Atheism's Opposition with Nature..

[MustafaMc]

There is no getting around that nature is brutal and often sadistic, and not just in regard to humans. You can claim that earthquakes and disease befalling innocent children is some kind of collective punishment for the sins of man or whatever, but how do you work that sort of spin in regard to animal on animal cruelty? There are some absolutely amazingly sadistic things animals are "designed" to do each other.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems some atheists disbelieve in God because there is pain, suffering, injustice, oppression, etc in the world and because of apparent defects and vestigial organs that shouldn't be on a perfectly created organism.

 

[جوري]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems some atheists disbelieve in God because there is pain, suffering, injustice, oppression, etc in the world and because of apparent defects and vestigial organs that shouldn't be on a perfectly created organism.

Wouldn't that be a rejection though rather than outright disbelief?

 

[MustafaMc]

Wouldn't that be a rejection though rather than outright disbelief?

I am not sure what you mean by rejection. What I had in mind was that it seems atheist have a utopian expectation for the world sorta like 'heaven-on-earth' (John Lennon's song "Imagine") and when defects and imperfections are found then that is contrary to what they expect from God if He existed. They don't see that this life is a test and that we were never promised a rose garden (Lynn Anderson's song "I Never Promised You a Rose Garden"). They see the existence of evil and defects in the world as evidence for the nonexistence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent and merciful God. Maybe they also have the mindset that God sending someone to Hell only for not believing in and worshipping Him as unjust and they choose not to believe in and submit to a Being who they feel is unworthy of worship.

If I have written in error, I trust that someone will correct my mistakes.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems some atheists disbelieve in God because there is pain, suffering, injustice, oppression, etc in the world and because of apparent defects and vestigial organs that shouldn't be on a perfectly created organism.

I think most atheists lack belief in Gods for the simple reason that they see no reason to believe in them. Same reason they don't believe in psychics, faeries, or space alien visitors. I don't make those comparisons to insult you. They are apt.

I would be surprised if many (if any) atheists disbelieved in God because there is pain, injustice, oppression etc or because of apparent defects in created organisms. After all, God could be cruel and have made all this for his sadistic amusement. I think Greek, Roman, and Norse Gods were said to be like that. What you mention does appear to many of us to fly in the face of an all knowing, all powerful, and all benevolent God though.

 

[جوري]

I am not sure what you mean by rejection. What I had in mind was that it seems atheist have a utopian expectation for the world sorta like 'heaven-on-earth' (John Lennon's song "Imagine") and when defects and imperfections are found then that is contrary to what they expect from God if He existed. They don't see that this life is a test and that we were never promised a rose garden (Lynn Anderson's song "I Never Promised You a Rose Garden"). They see the existence of evil and defects in the world as evidence for the nonexistence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent and merciful God. Maybe they also have the mindset that God sending someone to Hell only for not believing in and worshipping Him as unjust and they choose not to believe in and submit to a Being who they feel is unworthy of worship.

If I have written in error, I trust that someone will correct my mistakes.

You've made no mistake, I mean it is a natural conclusion of yours and I can see why. To me it seems that they like the devil reject God because of an issue they've rather than pure conviction that God doesn't exist. At least from some of what I'd read or heard from various atheists..

 

[Aprender]

I would be surprised if many (if any) atheists disbelieved in God because there is pain, injustice, oppression etc or because of apparent defects in created organisms.

Pretty much every single atheist I've talked to do not believe in God because the world isn't a perfect, peaceful place. And they like to cite examples of the people who claim to follow a religion and do wrong or violent things as reasons not to follow a religion. Many of their ideas about religion stems from Christianity only. They don't realize that there are many, many different types of religions in the world that teach different things about a Creator yet they continuously frame their arguments from a Judeo-Christian perspective. They also go with what they hear through the grapevine without actually having done the research themselves on any religion at all and make erroneous generalizations about every single religion on the planet without any real analysis on each one simply because they heard someone else say it. Most of the time, they don't know what they're talking about.

