Hey Agnostics & Atheists: Do you ever worry?

[IAmZamzam]

In the case of some, like Descartes, I would definitely say below average intelligence. For example, every five-year-old knows that things can't be more perfect than other things, but once frame such an idiotic thought in philosophical language and suddenly you're a genius. Bah. Then again, as Stephen King said in one of his non-fiction works, no one can be as intellectually slothful as a really smart person. Not having a brain, not using it, what difference does it make? It all amounts to the same in the end.

Why is what I said pretentious? Apparently just because you find it outrageous. Do you even know what "pretentious" means? It's possible that I'm just a cynic but there is no trace of pretense in anything I've said.

"Virtually every other academic discipline is an offshot of philosophy." Talk about a genetic fallacy! You may have a point all the same: perhaps that's what's wrong with academia.

 

[Trumble]

In the case of some, like Descartes, I would definitely say below average intelligence.

Is that supposed to be a joke? We are talking about the Descartes who came up with the Cartesian co-ordinate system, analytical geometry and wrote Meditations on First Philosophy?!

Why is what I said pretentious? Apparently just because you find it outrageous. Do you even know what "pretentious" means? It's possible that I'm just a cynic but there is no trace of pretense in anything I've said.

Oh, I know exactly what it means! I really think you need to be a little more honest with yourself if you really believe that second sentence is true. I don't find it outrageous, it's far too nonsensical to be taken seriously enough for that.

"Virtually every other academic discipline is an offshot of philosophy." Talk about a genetic fallacy! You may have a point all the same: perhaps that's what's wrong with academia.

It is not a genetic or any other variety of fallacy, just evidence highly suggestive that this supposed intellectual tragedy of yours never happened. If you want something more specific in relation to intelligence, try THIS. A few names you might recognise, like erm, Russell, Kant and the positively retarded Rene Descartes.

 

[IAmZamzam]

I don't claim to really know the various mental strengths and weaknesses of these people and frankly I don't even care. What matters is what we do and their philosophy was itself unintelligent. Mel Brooks really had the issue down pat in History of the World, Part 1--you know, that movie wherein the philosophers walk around literally just saying (to edit it for the board):

"B.S. B.S. B.S. B.S."
"B.S. B.S.?"
"B.S. B.S. B.S!"

That's philosophers for you. And yes, it is very much a genetic fallacy to say that B being an offshoot of A necessarily confirms A or even makes it any smarter. History consists largely of happenstance. Nor am I interested in what after-the-fact estimations there have been about anyone (no doubt by people who, like the rest of us, were raised in an atmosphere of positively skewed preconceived notions about the intelligence of philosophers). Even when I.Q. is actually taken via real testing during someone's lifetime it's still unreliable.

You still haven't told me what's pretentious about anything I've said, and I still am not at all convinced that the sole reason I strike you that way isn't just how much I disagree with your own views.

 

[Trumble]

I don't claim to really know the various mental strengths and weaknesses of these people and frankly I don't even care. What matters is what we do and their philosophy was itself unintelligent.

Again, I just find that claim utterly ludicrous. I don't see much point in taking that further; maybe you could point in the direction of anything you've written that even approaches the likes of Republic, the Meditations, The Critique of Pure Reason, On Liberty, The Phenomenology of Spirit, Being and Time, etc in regards of the insight, creativity and intelligence required to author them. You are a pygmy pointing at giants.

Mel Brooks really had the issue down pat in History of the World, Part 1--you know, that movie wherein the philosophers walk around literally just saying (to edit it for the board):

"B.S. B.S. B.S. B.S."
"B.S. B.S.?"
"B.S. B.S. B.S!"

Ah, my bad. I'll just throw away all the above to make room for the complete works of Yahya Sulaiman and Mel Brooks. It might take a while to figure out which is the intellectual and which is the comedian, though.

And yes, it is very much a genetic fallacy to say that B being an offshoot of A necessarily confirms A or even makes it any smarter.

It may well be, but I didn't make that claim. Strawman time ....

