still insistent on recycling the same inane platitude without so much as reading a reply or introducing something challenging to the mix is a testimony to your personal beliefs and rhetoric. It isn't a contest. When someone repeats and error and are corrected or reprimanded for it, they either learn or if insistent in their error find a more suitable medium with like minded individuals!

It is a lot easier to attack strawmen than to have actual conversation.

Indeed per my above comment!

The hate is obvious, you can't go a single post without attempting an insult. It is all very predictable.

You flatter yourself like the attention seeking narcissist you're. As stated in my previous reply even if I gave a fig and invested any type of emotion, isn't against the law of the forum or the constitutions to do so- It is best you look for a new avenue to carouse and pound on your chest!

The other muslims I address below speak civilly (even though they respectfully disagree with me), and you could learn from them, but I realize you have no interest in doing so.

It doesn't aggrieve me the label you've for each individual Muslim that takes from their busy schedule to reply to you. Some are Circular, Some are hateful some are ignorant, you'll merely find a new label with which to peddle your petty agenda, recycle your rhetoric and bring down the conversation to a low common denominator where you either dodge completely the difficult Q's and somehow convince yourself you've done a job well done or meander the topic all together until it gets closed.
I am familiar with all types of trollism and I am not buying so perhaps you should use your other talent when it comes to me in order to slip with the mods for another decade while dispensing your same ole same ole.

best,

**جوري** · 09-01-2012

On a Separate note and as an addendum to the above, notice how rejection of homosexuality as natural automatically turns per atheist definition to homophobia .. This is what you're asking us to reflect on and discern.. I had to go re-read his post one more time to re-examine my own biases..
As it turns out first impressions are never skewed let alone over half a decade to redeem what is an otherwise atheist manifesto!

**MustafaMc** · 09-01-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

If you can make the question of his existence falsifiable, and then go on to gather evidence of his existence then sure, you could build a scientific theory on it. With enough of that maybe you maybe even build a strong theory. But what findings would falsify God?

The existence of Allah (swt) is both unprovable and irrefutable. Please, refer to the thread I started 'Is The Scientific Evidence of Allah's Existence?' at http://www.islamicboard.com/aqeedah/...ml#post1492565 Allah's (swt) existence is in the realm of the ghaib, or unseen, that is outside our realm of the space/time continuum. Therefore, it is impossible to measure, define or even to comprehend Allah's (swt) being and existence in the fullest sense of the words.

However, one person (Mu'min, or believer) can use his intellect and knowledge of nature and science to 'know' that this universe, life, and the various species of life must have had a beginning and to have been created by a Higher Power. It is infintesimally more satisfying to his intellect and innermost being that this world and entire universe was created according to the executed plan of an Intelligent Designer as opposed to everything that exists and has ceased to exist just happening by mere chance and to have come about by natural processes, a very long period of time, and unmeasurably small probabilities of multiple coordinated occurances. This person is content with his faith that Allah (swt) created the universe as we know it as well as the parts of it that we are completely unaware of as yet. This does not prevent the same person from becoming a highly accomplished scientist while retaing his faith in God.

In contrast, another person (Kafir, or rejector of faith) can see the same universe as the Mu'min and not have any inclination to believe in a creator of any sort. This person apparently believes that if anything is real and is not imaginary, then there MUST be some evidence of its existence that can be subjected to the scientific method and, hence, either proven or disproven to exist. Since the One God is not subject to being measured, or quantified, or defined, then He must not be real. This person is satisfied with Mother Nature, Father Time and infintesimally small probabilities by which all existing and extinct species of life came about by evolution from a common (presumably microscopic, prokaryotic and unicellular) ancestor. The Kafir/Atheist likewise does not believe in the resurrection, Judgment Day, Heaven or Hell because they cannot be proven to exist. Apparently, Atheists believe that at their death, they will merely cease to exist. Yet the Quran tell us that the Mu'min and the Kafir will both be resurrected from the dead and the Kafir will say on Judgment Day, "Woe to me! Would that I were dust!" 78:40

If I have misspoken, then please correct my errors.