I've only come across a few who don't believe because they simply "see no reason to" and I have more respect for atheists like that because at least they're being honest with their answers and open to hearing other opinions. Keep in mind that most of the atheists that I've talked to are in their teens to late 20s so this could very well be a generational thing.

 

[Pygoscelis]

There is a difference between why people don't believe in Gods, and why people may oppose religion or view it negatively. The latter usually is due to seeing what you say and in the west is usually framed around a reaction to abrahamic religion. This has definitely been true of myself in the past. I often have to remind myself that not all religion is like what I have encountered. This came into sharp view for me when I started working with mostly Sikhs and Hindus in my office, and when meeting many Budhist friends lately.

 

[CosmicPathos]

Pretty much every single atheist I've talked to do not believe in God because the world isn't a perfect, peaceful place. And they like to cite examples of the people who claim to follow a religion and do wrong or violent things as reasons not to follow a religion. Many of their ideas about religion stems from Christianity only. They don't realize that there are many, many different types of religions in the world that teach different things about a Creator yet they continuously frame their arguments from a Judeo-Christian perspective. They also go with what they hear through the grapevine without actually having done the research themselves on any religion at all and make erroneous generalizations about every single religion on the planet without any real analysis on each one simply because they heard someone else say it. Most of the time, they don't know what they're talking about.

I've only come across a few who don't believe because they simply "see no reason to" and I have more respect for atheists like that because at least they're being honest with their answers and open to hearing other opinions. Keep in mind that most of the atheists that I've talked to are in their teens to late 20s so this could very well be a generational thing.

Most of these atheist kids are influenced by neo-atheism, which is falsely represented by the Four Horsemen (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett). ... Neo-atheism is way less intellectual than its predecessor movement of atheism which started around some time after Enlightenment.

The intellectual atheists I've talked to, they are not in a bit influenced by neo-atheism, and they are very mature/sober and quiet people many of whom do want to find purpose of their seemingly purposeless life, and many of whom do come to Islam.

As for violence, these atheist kids should grow up and accept things the way they are. Atheists are no less violent, mean, selfish, pathetic, greedy than theists.

 

[Independent]

What I had in mind was that it seems atheist have a utopian expectation for the world sorta like 'heaven-on-earth' (John Lennon's song "Imagine") and when defects and imperfections are found then that is contrary to what they expect from God if He existed. They don't see that this life is a test and that we were never promised a rose garden (Lynn Anderson's song "I Never Promised You a Rose Garden"). They see the existence of evil and defects in the world as evidence for the nonexistence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent and merciful God.

You may have heard of famous 18th century satirical book called ‘Candide’ written by the Frenchman Voltaire, which was a big influence on the Enlightenment. The central character (Pangloss) wanders through the world with a tremendously optimistic attitude. No matter what disaster happens, he takes the view that it’s ‘all for the best’, or that something good may come of it (satirising Christianity).

The disasters become more and more extreme until it concludes with the catastrophic Lisbon earthquake (which made a stunning impact on 18[SUP]th[/SUP] century Europe). By the end of the book the reader is left with the feeling that Pangloss’s attitude is ridiculous and he is in fact indifferent to suffering.

Under the influence of Voltaire and other thinkers, from this time people began to stop seeing large scale disasters as a ‘sign from God’, or as a test, or as a just punishment for being sinful. Rather than seeing an earthquake or famine as a ‘proof’ of God, they began to see it as the exact opposite.

 

[M.I.A.]

so the thread seems to be winding down, if i can id like to post some links to interesting articles...with pictures!

its a non-islamic website but it shows some animals that are so highly specialised that its insane to think they could become such by random chance.

also something i had not thought about was evolutionary behavior?

things behaving in such ways as to give an advantage.. not just physically.

ie spiders that use tools.... no not webbing.

owls that look up to better make use of camo.

anyway if its allowed then

http://www.cracked.com/article_18746_the-9-most-mind-blowing-disguises-in-animal-kingdom.html?wa_user1=3&wa_user2=Science&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=yesincite

http://www.cracked.com/article_19757_the-8-most-mind-blowing-disguises-in-nature.html?wa_user1=5&wa_user2=Science&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=yesincite

 

[dusk]

Pretty much every single atheist I've talked to do not believe in God because the world isn't a perfect, peaceful place. And they like to cite examples of the people who claim to follow a religion and do wrong or violent things as reasons not to follow a religion.