Even when I.Q. is actually taken via real testing during someone's lifetime it's still unreliable.

Of course, but how many people other than yourself would seriously present figures at the other end of the scale, based either on the same techniques or on their own reading of the books I listed (among a great many others)?! IQ tests are not necessary; reading the books is.

You still haven't told me what's pretentious about anything I've said, and I still am not at all convinced that the sole reason I strike you that way isn't just how much I disagree with your own views.

I didn't think that was necessary. You don't think presenting yourself as more intelligent than Rene Descartes (on the assumption you don't consider yourself to have below average intelligence), not to mention qualified to pass similar judgement on the others mentioned, is pretentious? I do.

 

[IAmZamzam]

I've got news for you: holding an uncommon opinion about someone else's intelligence does not automatically qualify someone as pretentious. Your insistence that it does only serves to prove what I've said, that you automatically associate ideas you consider to be outrageous with pretense. The only way pretense could be involved is if I'm adopting the attitude falsely so that I can be part of some clique or something like that. News flash: people are allowed to disagree with you. I'm not a cliquish sort. I didn't even make much of a point of what I said. I'm not the one who called undue attention to it: you and Lynx are. All I did was make one little offhand comment in the midst of an on-topic point and you've snowballed it into a total derailing of the thread. I would just as soon not have said anything more about it had I not been called on to defend myself so repeatedly at the behest of everything this thread is supposed to be about.

 

[Trumble]

I've got news for you: holding an uncommon opinion about someone else's intelligence does not automatically qualify someone as pretentious. Your insistence that it does only serves to prove what I've said, that you automatically associate ideas you consider to be outrageous with pretense.

It is not holding the opinion that is pretentious; it is presenting yourself as someone capable of making an informed judgement that defies all the evidence on the matter that is pretentious. We can agree, though that enough off-topic is enough. Back to worried (or serene) atheists, folks.

 

[IAmZamzam]

It is not holding the opinion that is pretentious; it is presenting yourself as someone capable of making an informed judgement that defies all the evidence on the matter that is pretentious.

Only if it's a given in that a judgment is going against the evidence in the first place! At worst I could still be unpretentiously holding a viewpoint that misunderstands or underestimates the evidence, or overestimates the evidence I have to the contrary! Holding an uncommon idea--even if it is inflammatory to some people--is an automatic sign of pretense only to the insistently closed-minded!

 

[Pygoscelis]

Back on topic...

No I don't get worried because if God exists he isn't going to send people to Hell for their beliefs because beliefs aren't moral actions (or actions at all); if he does end up sending people to hell for their beliefs then there ain't nothing I can do about it

Also, consider if you would WANT to bow down to or spend eternity in heaven with a God who would do such a thing as judge you on your obedience to him instead of your kindness or good works.

Any God primarily concerned with my belief in him (rather than my behaviour towards my fellows) isn`t worthy of being called God. And it would be my moral duty to stand up to a God as depicted in some parts of these holy texts (such as Exodus or Deuteronomy). Hell would become virtuous.

I don't worry about things I can't control or change so I don't worry about this kind of God existing. I would be powerless to oppose him, but morally obliged to do so, and thus doomed no matter what.

 

[- Qatada -]

Back on topic...

Also, consider if you would WANT to bow down to or spend eternity in heaven with a God who would do such a thing as judge you on your obedience to him instead of your kindness or good works.

That = Ungratefulness. Why shouldn't a person thank and be obedient to a God who gave them all they have in the first place? You can only do good to others because God gave you these favours. [premise of discussion: God is your Provider].

 

[Ramadhan]

Also, consider if you would WANT to bow down to or spend eternity in heaven with a God who would do such a thing as judge you on your obedience to him instead of your kindness or good works.

in the Qur'an, in all verses that mention who qualify to enter paradise, Allah SWT says "for those who believe AND do good deeds.."

again, you've been here for more than 4 years, but your islamic knowledge is abysmal.
haven't you learned anything about Islam in those years?