**Gator** · 09-02-2012

Here's a quote that caught my attention. I want to just check-in and cofirm that you are not putting ALL people into these two definitions. I've bolded the section that I have a problem with.

Originally Posted by MustafaMc

In contrast, another person (Kafir, or rejector of faith) can see the same universe as the Mu'min and not have any inclination to believe in a creator of any sort. This person apparently believes that if anything is real and is not imaginary, then there MUST be some evidence of its existence that can be subjected to the scientific method and, hence, either proven or disproven to exist. Since the One God is not subject to being measured, or quantified, or defined, then He must not be real.

This definition of an atheist does not completely describe me. I understand that there could be things which we have no way of measuring, and things not just supernatural.

The main reason that I do "not have any inclination to believe in a creator of any sort", is based on reasonableness, in my opinion. The definitions and descriptions of the various gods that I have come across are either not internally reasonable or don't match up with the way the universe operates as I perceive it. Based on this I come to the conclusion that the gods that I have been presented with do not exist. So far, it appears to me that the universe is based on natural processes and no more.

Whether right or wrong, this is my best shot at how things work. Though science and evidence is very important, I think the above is also a part of how most atheists got to their position.

Hope this helps give you a fuller idea of where atheists are coming from.

**GuestFellow** · 09-02-2012

Asslamu Aliakum,

I'm sorry, but I do not understand the first post. It really hurt my head. What's the purpose of this topic exactly? I'm extremely confused.

Okay to simplify all this, just answer the following questions:

1. Define nature

2. What does it mean to support nature

3. Do atheists oppose nature?

4. If the answer to question 3 is yes, well why do atheists oppose nature?

**Scimitar** · 09-02-2012

An athiest opposed to nature? Man that's a new one for me...

So, I was having a discussion with an atheist and he asked me what happens to me when I die, according to my beliefs... so I told him.

The I asked him - what he believes will happen to him.

He replied with, "I will be buried, and my body will nourish the earth, and from me, a big tree will grow, and it will blossom, and so, I will live again as a tree"

pfft, pahaha...

So I returned with, "until someone like me turns up with a chainsaw, chops you down, puts you through the tree shredder, then turns you into paper, and then prints the Quran on you"

Islam 1 - atheism 0

Scimi

**Scimitar** · 09-02-2012

Originally Posted by Gator

So far, it appears to me that the universe is based on natural processes and no more.

Laws of nature amidst chaos? That would imply a duality... and if you can accept the duality, then you must also be able to accept that a singularity also exists, right? I mean, via "reasonable deduction"...

Everything in the universe is created with a duality... Except the uncreated. Allah. The One. By reasonable process - you should be able to grasp that.

Scimi

**Scimitar** · 09-02-2012

Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Allah's (swt) existence is in the realm of the ghaib, or unseen, that is outside our realm of the space/time continuum. Therefore, it is impossible to measure, define or even to comprehend Allah's (swt) being and existence in the fullest sense of the words.

Yep...

so when scientists make hyposthesis based on their understanding of how the universe works - it kinda makes me think of a goldfish looking through the goldfish bowl - wondering what this strange moving thing is... not understanding that it is the man (or woman) that feeds them on a daily basis.

Amazing isn't it?

Scimi

**Scimitar** · 09-02-2012

Originally Posted by BadOlPuttyTat

How does it make me feel better? We are all beast by nature and every time we have power we feel likes gods and every time we realize there is a god we like slaves.
I am not an atheist saying man is just an animals who has become highly evolved from a monkey.
My origins are not beastly, they are divine as everything is immaculately created by god but everything acts and does as it is intended to do. Man should not be overly conceited and think he has ascended past an animal because what else do we call ourselves? We are mammals that distinguish ourselves from animals despite our genetic bonds?
Nothing wrong in saying you are an animal but the only harm is saying your a mindless creature with no free will. We are bond to instinct but we do not have to act upon them which is the greatest gift we have.
If I was to say I am an animal it would not make me happy at all

this is very escapist logic you bring buddy.

An animals intellect is limited, and animal is not able to manipulate the sciences, or the other fields of study... or to champion their own existence - they just remain as animals.