One shouldn't forget there is the usual arguments and the real personal reasons for beliefs. If an atheist comes across a very religious seeming theist they tend to argue from their perspective or against the religions world view. The argument about the inconsistency in idealist omni everything gods comes up because of the expectation that is something easily understood and should seem logical to anyone regardless of believe. To the atheist it is only one argument among others that he seems wouldn't be received anyway.
The simple incredulity of why one should even worry about a belief stemming from a book that was written by backwards people some long time ago in a different culture, is much more of a problem. Why should such a book be regarded as anything more than a collection of metaphorical stories and legends, like any other similar book? If there was one all powerful god revealing himself to humanity why choose some people in a desert on one place at one time out of the blue. It would be more credible to be the revelation of a one true god if the same revelation appeared independently on different places to different cultures. One single source of missionaries can just as likely be a catchy idea of some very human person. Not a reason to take it anymore seriously than all the other things.
For theist their holy book is holy and rarely Atheist even bother arguing against it (except for short onliners). Yet to the Atheist that is still one of the bigger problems especially with abrahamic religions which hold such a claim to absolute truth. Eastern religions or spiritual philosophies have less of the latter and are thus often considered more reasonable because they don't claim truths in a just because manner.

The argument against suffering is often it seems to me a reason to leave a faith you are already in. When I hear former Christians talk about why they lost faith it is rarely because of the credibility of the bible as most aren't inerrancy types, but about "why does god allow for such an unfair world, suffering, ...?"
For those teens that you talk to I think it is more what I said. The suffering argument to them is more one that aimes primarily at the religion they are currently facing and one we atheist think is non partisan, not insulting and easy to understand from any perspective. IMO it is the general goto response if people don't want to enter anymore in depth discussions because they aren't interested in philosophy or the topic in general.
This is just an argument but not the reason for disbelieve. The reason is that they mostly see no reason to believe in it and also no indication why one religion or holy book should get any more credit than any other.

That most Atheist argue against the Judeo-Christian god is simply because this was and still is the dominant religion in societies where most Atheist live and can speak freely (while they could not in the past). You can argue best against what you know best. Many philosophers after dismantling Christianity think there won't be anything worthwhile in anything remotely similar. How remote depends on the person.

Great cartoon to understand atheist reasoning and the term atheism in general.

 

[dusk]

its a non-islamic website but it shows some animals that are so highly specialised that its insane to think they could become such by random chance.

Random chance is one of many mutations. The selection isn't random but depends on who is better at reproducing and is thus extremely dependent on environment. The gecko that isn't eaten and lives long can reproduce more often and if its offspring lives in close neighborhood with one that is more visible the more easily visible will be eaten first.

Even if there is seeming evidence for design in somethings, I would still be left wondering how some design is so bad and usually only just good enough. A sentient being that could design one thing like salamanders that can regrow limbs or livers that can regenerate, simply forgets to add the same healing capabilities elsewhere. I would have to conclude that is a rather incapable being or erratic one. The god that is usually claimed to be responsible for theists seems less likely than the flying spaghetti monster. Evolution explains the distribution of those differences, design would leave you wondering about the sanity of the designer, guided evolution would leave me wondering if that what we humans are now is really the end game.

 

[جوري]

Random chance is one of many mutations.

I haven't encountered 'random chance as one of many mutations' in genetics or other courses inspiring what you're suggesting!
We indeed have names for mutations, would you like to use them to demonstrate evolution? I'd welcome that!

Here's a helpful post I have made if you'd like a head start:

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-science/134300479-few-questions-about-evolution.html#post1368551

I'll be waiting!

best,

 

[M.I.A.]