 

[Perseveranze]

Also, consider if you would WANT to bow down to or spend eternity in heaven with a God who would do such a thing as judge you on your obedience to him instead of your kindness or good works.

Peace,

Suprised you would say that. It's probably the main difference in regards to; yes, in Islam you can't just talk (and just believe), you have to walk aswell.

"It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteous is the one who believes in Allah, and the Last Day, and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and gives away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask and to set slaves free and keeps up prayer and pays the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in the time of conflict. These are they who are truthful; and these are they who keep their duty." [Ch. 2:177]

Please remember this. Praying to God alone isn't going to cut it, show true obedience through moral actions aswell; that's Islam.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Naidamar, why do you assume I was talking about the Qur'an? Especially when I specifically referenced the bible?

in the Qur'an, in all verses that mention who qualify to enter paradise, Allah SWT says "for those who believe AND do good deeds.."

So he cares equally if I believe in him as if I'm a good person. That isn't much better from where I'm standing. It says that obedience is just as (if not more) important than being good, and I would have to stand against such a Tyranical (by definition) God if one existed. To borrow an analogy, it would be like Celestial North Korea. Not for me.

And of course though I would be morally obliged to stand up to this God, given he is omnipotent I would be powerless and would be doomed. So why worry about what I can't control? So no I am not worried about God existing. First because I find it incredibly unlikely, and second because if one does exist and he's a tyranical one, I can do nothing about it.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Praying to God alone isn't going to cut it, show true obedience through moral actions aswell; that's Islam.

While my main sticking point with Christianity is vicarious redemption, I think my main sticking point with Islam is defacto unquestioning obedience to authority (Allah) being pushed as a virtue. I understand that my view on that is not welcome here, but it does form part of my answer to the question posed (do you worry? - No, because if a God exists I doubt he'd be tyranical and if he is I'm powerless and doomed anyway so I don't worry.), so there you have it.

 

[Ramadhan]

Naidamar, why do you assume I was talking about the Qur'an? Especially when I specifically referenced the bible?

of course I assume you were talking about Islam and the qur'an. any sane person would assume the same.
1. This is an Islamic board, not christian board
2. the thread starter is a muslim
3. in the last few pages stretching back few weeks, there is NO single christian joining in the debate.
4. even if you mentioned exodus and deuterenomy, that was not related to your statement "Also, consider if you would WANT to bow down to or spend eternity in heaven with a God who would do such a thing as judge you on your obedience to him instead of your kindness or good works. " that was in different paragraph and in relation about you standing up to god.
anyway, I dont get why you bringing up bible, as surely you understand the issue of credibility muslims have with bible.

 

[Ramadhan]

So he cares equally if I believe in him as if I'm a good person. That isn't much better from where I'm standing. It says that obedience is just as (if not more) important than being good, and I would have to stand against such a Tyranical (by definition) God if one existed. To borrow an analogy, it would be like Celestial North Korea. Not for me.

And of course though I would be morally obliged to stand up to this God, given he is omnipotent I would be powerless and would be doomed. So why worry about what I can't control? So no I am not worried about God existing. First because I find it incredibly unlikely, and second because if one does exist and he's a tyranical one, I can do nothing about it.

I wonder how you treat your parents?

 

[جوري]

I wonder how you treat your parents?

atheists are very tribal in their primitivism and crudity of course the more 'liberated' you're from religion, the more animal like you become!

 

[Perseveranze]

While my main sticking point with Christianity is vicarious redemption, I think my main sticking point with Islam is defacto unquestioning obedience to authority (Allah) being pushed as a virtue. I understand that my view on that is not welcome here, but it does form part of my answer to the question posed (do you worry? - No, because if a God exists I doubt he'd be tyranical and if he is I'm powerless and doomed anyway so I don't worry.), so there you have it.

