Atheists?

[Pygoscelis]

They also don't really have the concept of vicarious redemption. Their view is Jesus's death made salvation possible. A completely secular way of understanding this is that Jesus's death made possible the spread of monotheism which made possible Islam, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment, thereby saving the West from terminal cultural decline that was seen in most other parts of the world (Mayans for example).

Vicarious redemption is at the core of the idea of Jesus "dying for your sins" and redeeming you through him, etc.

What does Jesus' death have to do with monotheism? You don't need a dead demi-god to have monotheistic beliefs. Nor do monotheistic beliefs save you from cultural decline.

God serves as a virtual alpha-male who promotes morality. Without this, high levels of morality are not possible, as history proves.

Obedience to king, fuhr, dictator or God may be a means of creating and maintaining order, but it is not morality. Morality is listening to our evolved senses of empathy and fairness.

Don't you think that if you are going to say that X doesn't exist, you should know what X is and not change the meaning of X all the time?

No, because there is little reason to say X doesn't exist if there isn't somebody putting forth the claim that X does exist. And it would be disingenuous for me to insist on what God is and then argue against such a straw man. I have no identity or ownership over the word "God", and I am quite happy for you to define it and then to respond to your claims from there. As I said, it changes drastically from theist to theist.

You still aren't differentiating yourself from the religious here. Many religious people would say that they aren't certain of the nature of God and that whatever they believe about this "is subject to change with better evidence".

If they have an evidence based and falsifiable belief in God readily changed by evidence, then I agree, such a theist would not be very different from myself, but they would be a rare theist indeed.

Analogously, I am not asking you about a specific truth, rather I am asking you whether you believe that external Truth exists regardless of exactly what that Truth is?

I can't know that for certain, but I believe so, yes, due to controlled experimentation and repetition finding consistent results.

I don't know either, but I do know that on any forum in modern culture, this thread would have been shut down already, so Islam is already proving itself a better supporter of free speech.

What do you mean by "modern culture" and why are you excluding Islam from it? Are you saying that Islam is archaic or backwards culture? And I don't know of any forums I visit that would have shut this thread down so far other than religious ones.

You seem to think that atheists hate you, etc. I can't see why that'd be so. Other than if you happen to carry on in a rude manner, which you haven't thus far. I can point you to an atheist forum where people will openly, calmly, and fairly address you if you would like, and if the mods here would allow it.

 

[fschmidt]

Vicarious redemption is at the core of the idea of Jesus "dying for your sins" and redeeming you through him, etc.

This isn't the place to debate Christianity, so I will pass here.

What does Jesus' death have to do with monotheism? You don't need a dead demi-god to have monotheistic beliefs. Nor do monotheistic beliefs save you from cultural decline.

Tying one's ideas to a martyr seems to be a pretty effective marketing strategy. Plato did it with Socrates and Paul did it with Jesus. Without Jesus's death, I doubt monotheism would have spread as effectively as it did.

Obedience to king, fuhr, dictator or God may be a means of creating and maintaining order, but it is not morality. Morality is listening to our evolved senses of empathy and fairness. It sometimes means going AGAINST power. Might does not mean right. And in the case of Gods, ultimate might does not mean ultimate right.

The average person, by default, is stupid, immoral, and lacking in self-discipline. Religion is needed to overcome the default. Maybe 1 person in 1000 can find morality in himself, not more. A benevolent king can inspire morality, but he is mortal, so this is temporary. To make morality long-lasting, it must be encapsulated in religion. Machiavelli discusses this in detail here:

http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy1.htm#1:11

It would be disingenuous for me to insist on what God is and then argue against such a straw man. I have no identity or ownership over the word "God", and I am quite happy for you to define it and then to respond to your claims from there. As I said, it changes drastically from theist to theist.

You can find my thoughts on this here:

http://www.mikraite.org/God-for-Atheists-tp18.html

If they have an evidence based and falsifiable belief in God readily changed by evidence, then I agree, such a theist would not be very different from myself. That isn't the sort of theist I routinely encounter, especially online.

