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.

**Pygoscelis** · 09-14-2012

Originally Posted by Scimitar

You are accusing CosmicPathos of not being honest?

Yes I am. He accused me of dishonesty and did so by being dishonest about what I wrote and what he was pretending to respond to, making unfounded and derogatory assumptions, etc.

**Scimitar** · 09-14-2012

You're welcome Psygocelis.

I always study history with the correct method.

1) Study from the most informed sources.
2) Study from the comparative sources
3) Study from the neutral sources

4) sleep on it.

This is how I study... things make a lot more sense after i've had a good nights rest.

I hope you can understand that methodology teaches real knowledge, and not knowledge based on opinion, which forms another opinion

Scimi

**Pygoscelis** · 09-14-2012

Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

It is hard for me to imagine any parent approaching four year old Aminah or Johnny with a long theological discussion.

Agreed. So parents shouldn't be labeling them as holding beliefs they don't. And also, just because a parent teaches a kid about the parent's belief doesn't necessarily mean the kid will believe it (though he is prone to accept whatever the parent says, he won't always) and he should be the one saying what he believes and not he parent.

Not to bring your kids upright and teach them right from wrong, tighten their moral compass is the true form of child abuse

Strongly agreed. I just don't think you need religion for that. Aside from the truly religious stuff (which we will disagree on if it is good or bad), good and bad are not that hard to establish or teach. All you need is some empathy.

**جوري** · 09-14-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Agreed. So parents shouldn't be labeling them as holding beliefs they don't. And also, just because a parent teaches a kid about the parent's belief doesn't necessarily mean the kid will believe it (though he is prone to accept whatever the parent says, he won't always) and he should be the one saying what he believes and not he parent.

You can't force anyone to be anything:
Al-An'am (The Cattle) [6:95]

attention 1 - Atheism's Opposition with Nature..

[RECITE]

[top] [next match]

6 95 1 - Atheism's Opposition with Nature..

Inna Allaha faliqu alhabbi waalnnawa yukhriju alhayya mina almayyiti wamukhriju almayyiti mina alhayyi thalikumu Allahu faanna tufakoona

6:95 It is Allah Who causeth the seed-grain and the date-stone to split and sprout. He causeth the living to issue from the dead, and He is the one to cause the dead to issue from the living. That is Allah. then how are ye deluded away from the truth?

However you must do your absolute best to give the message and hope they understand it and grow up righteous. I wasn't a practicing Muslim until I lived on my own in grad school, in spite of living in Saudi Arabia and my parents being ultra orthodox. But they did their job and I am grateful. My dad (he used to always say I don't want you to hate praying, or to hate fasting) so he'd actually force me to not fast as a little girl and I'd see friends my age fasting and I'd feel horrible but he'd make me fast one skip 10 until he fostered that in me and then with prayers I skipped all together. If I ever have kids I want them to establish the habit very early and in a more strict manner, it is very difficult to learn a new language when you're older than when you're younger. I felt ashamed not knowing how to pray at 26. I don't want that for my kids. I'll do my part and I pray they turn out right but I can't force anyone to be anything- you should already know that by now!

Strongly agreed. I just don't think you need religion for that. Aside from the truly religious stuff, good and bad are not that hard to establish or teach. All you need is some empathy.

Maybe in your mind you don't see those things as a religious foundation but they actually are you can strip the title off them but those are the religious foundations upon which all Abrahamic religions were founded and I'd venture to say even some ideologies!

**Scimitar** · 09-14-2012

Very true sister Bluebell.

For example - did you know that the Declaration of Independence was largely taken from the teachings in the Quran? Yet nowhere do they recognise where the original comes from in American history :| I find it very amusing to hear people say "you don't need religion in order to have a sound moral compass" because without the Abrahamic faiths, there would be no moral compass today.

Scimi

**جوري** · 09-14-2012

If they stopped the rabid anger for a minute they'd actually realize that a good 80% of sharia is compatible with their already in place laws. And I was told this by a lawyer who studied the law & then went to Al-Azhar for sharia..
It is easier for them to paint us as intolerant hooligans than actually sit down and figure out what's bugging them so much!

**Aprender** · 09-14-2012

Originally Posted by Scimitar

For example - did you know that the Declaration of Independence was largely taken from the teachings in the Quran?

Heard this before. Tried to investigate it more at the Library of Congress but ran out of time. I love that room they have all about Islam, Arabia and Africa there... I'm intrigued. Give me links and books to read on this, please.

**Scimitar** · 09-14-2012

Just read the declaration of independence, and then compare it to the Prophet Muhammads (peace be upon him and family) last sermon.

The similarity is uncanny... very, very uncanny.

Scimi

**Aprender** · 09-14-2012

Originally Posted by Scimitar

Just read the declaration of independence, and then compare it to the Prophet Muhammads (peace be upon him and family) last sermon.

The similarity is uncanny... very, very uncanny.