Peace,

Your "powerless" is assuming you'll die as an Athiest? You don't know your future and even if you did, certainly no one here can say for sure how God will judge a person. But in Islam, we believe there's enough signs and I'm not just talking about religion here, just talking about the "existence of a Diviniy/Creator". By calling yourself powerless, your implying that God isn't being "fair" to you right? That may be your opinion, but Muslims believe God's done enough (however subtle you want to call it) to seperate true believers from the non-believers. At the moment, you don't believe God exists, now if God sent his angels down to you, who told you that God existed, would you then believe in God?

Anyways, some interesting verses for the Athiests maybe;

"And they say, “There is not but our worldly life; we die and live (i.e. some people die and others live, replacing them) and nothing destroys us except time.” And they have of that no knowledge; they are only assuming. And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, their argument is only that they say, “Bring [back] our forefathers, if you should be truthful.” Say, “Allah causes you to live, then causes you to die; then He will assemble you for the Day of Resurrection, about which there is no doubt.” But most of the people do not know."» [45:24]

"Then did you think that We created you uselessly and that to Us you would not be returned?"» [23:115]

"And We did not create the heaven and the earth and that between them aimlessly. That is the assumption of those who disbelieve, so woe to those who disbelieve from the Fire. Or should We treat those who believe and do righteous deeds like corrupters in the land? Or should We treat those who fear Allah like the wicked?"» [38:27]

"Or do those who commit evils think We will make them like those who have believed and done righteous deeds - [the evildoers being] equal in their life and their death? Evil is that which they judge [i.e. assume]. And Allah created the heavens and earth in truth and so that every soul may be recompensed for what it has earned, and they will not be wronged."» [45:21]

"And We did not create the heavens and the earth and that between them in play. We did not create them except in truth, but most of them do not know. Indeed, the Day of Judgment is the appointed time for them all."» [44:38]

"But those who disbelieve say, “The Hour (i.e. the Day of Judgment) will not come to us.” Say, “Yes, by my Lord, it will surely come to you. [Allah is] the Knower of the unseen.” Not absent from Him is an atom’s weight within the heavens or within the earth or [what is] smaller than that or greater, except that it is in a clear register - That He may reward those who believe and do righteous deeds. Those will have forgiveness and noble provision. But those who strive against Our verses [seeking] to cause failure (i.e. to undermine their credibility) - for them will be a painful punishment of foul nature."» [34:3]


"Every soul will taste death. And We test you with evil and with good as trial; and to Us you will be returned."» [21:35]

These are just a few, but it's interesting for me (when I first read them), there weren't many "Athiests" at the time of the Prophet(pbuh), anywhere in the world. 1400 years ago, pretty much everyone had a belief of a divinity or some other kind of greater power that's beyond this realm (Athiesm really took off when Darwin came along). The verses almost make me feel like they are crying out with the most basic of messages; that yes, there is a Creator. And with Athiesm rising (read 9% rise of americans not believing in creationism), these verses really (for me atleast) make me think and it's signficance in world of today and the future (however long that may be, I assume faith will deteriorate in some way). We Muslims believe the Quran is for all times, so it's not so suprising if these very verses that say "so you think that last hour won't come will it?" may be more purposely directed at the people of the future than the people of 1400 years ago.

 

[Pygoscelis]

At the moment, you don't believe God exists, now if God sent his angels down to you, who told you that God existed, would you then believe in God?

I may, but the point is that I would not unquestioningly obey him or accept that all he says and does is something I must approve of. I can conceive of an evil God. Might does not make right.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I wonder how you treat your parents?

I treat them very well. They care a lot more about me being a good person than agreeing with all they say, and have never threatened me with eternal torment for disagreeing with them. They've also never flooded my house, drowned my pets, or told me to kill their children, or anyone else. If they had, I wouldn't treat them so well.

 

[Ramadhan]

I treat them very well. They care a lot more about me being a good person than agreeing with all they say, and have never threatened me with eternal torment for disagreeing with them. They've also never flooded my house, drowned my pets, or told me to kill their children, or anyone else. If they had, I wouldn't treat them so well.

Thankfully your parents did not give you life, did not give you air to breath, did not give you sustenance, did not protect you from danger every single day, did not give you intelligence for you to use to deny them....