Sorry but you are still missing the point. The Western idea of Truth which originated with Plato and which is assumed by all atheists that I know of is not a falsifiable belief. It is fundamentally a religious concept.

What do you mean by "modern culture" and why are you excluding Islam from it? Are you saying that Islam is archaic or backwards culture?

"Modern culture" is a poor name, but the best I can think of. I am referring to current post-Christian Western culture. Islam is not part of this (thankfully).

And none of the forums I visit that would have shut this thread down thus far, not even this one.

I am sure that I have been banned from over 100 "modern" forums for posting things similar to what I posted to this thread. The general pattern is that I get hostile rude insults. And when I defend myself effectively, I am banned, and then they ridicule me after banning me. This is standard practice in "modern culture". "Modern culture" is by far the nastiest, most intolerant culture in the world.

You seem to think that atheists hate you, etc. I can't see why that'd be so. Other than if you happen to carry on in a rude manner, which you haven't thus far. I can point you to an atheist forum where people will openly, calmly, and fairly address you if you would like.

I have posted to a number of atheist forums, and they all insult me and then ban me. In fact, before I became religious and I still considered myself an atheist, I received this treatment just for posting on an atheist forum that I like the Old Testament. These days I do everything I can to avoid places where modern culture is dominant. I am currently planning to move to a Conservative Mennonite community to get away from modern culture.

One other point, besides the immorality of modern culture, what I find most offensive is that it is extremely anti-intellectual. Modern culture is quickly becoming an Idiocracy where intelligence is viewed as ridiculous.

 

[Scimitar]

Are you sure you two know what monotheism is?

Jesus preached it, but after his time Paul the anti-christ of xtianity taught the TRINITY - that's polythiesm, sheesh.

Scimi

 

[Pygoscelis]

I have posted to a number of atheist forums, and they all insult me and then ban me. In fact, before I became religious and I still considered myself an atheist, I received this treatment just for posting on an atheist forum that I like the Old Testament.

I would be weary of you if you endorsed old testament "morality" to me in person, but I wouldn't ban you from anything.

 

[Scimitar]

I would be weary of an atheist defining old testament morality to be frank... or john, or harry

 

[fschmidt]

Are you sure you two know what monotheism is?

Jesus preached it, but after his time Paul the anti-christ of xtianity taught the TRINITY - that's polythiesm, sheesh.

Scimi

Then why did Muhammad call Christians "People of the Book" and consider them above pagans?

 

[Scimitar]

Then why did Muhammad call Christians "People of the Book" and consider them above pagans?

Your contextual dissemination needs work.

May I give you a pointer - not a null pointer as you are concurrently pushing, but a real pointer - laser style ok?

People of the book refer to a previous people who had failed their faith, and so - Islam came to set the record straight.

The Jews claimed Ezra was the son of God,

The Christians did the same with Jesus (blame paul the mercenary and dajjal of that time period for that crap)and went further with the holy ghost - three separate entities - polytheism.... do you know what theology is?

I would advise a crash course.

Scimi

 

[Scimitar]

Anyway, as you were fellas - I go bed.

Assalaam.

 

[fschmidt]

Your contextual dissemination needs work.

May I give you a pointer - not a null pointer as you are concurrently pushing, but a real pointer - laser style ok?

People of the book refer to a previous people who had failed their faith, and so - Islam came to set the record straight.

The Jews claimed Ezra was the son of God,

The Christians did the same with Jesus (blame paul the mercenary and dajjal of that time period for that crap)and went further with the holy ghost - three separate entities - polytheism.... do you know what theology is?

I would advise a crash course.

Scimi

I was just asking. I don't see how asking a question is a "null pointer". Anyway, Christians don't consider themselves to be polytheists, they consider themselves to be monotheists. It is all a matter of definitions. My definition of God happens to be closer to the Islamic definition, but I don't see much benefit to arguing with Christians. And I have spent time studying Christian theology to understand their viewpoint. It doesn't appeal to me, but at least I understand it.

 

[Cpt.America]

Yes, and I find the official translations difficult to follow. I can read Shakespearian English quite easily, but would really like to find a plain-English version.