Humans, on the other hand, we do all of that, and more.... but yes, there will be some who use the whole genetic argument to purposefully let their morals be compromised by a root animal affiliation which somehow manages to justify to them - that they can get away with doing some rather questionable things...

See my point?

Scimi

**جوري** · 09-02-2012

scientists are made up of people like you, me Br. Mustafa.. I'd hate to brandish them all with the same paint just because a few vocal atheists misuse science to branch off to their version of philosophy- And it also creates this air that science is somehow connected with atheism. It isn't!.. Most atheists I have encountered were in 'humanities' They were awful and unhappy and out of place sarcastic and added much and read between the lines what was never introduced or desired, much like they're on the forum.. nothing by way of science entered the fray to spice things up. Most of the scientists on this forum are actually Muslim not atheists.

**Scimitar** · 09-02-2012

I wish I studied science now... coulda been a scientist... ended up just being a thinker :|

(actually, that isn't a bad thing)

Scimi

**جوري** · 09-02-2012

How does not having a degree in science preclude you from being a free thinker? 'Good will Hunting' anyone?
Not all the brilliant minds in the world have a chance at academia .. and some of the most brilliant minds in the world didn't do well in academia. Einstein was kicked out of school and was bad in math.
I think we enable others to put a cap on our education and potential when it is our God given right to seek knowledge and reach full potential.
Like that movie a brave new world where they categorize people into alphas or deltas. No need to try or work hard or discover or innovate or be creative because the powers that be decided what your potential should be.
Most of the people who have truly changed the course of history didn't have, Al Azhar, Oxford or Harvard Degrees.

**Scimitar** · 09-02-2012

Excellent point sister

Funny thing is, when I think about it sis - I do consider my self as a scientist. I mean, I already mastered botany in relation to a rather questionable plant (facepalm) back in my uhm, bad days. I even got offered a job off the back of one of my grows. Not that this is important. But yes, you are right. Human potential is not grounded in education. This kinda makes me happy because I have absolutely no education at all. Total maverick.

Scimi

**جوري** · 09-02-2012

How is it that you 'have no education at all' and able to write, critically analyze, learn, refute at the same time. Do you think that is a fair description or one that would please God?
I am already of the inclination and believe me after spending over half my life in academics that the things I have learned on my own were more worth my while than what's in the books and what is in the books is already borne either of the imagination or observations of others like me and you.
I fully subscribe to the notion that all the knowledge in the world is already in us and that we have but to re-find it, re-explore it, re-learn it, and create new memory tracks for it.
Al-Baqara (The Cow) [2:31]

attention 1 - Atheism's Opposition with Nature..

[RECITE]

[top] [next match]

2 31 1 - Atheism's Opposition with Nature..

WaAAallama adama alasmaa kullaha thumma AAaradahum AAala almalaikati faqala anbioonee biasmai haolai in kuntum sadiqeena

2:31 And He taught Adam the nature of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said: "Tell me the nature of these if ye are right."
The unfortunate reality is, no one will hire you if you don't have a degree, and even if you have a degree they won't hire you for not having the experience. We're meant to create our own path not work for someone else but how many of us really get to dispense with our knowledge in a way that benefits us and others? We're all working to please a few Zionist pigs live the good life while we get sucked into the mill of life. Walhi if it weren't for the comfort of religion and Allah swt taking the edge off this horrible reality nothing about this life would be worth living for at all.

**Tyrion** · 09-02-2012

Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

scientists are made up of people like you, me Br. Mustafa.. I'd hate to brandish them all with the same paint just because a few vocal atheists misuse science to branch off to their version of philosophy

Erm, so scientists are all people who shouldn't be painted with the same brush... But then what are atheists if not people as well? They're not all the same, yet you continue to paint them with the same brush in this thread, and others... Why? i'm sure it bothers you when others use your own philosophy towards atheists towards us Muslims... Why can't you see that you're being just like those people?

