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.

**Jim Fox** · 09-13-2012

One point- you must not identify 'atheism' as a religion- it is most certainly NOT.

**Jim Fox** · 09-13-2012

Western science does not deny the advances made by Islamic thinkers. Referring Ptolemy to debunk modern science is rubbish, of course his ideas are now discredited, that's called PROGRESS!
Of course there is no 'proof' for God, it is a matter of faith. Or not. What is your point? Atheists merely say "the evidence is insufficient". And in scientific terms this is irrefutable. Faith or belief is an entirely different matter. In my experience few atheists have any interest at all in disproving God which as you well know is impossible (proof of absence), nor in proving his existence (also, impossible until he actually makes an appearance).

I say 'western science' because I am not aware of much significant contribution from Islam; this may be my ignorance but I do know there are very few Muslims who are Nobel laureates, which is the accepted 'measuring stick'. How many modern inventions and discoveries attribute to Muslim scientists, by the way? I have no interest in attacking Islam but the facts speak, do they not? To me, ALL religions have tried to inhibit science down the ages, from the earliest astronomical discoveries to recent times; even now the Christian establishment objects to birth control, evolution, stem cell research, etc- on it goes. Perhaps Islam has been less so but what happened to stop this progress?

Whilst you demean 'bad science' I note you do appreciate modern communications including computers and the internet; also medicine, transport and all the other conveniences of western technology

I can agree that there is a huge part of western culture that I find objectionable- no fan of pornography, child abuse, American imperialism (or American culture in general) but the good still outweighs the bad. Also it is possible to not look at the rubbish Hollywood culture and ignore their politics, we have the freedom to do that. I don't see how muslims have real free choice when the choice is limited to what you read in the Koran, where Allah makes ALL the rules of behaviour. That is the western viewpoint, I think, and it is not as negative as total surrender to a Deity, IMO.

Anyway, we have little in common but I have learnt a lot more about Islamic thinking, for which I am grateful; I will bother you no more and leave the forum

Peace

**Jim Fox** · 09-13-2012

Atheism = Satanism?? Where in the Koran does it tell you that? What a silly claim- if atheists have no belief then how can they believe in Satan? Rational argument is not your forte.

**Jim Fox** · 09-13-2012

Well I have learnt a bit more.
Now- evolution; you are obviously aware of the Christian Creationist movement. Their beliefs are continually discredited by evidence and research, based as they are on what science regards as fallacies; 'intelligent design', 'young earth', 'irreducible complexity', 'argument from incredulity' (Behe, Dembski and many others). Their proponents have been prosecuted and found guilty of deceptive and dishonest claims.
My friend, it seems your faith limits you to what you are allowed to believe- evolution is NOT claimed to be "an absolute fact" but rather that the weight of evidence points that way and makes it very likely; also, a viable alternative scientific theory has not been proposed.
You do have many western scientists who support your opinions, albeit with a slightly different version of the afterlife. So no, high intellect is no barrier to supernatural belief but this fact does nothing to support such beliefs.

**Jim Fox** · 09-13-2012

Obviously (I hope!) this is a generalization, as things stand today. It would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise. I think we all understand 'western' refers to Christianity and 'eastern' to Islam, Hinduism, etc. Is this unacceptable?

**Jim Fox** · 09-13-2012

Sorry, but - Jim Fox is a female?

Gender reassignment- painful and expensive

**Pygoscelis** · 09-13-2012

Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Yes, every word, every letter and every vowel mark is accepted as the unadulterated word of Allah (swt).

I think at the core of the science and religion question is this conflict between approaches, that of faith and that of open investigation. When you start with the above statement on faith and doubt and revision is seen as a bad thing, that is fine for religion, but would be the death of science. And if scientists approached science (including evolution) with the same sort of pre-supplied answer and faith in that answer, then I don't think they would ever produce any good science we could rely on. I do agree that sometimes scientists get too attached to particular theories and ideas in the face of evidence against them, but that is where other scientists come in. In science, unlike religion, you score points for questioning and proving accepted theories and beliefs wrong.