Random chance is one of many mutations. The selection isn't random but depends on who is better at reproducing and is thus extremely dependent on environment. The gecko that isn't eaten and lives long can reproduce more often and if its offspring lives in close neighborhood with one that is more visible the more easily visible will be eaten first.

Even if there is seeming evidence for design in somethings, I would still be left wondering how some design is so bad and usually only just good enough. A sentient being that could design one thing like salamanders that can regrow limbs or livers that can regenerate, simply forgets to add the same healing capabilities elsewhere. I would have to conclude that is a rather incapable being or erratic one. The god that is usually claimed to be responsible for theists seems less likely than the flying spaghetti monster. Evolution explains the distribution of those differences, design would leave you wondering about the sanity of the designer, guided evolution would leave me wondering if that what we humans are now is really the end game.

yeah im stumped, thats great.

its probably due to complexity, size and energy cost in terms of limbs.
regenerating livers (or any organs ) would have changed the world. i know they are important.

but at the same time most life is more resilient than one would think..except for the obvious built in obsolescent.


...but

regenerating livers are probably a byproduct of diet or toxin exposure.

so technically the children of alcoholics should turn into klingons in the future.

but not really because they have personal choice in alcohol exposure.


but in a drinking society, sooner or later liver problems will decrease right? evolution.


and then you have to hope that those individuals with better liver genes reproduce.

and then the rest probably die out.

so only alcoholics are left.

and those that did not drink in the first place..

who are now the lesser species.


fantastic.


anyway thats quite random but in terms of a god creating erratically, the worst case scenario is that evolution is a natural process and god has plenty of time on his hands.


sure maybe he pushes in certain directions every now and then but its almost always against the grain.

as a thiest.. muslim in particular. imo humans are not the end game.


i mean angels are made of light and we dont even do holograms yet.


a recent trend i have observed is a lot of people heading towards determinism in term of world theory. so i guess its almost guided evolution but without the god bit.


in those articles i posted the thing that got me was that a clam can disguise itself as a fish?
how does anything get that specific and the prey does not change?

it may be evolution but it is so highly dependent on so many factors that it seems improbable.

i have no idea but imo.

but yes regenerating limbs and organs would be brilliant.. evolution would take even longer to happen.



i just thought of something that id like to share,

in terms of human evolution there is something known as beta thalassemia trait.

its an abnormality of red blood cell shape.

i dont know if it can account for lazyness due to iron deficiency but the trade of is that people with it cannot get malaria.

so being at a disadvantage genetically is actually of advantage in that instance?

strange how things work sometimes.

...but i dont know how that would effect the next generation and so on.

in the long term it would become disadvantageous because it no longer becomes a trait but actual b-thalassemia.


so evolution is probably more complicated...and less likely than it would first seem.

 

[Scimitar]

you can't disprove athiesm, just as atheists can't disprove theism... this is what having imaan is all about.

Meh. Carry on.

 

[dusk]

its probably due to complexity, size and energy cost in terms of limbs.

Concerning regenerating limbs it is very few animals that can do it. Many of the same size cannot. I don't see this particular as a cost thing but others never got there. Today scientists want to figure our what genes are really responsible for that feat and how they could introduce it for humans. The noble price went to the guys with their stem cells and they did reprogram cells with viruses. At some point they might reprogram the cells in your arm to trigger regrowing the stump. It isn't anymore complex a salamander also has bones, blood vessels, nerves, muscles. It is only more of the same.
Other examples are sharks and crocodiles that have an immune system that puts ours to shame. How much less medication we would need.

a recent trend i have observed is a lot of people heading towards determinism in term of world theory. so i guess its almost guided evolution but without the god bit.

Well determinism is pretty much a given as no human being can really handle the alternative. The difference between a personal deity did it and the laws of the universe force it is that the latter is more in line with pantheistic notions like the god of Spinoza as Einstein calls it or simple deism. When you don't expect god to be any sentient personal being with actual interventional capabilities, you will end up in Apatheism.

in terms of human evolution there is something known as beta thalassemia trait.
its an abnormality of red blood cell shape.
...but i dont know how that would effect the next generation and so on.
in the long term it would become disadvantageous because it no longer becomes a trait but actual b-thalassemia.
so evolution is probably more complicated...and less likely than it would first seem.