This is a political, not a religious, question. It is being decided in our courts, and I will comply with the decision.



I think I see why you have trouble on most atheist forums. The invocation of quantum mechanics is seen as a red flag that pseudoscience is being introduced.

Personally, I wasn't there when the universe came into being; all I know is that physicists are generally quite happy with the Big Bang theory, although there are indications that it may be due for some alterations. It is my understanding, however, that quantum mechanics, while they may signify a realm where the rules of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics no longer apply as we know them, still conform to certain rules of their own, which we are only now beginning to dimly recognize.




See above. I believe my definition of God stands, as is. If you wish to discuss the Theistic v Deistic views of God, I'll bow out until God's existence has been validated.

I think you're reading the Yusuf Ali translation.
Try the "Noble Quran" translation.
It's pretty easy to follow.

-Peace

 

[Sm412]

I don't know why atheists would waste their time here. People get banned left and right for being critical of Islam and/or debating Islam's validity.

If we can't stand up to scrutiny, are we really representing Islam? If Islam is the one true religion, and it is, it should stand on its own merits, which it does. I say we let it. Let's debate the critics.

Or not. We could just keep banning them.

 

[Scimitar]

I was just asking. I don't see how asking a question is a "null pointer". Anyway, Christians don't consider themselves to be polytheists, they consider themselves to be monotheists. It is all a matter of definitions. My definition of God happens to be closer to the Islamic definition, but I don't see much benefit to arguing with Christians. And I have spent time studying Christian theology to understand their viewpoint. It doesn't appeal to me, but at least I understand it.

you haven't studied anything lol.

the only monotheistic Christian group in the world is a minority group known as Eastern Orthodox Church who only believe in one God and do not deify Jesus or and Holy Ghost - please stop chatting out of your rear end fella.

Fix up

 

[jabeady]

I am confused. How can a religion impose itself on others if not politically?

Socially. However, it would be all to easy to let this particular question/answer devolve into bickering about definitions, so I urge caution.

To clarify, however, I was thinking primarily of witch burnings, book banning, taking a cholera sufferer to a clergyman rather than to a doctor, that kind of thing.

I have a very strong background in science. I was raised atheist and studied science and history when I was young. I only became interested in religion later.

I attended a seminary and only began my way to atheism as a result of reading "Inherit the Wind."

The reason that atheists hate me is because I can respond to anything they throw at me, because I completely understand their way of thinking.

That "completely" makes me think arrogance has something to do with it. That, and body odor.

Science doesn't deal with certainty to begin with. Any theory may be disproven later. But the best theories of science can be subject to controlled experiments. Anyone who believes in inductive reasoning will accept such theories. Other theories are accepted because they seem to be the simplest explanation given the facts, in other words the most probable explanation. The Big Bang theory is such a theory. I happen to believe in the Big Bang, but I would never tell a religious person that his view of the origin of the universe is wrong, only that I personally find it less probably than the Big Bang theory. It is arrogant atheist with a shallow understanding of science who tend to be the harshest critics of religious views.

So far, we agree, with the possible exception of that last sentence. I would hardly call my own understanding of the sciences deep, but I know enough to realize I could be wrong. If I am, however, it's an honest error. If I should not be condemned for making an honest error, then I have no right to condemn an honestly religious person for making what I believe to be an error.

Finally I will explain the relationship of quantum mechanics, relativity, and Newtonian physics. All science is just an attempt to describe some realm of nature. Newtonian physics came first and accurately describes physics at human scale (in terms of mass and speed). But this broke down at high speed, so relativity came in and described the world at human scale and up in mass and speed. Newtonian physics works out mathematically to be an approximation of relativity at human scale. Quantum mechanics deals with the very small. Our human concepts break down here, but we can describe things mathematically without really understanding it conceptually. Quantum mechanics does not describe relativity, these are simply different domains so far. But to not describe doesn't mean to not apply. Of course relativity should apply to the very small, but it is focused on forces like gravity that are not significant here, so relativity doesn't actually describe much. Similarly, quantum mechanics applies to larger scale but is not significant enough to describe much. I hope that clarifies things.