**جوري** · 09-13-2012

Originally Posted by Jim Fox

Western science does not deny the advances made by Islamic thinkers. Referring Ptolemy to debunk modern science is rubbish, of course his ideas are now discredited, that's called PROGRESS!
Of course there is no 'proof' for God, it is a matter of faith. Or not. What is your point? Atheists merely say "the evidence is insufficient". And in scientific terms this is irrefutable. Faith or belief is an entirely different matter. In my experience few atheists have any interest at all in disproving God which as you well know is impossible (proof of absence), nor in proving his existence (also, impossible until he actually makes an appearance).

There are no more 'Muslim empires' for the work of Muslim scientists to be counted for Islam. And of course there's plenty of room for God in science, no one asks the deep questions that is all!

I say 'western science' because I am not aware of much significant contribution from Islam; this may be my ignorance but I do know there are very few Muslims who are Nobel laureates, which is the accepted 'measuring stick'. How many modern inventions and discoveries attribute to Muslim scientists, by the way? I have no interest in attacking Islam but the facts speak, do they not? To me, ALL religions have tried to inhibit science down the ages, from the earliest astronomical discoveries to recent times; even now the Christian establishment objects to birth control, evolution, stem cell research, etc- on it goes. Perhaps Islam has been less so but what happened to stop this progress?

probably because you live in a bubble.
There are as many Chinese Noble Laureates as there are Muslim ones. I have seen Jews milk that one given that most Noble prize winners are Zionists or Zionist sympathizers. Is there no science coming out of south Korea, or Iran? Science that receives a 'prize' is the only science worthy of notation in your book?
Then have a look at this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ce-growth.html

Which country's scientific output rose 18-fold between 1996 and 2008, from 736 published papers to 13,238? The answer – Iran – might surprise many people, especially in the western nations used to leading science. Iran has the fastest rate of increase in scientific publication in the world.

scary ain't it when you're fixated on the reality show of your preference or the 'X-factor' you sleep on it and think you got there. In fact if you got there it is because you've stood on the shoulders of giants. Go to any institution and count how many Muslims preside in the highest seats, whether in hospitals or microsoft (whose second hand man is an Egyptian scientist- yes a Muslim) and you just might think twice before dropping silly statements and then cowering somewhere when countered!

best,

**Pygoscelis** · 09-13-2012

Here is an interesting thread I found on the rise and fall of science in the Islamic middle east:

http://www.historum.com/medieval-byz...nce-islam.html

When Europe was in its dark ages, Islamic lands produced a LOT of great thinkers, mathematicans, and scientists. We owe much of our modern "western" ideas to the muslims in Cardoba and Baghdad during their intellectual peaks.

Personally I think the fall of science in muslim lands was caused primarily by the effect of the mongol invasion followed by partial societal collapse and social upheavel resulting in the sort of Islamic scholars who eventually led to Al-Ghazali, who set the path forward and plunged Islam into a dark age of science it has not yet recovered from.

How much of the fall has to do with religion and culture, and how much has to do with economics and demographics I can't really say, but I think both were involved and they they had a lot of interplay between them.

**جوري** · 09-13-2012

Originally Posted by Jim Fox

Atheism = Satanism?? Where in the Koran does it tell you that? What a silly claim- if atheists have no belief then how can they believe in Satan? Rational argument is not your forte.