That is still evolution. Adapting to the environment. The environment changes again so will the species. All the basic very simple principle of evolution says is that there are some variants propping up and some will be more successful in breeding than others. Those that don't die of Malaria are simply more likely to raise children. Fitness does not relate to whether one is stronger, faster or smarter than the other but to the very simple goal of who has more offspring.
A rabbit that lives only 3 years but breeds twice a year 8+ younglings is more fit than one that is smart, strong, fast and lives 8 years but only yields one bunny a year. Maybe the former are really dumb bunnies and most of them get eaten but they are legion. ;D

i have no idea but imo.
but yes regenerating limbs and organs would be brilliant.. evolution would take even longer to happen.

Probably just imagine we would live forever and be almost impervious to desease and could regrow every organ. There wouldn't be any new generations after a while because the old still healthy one would defend its turf. For evolution to work. You need frequent enough successive generations. Once one is past child bearing age the body is supposed to get weaker so as not to pose a threat or competition to the new generation.

 

[جوري]

in terms of human evolution there is something known as beta thalassemia trait.
its an abnormality of red blood cell shape.
...but i dont know how that would effect the next generation and so on.
in the long term it would become disadvantageous because it no longer becomes a trait but actual b-thalassemia.
so evolution is probably more complicated...and less likely than it would first seem.

You're thinking of sickle cell!

Those that don't die of Malaria are simply more likely to raise children.

you should do research on what he wrote before you write and then research the actual scientific facts of the matter before you write!
You don't become more fit because you don't die of Malaria when you still have sickle cell and can very well die of that in a number of ways.. sickle cell trait can also convert in high altitude to sickle cell & suffer such things as isosthenuria.
And again, macro and micro evolution aren't the same thing you don't get to buy one get one free or does being an atheist automatically make you a scientist able to understand all science and synthesize responses at will?

 

[Pygoscelis]

A rabbit that lives only 3 years but breeds twice a year 8+ younglings is more fit than one that is smart, strong, fast and lives 8 years but only yields one bunny a year. Maybe the former are really dumb bunnies and most of them get eaten but they are legion. ;D

This is a good point, and one that often gets lost in common understandings of evolution. It isn't always about "survival of the fittest" or survival at all. It isn't about who is strongest, fastest, or best at anything. It is about what mutations make a critter have the most babies that live to have more babies and so on. It should be explained like that. It should also be explained from the gene's perspective, which was a paradigm shift for me (and many) in reading Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene. If the genes get passed on it doesn't matter what happens to the host. This makes a lot more sense of why some animals sacrifice themselves and commit suicide (ie, male spiders that sacrifice themselves as nutrition for the female after mating, so the offspring survive) or why some adults will die for their relatives. It may not be the explanation but it is even consistent with how empathy, racism, and tribalism works - that we respond and care about those we perceive as being most like ourselves (and who would likely have more of our genes).

 

[Pygoscelis]

And again, macro and micro evolution aren't the same thing

Many scientists who are experts on evolution disagree. I actually have yet to meet a secular scientist who sees a "micro" and "macro" distinction. I would like to read one who makes that distinction and who is not motivated by religious bias. I see no reason why a secular scientist, even one vehement about not introducing theist possibilities into the mix, would want to avoid that distinction. It would help work towards a new and better theory.

 

[جوري]

It is about what mutations make a critter have the most babies that live to have more babies and so on.

With certain autosomal dominant traits, the mutations show up in adulthood, so it puts a complete dent in your theory. You can have more and more offspring which pass more and more mutations on and none of it is beneficial in fact deadly but not caught in time for the offspring to stop mating to make more. It is unfortunate that Dawkins chooses to ignore or rather passes on selective information or perhaps this simply is the depth of his understanding.

best,