Scimi

Oddly enough I have a copy of the declaration of independence and the bill of rights right here in my room. Have some of it memorized. :-D I was a political science major in college... =/

Will look more into this, in shaa Allah. I only got as far as looking at Thomas Jefferson's Quran at the Library of Congress, the big mural they have of Muhammad (pbuh) in green and in the clouds drawn on the ceiling at the Library of Congress and ISLAM written up there, and then once I got to the secret Islam, Arabia and Africa room they had in the back I was in too much awe to even begin writing down names of books I wanted to read....

And then a really happy Christian man was excited to see me and the other Muslim sister I was with walk into the room so he could ask us questions and show us a book he found about Islamic Spain and how lovely and fascinating it was.

But don't want to derail the thread so I will leave now.

**Independent** · 09-14-2012

Originally Posted by Scimitar

Since the year 1156 - right up to the 14th century - many battles were fought in the middle east between the crusader legions and the Muslims. This, no doubt, impacted the sponsorships of the arts and sciences in Muslim lands, because money had to be thrown into armaments so the Muslims could stay safe from Crusader attacks instead.

Funnily enough, that's the exact opposite of one of the most common reasons given for the rise of Europe - ie that frequent warfare was in fact a benefit to European development. From the Middle Ages to WW2, Europe was the victim of almost non-stop conflict between relatively small competing states, as well as large scale external invasions (Mongols, Arabs). The popular theory suggests that it was this very competition that helped to drive progress in science and other areas. So there you go - war helps, or war hinders. Take your pick.

**Scimitar** · 09-14-2012

Idependent

Welcome to the boards...

I study comparatively, and I for one, do not buy into the whole "war helps"

it's just stupid.

War destroys. End of.

Scimi

**Pygoscelis** · 09-14-2012

Originally Posted by Scimitar

I find it very amusing to hear people say "you don't need religion in order to have a sound moral compass" because without the Abrahamic faiths, there would be no moral compass today.

Are you claiming that we would have no sense of empathy and right and wrong (the "golden rule" for example) without your abrahamic faiths? Or are you just defining "morality" as being adherent to your religious and cultural values (ie, not listening to music, not eating pork, not being homosexual, not being a nudist etc)?

**جوري** · 09-14-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Are you claiming that we would have no sense of empathy and right and wrong (the "golden rule" for example) without your abrahamic faiths?

I'd argue that those 'Golden Rules' are an innate part of our being (fitrah) born with, cultivated and fostered so that you'd have a highly developed (conscientiousness) or completely ignored or suppressed and you've, well much of what you've today. I'd get into the 'loss of guilt' from a theological point of view but it is tangential to the topic here!

**Scimitar** · 09-14-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Are you claiming that we would have no sense of empathy and right and wrong (the "golden rule" for example) without your abrahamic faiths? Or are you just defining "morality" as being adherent to your religious and cultural values (ie, not listening to music, not eating pork, not being homosexual, not being a nudist etc)?

Remember the story of the people of Lot (pbuh)

or the story of Soddom and Gomorrah...

They never followed God, they followed their own desires, and their moral compass broke.

They were offered a chance at salvation by coming to the way of God. But they threw away that which would benefit them and scorned the messenger sent to them. They invited the punishment. And so they were destroyed.

Remember the people of Ad. They were giants. They could uproot trees with their bare hands. They too didn't follow the way. And they scorned the messenger sent to them. They too were destroyed.

So many examples I can give... but, moving on,

This world is just one big time bomb... waiting to be destroyed. And the signs of Qiyaamah are all around us now.

Those who choose to remain blinded, do so because they follow their own broken moral compass. Fooling themselves into a misguided belief that they will die and perish, never to be alive again.

And when I present them the whole "what have you got to lose if you believe?" argument, they come back with "that's a straw man"

I say, their life is a straw man life. One that will burn very easily in hellfire. And they use "escapist" logic to turn away from truth. Thus, they exercise their free will, but to no avail. For the deaf will remain deaf and the blind will remain blind, and the heart will never know how to feel - so in a state of conflict, they join sites like this one, in order to try and find a view point that suits them without ever having to ascribe to GOD.

It's ridiculous. It's transparent and obvious. It is what it is. And we see clearly.

Scimi

**Pygoscelis** · 09-14-2012

Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

I'd argue that those 'Golden Rules' are an innate part of our being (fitrah) born with, cultivated and fostered so that you'd have a highly developed (conscientiousness) or completely ignored or suppressed and you've, well much of what you've today.

I can actually agree with that, from a secular perspective. What you say is fitrah from God I say is just basic human empathy (no God needed). In either case, if it is inate in us then we don'tneed the religion to have it, right? If atheists (or non-abrahamics theists) have fitrah but don't recognize it as such, then they still have the moral compass and they don't need abrahamic faiths for it to exist (which was Scimitar's claim).

**Pygoscelis** · 09-14-2012

Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

I'd argue that those 'Golden Rules' are an innate part of our being (fitrah) born with, cultivated and fostered so that you'd have a highly developed (conscientiousness) or completely ignored or suppressed and you've, well much of what you've today.