And Abstract thought is apparently not yours!
Atheism is very much a belief like any other- in this case a belief that is already starting with a double negative.
It doesn't offer an explanation to the world we find ourselves in, satisfying the laws put in place through science such as the law of parsimony nor does it concede to the obvious conclusion. They believe there's NO God but offer nothing to bypass God. It also instinctive to worship- it doesn't matter how progressive you think you're. You're still subject to the human condition with its very limited themes.
If you're not worshiping God, you're worshiping the devil for his ways are many- materialism, physicalism and every decadent vice is simply one of them. Given that I have already covered this before and you've not countered on a level I'd say you're suffering some cognitive conservatism and good luck with all that!
best,

**جوري** · 09-13-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Personally I think the fall of science in muslim lands was caused primarily by the effect of the mongol

That maybe so but it is not the case. The simple fact is no one gets decorated for their ground breaking research and claims it for Islam- It is no longer considered the identity that folks refer to. For instance the article I just posted above about Iran. It doesn't say most scientific research is coming out of the Islamic east. It says it is coming out of Iran and that's the end of that. Until such a time we drop the labels and nationalism it is simply going to remain as such!
and you're right about the geopolitical and socio-economic conditions. America spends its money expanding the Israeli space program while forgetting its space program. Is it because Zionists are so smart?

best,

**جوري** · 09-13-2012

Israel and the United States signed Thursday a Memorandum of Understanding on the new American defense package for Israel. Under the new aid agreement, the U.S. will transfer $30 billion to Israel over 10 years, compared with $24 billion over the past decade.
The aid deal signed at represents a 25 percent rise in U.S. military aid to Israel.
Israel is slated to receive the first pay out in October 2008, amounting to $2.55 billion. That sum will grow each year by $150 million, until it reaches $3.1 billion in 2011.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-u...ement-1.227612

and also give them some Nobles whilst at it because that's a measure of their 'scientific growth'

**Pygoscelis** · 09-13-2012

Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

Atheism is very much a belief like any other

Atheism itself is not a belief. It is just the lack of a belief in Gods. But, atheism does open the door for many beliefs that theism may close off or at least dissuade. Materialism is probably the most obvious one. You don't have to be a materialist to be an atheist, but you do have to be an atheist to be a materialist. Humanism is another one. Satanism is not one, unless we take a very different view of what "satanism" means than what most of us would think of by the term. You can't worship Satan if you don't believe such beings exist.

They believe there's NO God but offer nothing to bypass God.

Some of them do. And of those who don't, I really don't see the problem. What is wrong with not knowing things, and not pretending to know things?

It also instinctive to worship

Do you have evidence for that? I don't disagree really but would like to know how you drew that conclusion.

I think we have an inate drive to imply agency and see itwhere it isn't. This is why I sometimes catch myself talking mean words to my toaster when it burns my toast. I think we have this tendency for very good reason (evolved or created as the case may be). Seeing agency where it isn't may make us look foolish, but failing to spot agency where it is may result in our being some predator's lunch. We see faces in everything for the same reason I think.

I also think we have an inate drive to look to a higher power. That too makes a lot of sense. If we questioned our parents and disobeyed them when they told us not to eat the poisonous plants or play with predators, we wouldnt live long enough to have children of our own. Initially the higher power is mommy and daddy, or other authority figures within the family or tribe, but later in life it isn't hard to see how that same drive to look to a higher power could pushp people to look up to Gods.

**Pygoscelis** · 09-13-2012

Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

It doesn't say most scientific research is coming out of the Islamic east. It says it is coming out of Iran and that's the end of that. Until such a time we drop the labels and nationalism it is simply going to remain as such!

That is a very good point. And the science being done in Islamic Cardoba or Baghdad at their intellectual height may have had little if anything to do with Islam. But it was permitted if not encouraged by the Islam of that day. It was a time before Al-Ghazari and his ilk etc.

and you're right about the geopolitical and socio-economic conditions. [SIZE=3]America spend[SIZE=3]s it[SIZE=3]s money expanding the Israeli space program while forgetting its space program. Is it beca[SIZE=3]use Zionists are so smart?

I have no love for Israel, so can't disagree with your sentiment here.

**جوري** · 09-13-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Do you have evidence for that? I don't disagree really but would like to know how you drew that conclusion.