So, you still haven't established that quantum physics doesn't follow a set of rules. Therefore, my definition of God as a superbeing capable of breaking the rules at will, stands.

Another clarification: Here, I am thinking about the granting of prayers and the performing of miracles, as they are commonly understood. A "miracle" is, by definition, the suspension, alteration or violation of physical law, quantum or otherwise.

BTW, you're going to have to cut me a little slack. For some reason, my computer will only work properly if I'm using the Advanced Reply interface. This means I can't scroll up and refer to a post previous to the one I'm actually replying to. Consequently, I sometimes have to guess, based on your follow-on comments, at the context.

 

[Scimitar]

Your passive aggressive post is not working out for you.

Scimi

 

[fschmidt]

Socially. However, it would be all to easy to let this particular question/answer devolve into bickering about definitions, so I urge caution.

To clarify, however, I was thinking primarily of witch burnings, book banning, taking a cholera sufferer to a clergyman rather than to a doctor, that kind of thing.

Socially? I don't understand what this means. A religion can use social pressure, all religions and cultures do. But socially impose? A strange concept.

Witch burnings are not social, they are just simple violence. Book banning is political. And a cholera sufferer going to a clergyman rather than to a doctor is a personal choice that people should be free to make.

That "completely" makes me think arrogance has something to do with it. That, and body odor.

Spoken like a true Atheist.

So, you still haven't established that quantum physics doesn't follow a set of rules. Therefore, my definition of God as a superbeing capable of breaking the rules at will, stands.

Another clarification: Here, I am thinking about the granting of prayers and the performing of miracles, as they are commonly understood. A "miracle" is, by definition, the suspension, alteration or violation of physical law, quantum or otherwise.

It is somewhat frustrating to explain science to those with little background. While you studied Christianity in seminary, I was entertaining myself in college by reading original papers in mathematics (my major).

I will try explaining again. Quantum mechinics describes things mathematically using probability density functions which effectively defines the probably distribution of where something might be if it is interacted with. This doesn't really fit with human common sense and is described in various ways by physicists. Here is one popular view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

The key point here is that the world is not fundamentally deterministic, but is probabilistic. The laws of physics don't say what will happen, but rather say what the probability is of various outcomes. Based on this, a miracle turns out not to be a violation of physical law, but rather a very low probability event (which does not violate the laws of physics).

BTW, you're going to have to cut me a little slack. For some reason, my computer will only work properly if I'm using the Advanced Reply interface. This means I can't scroll up and refer to a post previous to the one I'm actually replying to. Consequently, I sometimes have to guess, based on your follow-on comments, at the context.

What I do is to copy-and-paste the text into a text editor, edit it there, and then copy it back into the browser.

 

[jabeady]

Socially? I don't understand what this means. A religion can use social pressure, all religions and cultures do. But socially impose? A strange concept.

Why? Any kind of peer pressure is an imposition. Shunning would be a classic example. In any case, the idea is the same: conform, or be ejected from that society.

Witch burnings are not social, they are just simple violence. Book banning is political. And a cholera sufferer going to a clergyman rather than to a doctor is a personal choice that people should be free to make.

Regarding the last, feel free to consult all the clergymen, snake charmers, homeopaths, snake oil salesmen or whatever you want, so far as it's on your own behalf. You have no right, however, to force someone else to do it. Denying qualified medical care, especially in life-or-death circumstances, should be outlawed (and is, in some jurisdictions).

For the rest, it's just quibbling about definitions, again.

It is somewhat frustrating to explain science to those with little background. While you studied Christianity in seminary, I was entertaining myself in college by reading original papers in mathematics (my major).

Maybe it's your tone of voice? Just a thought.

I will try explaining again.

No need. What it boils down to is that you have found a way to justify the idea of a super-being manipulating physical laws at whim somehow does not violate scientific principle.