I can actually agree with that, from a secular perspective. What you say is fitrah from God I say is just basic human empathy (no God needed). In either case, if it is inate in us then we don'tneed the religion to have it, right? If atheists (or non-abrahamics theists) have fitrah but don't recognize it as such, then they still have the moral compass and they don't need abrahamic faiths for it to exist (which was Scimitar's claim).

**Pygoscelis** · 09-14-2012

Scimitar, you didn't really answer the question. Do you agree with Bluebell's answer or is yours different? When you said we can't have a moral compass without abrahamic faiths are you saying that there was no empathy, sense of right and wrong, golden rule, etc before Abraham? Are you saying that those of us who do not subscribe to Abrahamic faiths don't have these things?

Do you get such an idea from the stories you quoted? You do realize that those of us who do not subscribe to your faith see those stories as fiction right?

And even if they were true stories, I don't see how they demonstrate any sort of morality unless you are confusing "morality" with "obedience to god" backed up by threats of violence and torture (which is in itself immoral I would say).

When I read the story of Sodom and Gammorah, I read about a God who wants to kill everybody, and one guy pleading for him to spare some of them (apparently God didn't originally want to and had to be told to do the right thing). We are then told that Lot offers up his daughters to be raped by a mob and that his wife is turned into a pillar of salt for "looking back".

I am not familiar with the story of the people of Ad. But you are telling me here that they didn't "follow the way" and failed to worship your God, so they were detroyed? Thatdoesn't seem moral to me at all. Is this the basis behind religious peope wanting to convert others or kill them if they can't?

And when I present them the whole "what have you got to lose if you believe?" argument, they come back with "that's a straw man"

Straw man? How is that a straw man? A straw man is when you tell somebody else their position so you can argue against it. We see that a lot here, and the OP is actually a classic case of it, but you don't seem to be doing that here by presenting a form of Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is flawed in many ways, but I don't see how it could be seen as a straw man.

And to answer your question directly, "What would I have to lose if I believed", first belief isn't a choice I make. I either believe or I don't. I can't make myself believe something I don't. I can not believe in your God anymore than I can belief than I am an elephant. Second, if I did believe in the God described above who is so murderous, I would lose a lot of self respect and integrity if I bowed down to him.

Thus, they exercise their free will, but to no avail. For the deaf will remain deaf and the blind will remain blind, and the heart will never know how to feel - so in a state of conflict

That directly self contradicts itself. Either they will remain blind or they are in conflict. Which is it?

they join sites like this one, in order to try and find a view point that suits them without ever having to ascribe to GOD.

I can assure you, no non-muslim I know of comes to sites like this one "in order to try and find a view point that suits them". We come to discuss things and explore ideas and get a better understanding of what each other think. This thread is about atheists and what atheists think and misconceptions about them. I posted here to dispel those misconceptions and that prompted you and others to ask questions. Did you come in this thread on atheism "in order to try and find a view point that suits you"? No.

**جوري** · 09-14-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

I can actually agree with that, from a secular perspective. What you say is fitrah from God I say is just basic human empathy (no God needed). In either case, if it is inate in us then we don'tneed the religion to have it, right? If atheists (or non-abrahamics theists) have fitrah but don't recognize it as such, then they still have the moral compass and they don't need abrahamic faiths for it to exist (which was Scimitar's claim).

I have given the example before that what religion is to morality is what pathology is to surgery. A surgeon can take out a parotid gland mass recognize it as a mass no disagreement there (something that needs to be taken out) everyone agrees on that. But what that mass is (and there are seven types of it) is the pathologist's job and his grading and classification will determine the course of action. So obviously if you think all you need to do is take the mass out then you can risk it. It could be benign and that is the end of that.. or it could metastatic, malignant, secondary to something else coming from elsewhere and you're pretty much doomed but the choice in the end on the best course belongs to you!

**Aprender** · 09-14-2012

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

When I read the story of Sodom and Gammorah, I read about a God who wants to kill everybody, and one guy pleading for him to spare some of them (apparently God didn't originally want to and had to be told to do the right thing). We are then told that Lot offers up his daughters to be raped by a mob and that his wife is turned into a pillar of salt for "looking back".

I think you got some parts of that story confused with the Biblical version of it.

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

When you said we can't have a moral compass without abrahamic faiths are you saying that there was no empathy, sense of right and wrong, golden rule, etc before Abraham?

You're forgetting that in Islam we believe that Adam(pbuh) was the first prophet. Indeed there was a sense of right and wrong, remember the story of two of his sons.

**CosmicPathos** · 09-14-2012

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to show that moral compass exists. Hence, there is no scientific evidence basis for the so called "golden rule." Many men are violent (Conduct disorder etc), and that is because of neurohormonal imbalance in their brain. Imagine if most of humanity had this imbalance, violence would be the "golden rule." Such a fluctuating use-and-disuse morality is in the true sense not morality at all.