An Instinct isn't a highly developed reticular function obviously- it is simply there like your desire to drink when you're thirsty, or eat when you're hungry or procreate. It is simply our fitrah to believe. I don't obviously have to convince you of the Islamic argument for that because 'western scientists' have already drawn the same conclusion:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...ic-claims.html

At some point I have posted the actual research but the article about it will suffice for now.

best,

**Scimitar** · 09-13-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Personally I think the fall of science in muslim lands was caused primarily by the effect of the mongol invasion followed by partial societal collapse and social upheavel resulting in the sort of Islamic scholars who eventually led to Al-Ghazali, who set the path forward and plunged Islam into a dark age of science it has not yet recovered from.

How much of the fall has to do with religion and culture, and how much has to do with economics and demographics I can't really say, but I think both were involved and they they had a lot of interplay between them.

1) Al Ghazali wasn't a scientist, so he is not responsible for what you claim.

2) Islam didn't plunge into the dark ages because of any scholar - no. It happened because of the crusades... The mongol stop over was just a hiccup, science was still being studied in other regions. it just so happens that the historians noted Cordoba and Baghdad, as they were the most famous places for learning at that time. Let's not forget Egypt now shall we? I mean, that's where the first University in the world came to light... yep, another Muslim invention.

Scimi

**Pygoscelis** · 09-13-2012

Originally Posted by Scimitar

1) Al Ghazali wasn't a scientist, so he is not responsible for what you claim.

He didn't have to be a scientist. I am talking about his influence on the culture. He encouraged the wholesale abandonment of any ideas, science, or anything else that didn't come from Islam. He set the tone and set the culture against open inquiry and scientific pursuit and against cross cultural exchanges of knowledge and inquiry. The resulting culture lasted a long long time, even arguably till this day.

2) Islam didn't plunge into the dark ages because of any scholar - no. It happened because of the crusades...

That was no dout also part of it. But why didn't it recover? I think that is where the cultural and religious forces came into play, with the economic and demographic having some influence too.

**Jim Fox** · 09-13-2012

From your reference-

"Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe."

Of course children will think this way. They don't have the level of understanding needed so can only assume it is all created- no other explanation is available. As they mature and acquire knowledge their understanding improves and given enough education (without indoctrination) some will conclude that evolution is more rational than magic. Evolution is very hard to believe until it is studied in depth and the evidence given credibility. And how we all love 'magic' and wish it could be real.

**جوري** · 09-13-2012

Originally Posted by Jim Fox

From your reference-

"Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe."

Of course children will think this way. They don't have the level of understanding needed so can only assume it is all created- no other explanation is available. As they mature and acquire knowledge their understanding improves and given enough education (without indoctrination) some will conclude that evolution is more rational than magic. Evolution is very hard to believe until it is studied in depth and the evidence given credibility. And how we all love 'magic' and wish it could be real.

''well of course they will'' and that in fact proves further atheist hypocrisy as perpetuated by the the likes of Dawkins that children are born atheists and their parents indoctrinate them. It is best to be principled even if wrong in lieu of ending constantly with a foot in your mouth. There's nothing scientific about conjecturing and furthermore already hammers in the point that to worship is instinctive and not to worship is going against well our nature!
I don't really get the rest of the drivel but guarantee anyone here with a fifth grade biology education can put a better argument together than the words you throw out in hopes of God knows what!

best,

**Jim Fox** · 09-13-2012

Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

''well of course they will'' and that in fact proves further atheist hypocrisy as perpetuated by the the likes of Dawkins that children are born atheists and their parents indoctrinate them. It is best to be principled even if wrong in lieu of ending constantly with a foot in your mouth. There's nothing scientific about conjecturing and furthermore already hammers in the point that to worship is instinctive and not to worship is going against well our nature!
I don't really get the rest of the drivel but guarantee anyone here with a fifth grade biology education can put a better argument together than the words you throw out in hopes of God knows what!

Your sneering supercilious tone is becoming tedious, you have no interest in civil discussion and your mind seems to be stuck in a rut. You 'don't get' because your mind is closed to any freedom of thought. I won't waste any more time on you.