Why can't atheists just be wrong?

format_quote Originally Posted by jabeady

I've seen a lot of things written here about atheism and atheists. The more charitable items suggest that we're mentally or emotionally disturbed, and/or are suffering from some other form of dementia.

Personally, I never really considered the possibility that you religious folk were somehow demented (with some specific exceptions), just mistaken. Why can't you return the favor?

I've just started to post on this forum after 2 or 3 years, so I do not know about the posts that you allude to. If they have come from the muslim community, maybe it would be better to educate them a bit more on what atheism actually is and why you are an atheist.

Having said all that, to return to your point about atheists possibly being wrong, the thing is, every practicing Muslim knows Islam to be the truth, hence atheism IS wrong. It then becomes our duty to engage you and to try and help you understand your errors...key word being help. We can not force you to accept the truth but hopefully one day, you will see the truth for what it is.

format_quote Originally Posted by Aaqib

If he says he doesn't want to convert to Islam, that's his will.

There once was a Jewish boy who would be around the prophet, and he didn't hate him, not even ask him to convert! But when the boy was on his death bed, he said the shahada

Point being, if he says yes, great! No? Then we shouldn't keep beating him up about it, otherwise he'll dislike it and leave.

That's exactly what I've just said in my post. It's our duty to present him with info on Islam or to quote myself (forgive me lol): "It then becomes our duty to engage you and to try and help you understand your errors...key word being help."

After that, it's all up to him/her.

I would never judge anyone irrational for disagreeing me on some subject of longstanding controversy on which much intellectual effort has been spent on all sides. I don't put much stock into the intellectual prowess of those who would so judge others irrational. That includes people who self-identify as "rationalists" or who otherwise act as if their faction has a monopoly on reason.

format_quote Originally Posted by jabeady

Personally, I never really considered the possibility that you religious folk were somehow demented (with some specific exceptions), just mistaken.

When you notice that time progresses by addition, it is clear that time cannot be infinite. So, there is a beginning of times. From there, it is not a stretch to say that there must be a first cause at the beginning of times, which is the principle of causality to everything else. In that sense, subscribing to a first-cause theorem is a very rational point of view. You will also find this rather abstract first-cause theorem in Aristotle, Physics, book 7 and 8. Hence, first-cause beliefs are absolutely rational. People will naturally come to the concept of a first cause, i.e. a creator of the universe, just by experiencing how the phenomenon of time works.

format_quote Originally Posted by jabeady

Why can't you return the favor?

The problem is not what atheists believe about the abstract first-cause theorem. They obviously believe what they want. The problem is rather a political one. We believe that there cannot be any other legitimate source of freedom restrictions than external ones. No such freedom restrictions can legitimately be man-made. It is forbidden onto humanity to redesign its own blueprint and invent new freedom restrictions to that effect. Humanity did not originally design its own blueprint, and therefore, is not qualified to modify it.

Atheists do not just believe that there is no first cause, which is otherwise their god-given right. Atheists also believe that politicians can invent and enforce new freedom restrictions. That particular atheist belief is very conflictual and utmost detestable. In that sense, yes, I totally agree that atheists and their politicians are detestable individuals whom we must combat by all means at our disposal. Atheists and their politicians are enemies whom we are seeking to defeat, no matter what it may take. Atheists and their politicians will learn the hard way that you cannot liberally invent new freedom restrictions and impose them onto others, regardless of whether they believe in a first cause or not, because that is irrelevant in this matter.

format_quote Originally Posted by kritikvernunft

When you notice that time progresses by addition, it is clear that time cannot be infinite. So, there is a beginning of times. From there, it is not a stretch to say that there must be a first cause at the beginning of times, which is the principle of causality to everything else. In that sense, subscribing to a first-cause theorem is a very rational point of view. You will also find this rather abstract first-cause theorem in Aristotle, Physics, book 7 and 8. Hence, first-cause beliefs are absolutely rational. People will naturally come to the concept of a first cause, i.e. a creator of the universe, just by experiencing how the phenomenon of time works.

The problem is not what atheists believe about the abstract first-cause theorem. They obviously believe what they want. The problem is rather a political one. We believe that there cannot be any other legitimate source of freedom restrictions than external ones. No such freedom restrictions can legitimately be man-made. It is forbidden onto humanity to redesign its own blueprint and invent new freedom restrictions to that effect. Humanity did not originally design its own blueprint, and therefore, is not qualified to modify it.