In McLean v Arkansas, 1974, one of the numerous US court cases over whether Creationism belongs in school science classrooms, a group of scientists submitted an amicus curiaebrief defining "science," which was accepted by the court and incorporated into its finding. Science, it said, follows these principles:

1) It is involved solely with the natural world;

2) It seeks answers solely through natural explanations;

3) Its propositions are falsifiable;

4) It's propositions are testable;

5) Its conclusions are tentative.

Near as I can tell, reliance on a super-being violates all of these. Additionally, all scientific theories make predictions; it seems to me that any theory relying on the will or whims of some intelligence exercising free will cannot make predictions.

 

[fschmidt]

Why? Any kind of peer pressure is an imposition. Shunning would be a classic example. In any case, the idea is the same: conform, or be ejected from that society.

Regarding the last, feel free to consult all the clergymen, snake charmers, homeopaths, snake oil salesmen or whatever you want, so far as it's on your own behalf. You have no right, however, to force someone else to do it. Denying qualified medical care, especially in life-or-death circumstances, should be outlawed (and is, in some jurisdictions).

This is the type of hypocritical double-talk that is typical of atheists and the rest of the Left. Basically, when they push their ideas, they are just being "rational", but when anyone else pushes contrary ideas, they are "imposing". All I can say is thank you for demonstrating what complete hypocrites Atheists are.

In McLean v Arkansas, 1974, one of the numerous US court cases over whether Creationism belongs in school science classrooms, a group of scientists submitted an amicus curiaebrief defining "science," which was accepted by the court and incorporated into its finding. Science, it said, follows these principles:

1) It is involved solely with the natural world;

2) It seeks answers solely through natural explanations;

3) Its propositions are falsifiable;

4) It's propositions are testable;

5) Its conclusions are tentative.

Near as I can tell, reliance on a super-being violates all of these. Additionally, all scientific theories make predictions; it seems to me that any theory relying on the will or whims of some intelligence exercising free will cannot make predictions.

Virtually everything taught in the "social sciences" also violates these principles. I actually agree that religion should not be taught in science class, it should be taught in religion class. But similarly, "social science" is a complete misnomer that should be renamed "the religion of liberalism" and be taught in a class on the religion of liberalism/atheism. Do you agree?

 

[jabeady]

This is the type of hypocritical double-talk that is typical of atheists and the rest of the Left. Basically, when they push their ideas, they are just being "rational", but when anyone else pushes contrary ideas, they are "imposing". All I can say is thank you for demonstrating what complete hypocrites Atheists are.

In my "Hello" thread, I promised that I knew when to walk away. That point appears to have been reached.

Peace.

 

[Pygoscelis]

This is the type of hypocritical double-talk that is typical of atheists and the rest of the Left.

Do you equate "atheist" with "left"? Because I know many atheists to the far right of the political spectrum.

Basically, when they push their ideas, they are just being "rational", but when anyone else pushes contrary ideas, they are "imposing". All I can say is thank you for demonstrating what complete hypocrites Atheists are.

This is mere trash talk with no basis. Jabeady didn't seek to impose anything. He is right to walk away from you.

Virtually everything taught in the "social sciences" also violates these principles.

Define "social sciences". Do you mean all of sociology? All of social psychology? All of psychology? Neurology? I have studied social cognition and neurology and I can tell you that both follow the scientific method and make falsifiable hypotheses.

 

[YusufNoor]

hey Pygo,

long time, no see!

i'd say Pygo being here is a good thing. he always has good manners despite all of our differences and is never nasty or mean.

perhaps, we can all learn a thing or two from him, eh?

i know they'll close comparative religion if I post in it, but take a pointer from Pygo. he talks facts, even if they are as he sees them (or if I disagree with them ;D). this section is full of Muslims repeating things that they aren't familiar with and end up writing fiction in place of fact. we are not supposed to do this!

Comparatively speaking, little love flows in this section, so...

May Allah comfort all of those injured and killed in Orlando and may He comfort, succor and and assist all those affected by it.

May Allah accept all the fasts of those who are fasting.

May Allah increase the knowledge of the Muslims and decrease their love and hold on ignorance.

Ma Salaama!