**جوري** · 09-02-2012

view v

Originally Posted by Tyrion

Erm, so scientists are all people who shouldn't be painted with the same brush... But then what are atheists if not people as well? They're not all the same, yet you continue to paint them with the same brush in this thread, and others... Why? i'm sure it bothers you when others use your own philosophy towards atheists towards us Muslims... Why can't you see that you're being just like those people?

I am not bothered at all by how others view me or Islam. You should know by now it isn't an impetus - in Islam a distinction is made between beliefs and believers. As far as beliefs are concerned there is absolutely no compromise: any belief that contradicts Islam is false, and must be criticized. But those who adhere to such false beliefs are to be tolerated, nicely treated and invited to the truth in the best of ways, when they fail to respond to that method then the kid gloves come off. So I am not sure what your hopes are when you deliver the all too expected harangue?

best,

**جوري** · 09-02-2012

BTW, the previous if you'd missed the point wasn't about 'scientists are people too' rather to make the distinction between science and atheism as they're often mutually exclusive.

**MustafaMc** · 09-02-2012

Originally Posted by Gator

The definitions and descriptions of the various gods that I have come across are either not internally reasonable or don't match up with the way the universe operates as I perceive it.

Thank you for your response. If I understand you correctly, you don't believe in God as the Creator because He, as described to you, is 'not internally reasonable' means to me that the concept of God is not logical or explainable in a way that is comprehendable to you. I can almost relate to this in the sense of my not being able to comprehend the concept of the Trinity. As a Christian I did not understand it either, but I accepted it on faith. Now as a Muslim I can't comprehend Allah's (swt) nature and being, but I accept His existence and 'Godhood' on faith and I accept the Quran as His word which describes some of His attributes. In the end it is a matter of faith in matters that we can't explain.

Originally Posted by Gator

So far, it appears to me that the universe is based on natural processes and no more.

It is interesting that to you 'natural processes' are fully adequate, but my knowledge of genetics and molecular biology leads me to believe that they are completely inadequate to explain the origin of life and the species of life. I am quite certain that you can no better explain how these 'natural processes' actually gave rise to life and the species of life than I can explain how Allah (swt) created them from nothing. We both accept what we can't explain on faith.

**MustafaMc** · 09-02-2012

Originally Posted by Scimitar

so when scientists make hyposthesis based on their understanding of how the universe works - it kinda makes me think of a goldfish looking through the goldfish bowl - wondering what this strange moving thing is... not understanding that it is the man (or woman) that feeds them on a daily basis.

Assalamu alikum Brother Scimi, your post brought to mind something I have been thinking about. I don't know if my thinking is sacrilegious or not, but I have used a fish tank as a parable or analogy for our existence and that of Allah (swt).

Imagine a fish tank with the sides made of 1-way mirror such the fish can't see outside, but they are completely visible by one on the outside looking in. The fish get food twice a day, water is added weekly, and the aerator is restarted after the power goes out. Obviously there is a being greater than the fish who is providing this care for the fish and that other being is completely independent of the fish while the fish are completely dependent on the greater being outside the tank. The fish can't see, smell, touch or hear this outer being, but if they had an intellect, they must know he exists. The fish's world is not like the world outside the tank and the fish's nature is unlike the nature of the being who takes care of them.

In some minutely small way, I believe this analogy touches upon our nature, the nature of Allah's existence, and our relationship to Him. I fear to say anything about Allah (swt) that is not true, but this fish tank analogy has been on my mind as being reasonable.

**MustafaMc** · 09-02-2012

Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

I'd hate to brandish them all with the same paint just because a few vocal atheists misuse science to branch off to their version of philosophy- And it also creates this air that science is somehow connected with atheism.

Assalamu alikum Sister. You are exactly correct that evolutionists think of themselves as scientists because they use scientific terms and what they say sounds 'scientific' to the layman. I rather think of most evolutionists as pseudo-scientists and more as philosophers than anything. I would venture to say that all atheists are also evolutionists, but not all evolutionists are atheists. Some who believe in evolution also believe in Intelligent Design which, of neccessity, requires belief in the existence of a Designer/Creator(s). Those who adhere to ID while holding onto evolutionary principles are more reasonable to me than those who don't.