Atheists do not just believe that there is no first cause, which is otherwise their god-given right. Atheists also believe that politicians can invent and enforce new freedom restrictions. That particular atheist belief is very conflictual and utmost detestable. In that sense, yes, I totally agree that atheists and their politicians are detestable individuals whom we must combat by all means at our disposal. Atheists and their politicians are enemies whom we are seeking to defeat, no matter what it may take. Atheists and their politicians will learn the hard way that you cannot liberally invent new freedom restrictions and impose them onto others, regardless of whether they believe in a first cause or not, because that is irrelevant in this matter.

You must remember that there are more than one type of atheist. You are talking of the "Liberal" atheists which are basically Reds. But there are Chaotic and Anarchic ones who want to bring down the System and Libertarians who want to reduce the power of the state. But the Reds vastly outnumber the rest. The Reds have even infiltrated all the worlds religions.

It is impossible to fully trust Atheists. An Atheist will never become President of the United States. It is just not possible.

Atheists have nothing "ultimate" which can be sworn on. However we believers would never truly swear on God when we're lying.

This can be a difficult concept for an Atheist to grasp. It might even cause frustration, even though it is clearly true they will try to deny it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Karl

You are talking of the "Liberal" atheists which are basically Reds. But the Reds vastly outnumber the rest. The Reds have even infiltrated all the worlds religions.

Yes, and they invent new forbidden behaviours. I subscribe to the Islamic view that mankind is not competent to invent its own list of forbidden behaviours. It must always be treated as an external factor. There is something dangerous about players reinventing the rules of the game all the while they are playing.

format_quote Originally Posted by Karl

But there are Chaotic and Anarchic ones who want to bring down the System and Libertarians who want to reduce the power of the state.

I personally believe in reducing the power of the State inasmuch as such power exploits newly-invented forbidden behaviours. I don't know how much State should be left after the exercise, but certainly not much. With bitcoin we are proving -- black on white -- that we do not need a State to print our money. We can probably prove that we do not need the State for many other things. I also do not like elections. They just give a veneer of otherwise false legitimacy to increasingly exploitative State power. Since the election system nowadays even has the temerity to claim that it has the authority to overrule Divine Law, it has to go now.

format_quote Originally Posted by sister herb

Do you think that one day a Muslim could become a President of the USA instead? I think it depends a lot of the voters. If one day the majority of the Americans will be Muslims, then yes. But it´s same also with the atheism.

Better never to say never.

US presidential candidates are vetted. Only Zionists are allowed to stand for president. So it would be very unlikely unless they put in a false Muslim to appease Muslim unrest in that country. The black power people in the USA believe Obama is an appeaser and poodle of the whites and Jewish.

format_quote Originally Posted by kritikvernunft

Yes, and they invent new forbidden behaviours. I subscribe to the Islamic view that mankind is not competent to invent its own list of forbidden behaviours. It must always be treated as an external factor. There is something dangerous about players reinventing the rules of the game all the while they are playing.

I personally believe in reducing the power of the State inasmuch as such power exploits newly-invented forbidden behaviours. I don't know how much State should be left after the exercise, but certainly not much. With bitcoin we are proving -- black on white -- that we do not need a State to print our money. We can probably prove that we do not need the State for many other things. I also do not like elections. They just give a veneer of otherwise false legitimacy to increasingly exploitative State power. Since the election system nowadays even has the temerity to claim that it has the authority to overrule Divine Law, it has to go now.

The problem here is tolerance. If people of different faiths and Godlessness cannot tolerate each other, they will be doomed to eternal war. And from my experience, the (Reds) Liberal/ Progressives/Marxists espouse the strongest intolerant self righteousness and want to make the whole world in their image.

format_quote Originally Posted by Karl

US presidential candidates are vetted. Only Zionists are allowed to stand for president. So it would be very unlikely unless they put in a false Muslim to appease Muslim unrest in that country. The black power people in the USA believe Obama is an appeaser and poodle of the whites and Jewish.

In fact, it does not matter who is the president; and it should not matter. It also does not matter who is sitting in Congress. What matters is that they must not be allowed invent new laws. The system can be corrected in a relatively simple way. It should have a Natural Law Council that verifies if any decision that comes out of the president's office or Congress extends, overrules, modifies or otherwise abrogates Divine Law, and then stop its implementation. At the same time, it should look at the entire body of active laws and on the same grounds throw out everything that is or could be in conflict with Divine Law. The Natural Law Council would not have any other prerogative than stopping, blocking, opposing, and arresting what everybody else is doing. It would not have any other power. From there on, I couldn't give a flying fart who becomes president or who exactly sits in Congress. It would not matter at all.

format_quote Originally Posted by jabeady

This sounds nice, but it is not reality - and for good reason.