Why can't atheists just be wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jabeady
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 361
  • Views Views 46K
Religion says that the singular God is the only legitimate lawmaker, while atheists always end up claiming that a bunch of imbeciles sitting in a parliament would be an appropriate choice of lawmaker.

Which is an important difference if God exists, but not so much if he doesn't and is just being claimed by said imbeciles in a parliament who think or claim they speak for him as an added means to silence others from questioning what they dictate. Again, it all depends on if you believe or not. Do you understand that we don't? And if so, why make that statement to us?
 
Last edited:
What does "sense" have to do with it? Human senses are fallible. As a Muslim, don't you trust in Allah, *especially* when things don't appear to make sense? For that matter, it's quite possible for an atheist, but not a skeptic, to believe in an afterlife. There's no verifiable evidence for an afterlife, so a skeptic would reserve judgment, same as with gods.

I see no reason to not believe in the afterlife. That which there is no evidence to, does not exist.

There is evidences for the existence of Allah.

I believe in the afterlife because it is mentioned in the Quran.

Foe one to say there is no afterlife, he needs the knowledge of the unseen. U do not have that afaik. Therefore I see atheists as judging from not knowing / ignorance. And assumes.

I hope you atleast leave the door open for the existence of afterlife.

Whether one believes or does not beloeve, it has no bearings on whether it exists or not. In other words, the existence of afterlife is not dependent upon the belief of it or noy.

i.e Truth is independent.
 
Last edited:
Wrong again. I don't care. I never cared. Go find someone who actually wants to fight your strawmen. You and Kritikvernunft are killing all my interest in this thread. I think the two of you have already managed to drive off everyone else.
Oh my God! What did we do to you?
 
As Muslims we believe and know Islam is true, therefore, logically, we know atheism IS wrong.

Your sentence wasn´t totally logically. It would be better to say that "we believe and know atheism is wrong".

I would highlight the word believe. Deep in our hearts we know they are wrong because we believe so.

(Was this idea logical at all, not sure...)
 
This reminds me of when Ahmadinejad said there are no homosexuals in Iran. Do you really trust the surveys?

If I think about stealing, does it make me a thief?

Thinking about homosexual acts doesn't make one homosexual.

If we take appropriate measures to stop this act, thoughts are not important.
 
If I think about stealing, does it make me a thief?

Thinking about homosexual acts doesn't make one homosexual.

If we take appropriate measures to stop this act, thoughts are not important.
Exactly. It was never the idea to turn all of this into a witch hunt.
 
If I think about stealing, does it make me a thief?

Thinking about homosexual acts doesn't make one homosexual.

If we take appropriate measures to stop this act, thoughts are not important.

You didn't answer. Do you trust the surveys? Do you really believe that there is no gay sex in Iran that people hide, or that there are no atheists who tell people they are Christians and Muslims?

Just looking at the map you linked to, and looking at the numbers presented for Canada alone, I can outright tell you that those numbers are way off, and I personally know at least two dozen people who will write "Christian" on those surveys that lead to this sort of data, having never read the Bible and having no belief in God, just because of who their parents are.

And I can only imagine how much more of that goes on in less liberal and less multicultural places, where people get disliked, hated or even threatened with violence for being a non-believer in the dominant religion, be that the bible belt in the USA or around the middle east.
 
You didn't answer. Do you trust the surveys? Do you really believe that there is no gay sex in Iran that people hide, or that there are no atheists who tell people they are Christians and Muslims?

Just looking at the map you linked to, and looking at the numbers presented for Canada alone, I can outright tell you that those numbers are way off, and I personally know at least two dozen people who will write "Christian" on those surveys that lead to this sort of data, having never read the Bible and having no belief in God, just because of who their parents are.

And I can only imagine how much more of that goes on in less liberal and less multicultural places, where people get disliked, hated or even threatened with violence for being a non-believer in the dominant religion, be that the bible belt in the USA or around the middle east.

You obviously haven't read the full thread. I posted the link below before:

https://www.google.ca/trends/explore?q=/m/01lp8,/m/0flw86,/m/03_gx,/m/03j6c,/m/0kpl

This data directly from Google shows search trends over the past 12 years. Contrary to what you might have thought, the actually reality is global interest in Atheism has been stagnate for over a decade (and probably longer).

On the contrary, global interest in religion has seen noticeable increases over the same time period.

Your implication that these days people are not as religious, is derived from your individual opinion and/or thoughts; whereas, my point is backed by science.

Finally, you should know in Islam, that which is done in secret (i.e. at home, or behind closed doors), including homosexuality, is not subject to punishment from the external world. It is still considered haram, but only enforced when caught in public.

It is also not allowed in Islam for straight couples to show affection in public. We treat everyone equally.
 
Last edited:
Your implication that these days people are not as religious, is derived from your individual opinion and/or thoughts; whereas, my point is backed by science.

Please don't make implications on my behalf for you to respond to. I didn't say that people are not as religious. I said that there are many who hide it, to the point that the data reporting numbers of people in each group is misleading. It'd of been even more misleading in the middle ages when you'd not just be scorned, but burnt at the stake for not believing.

And I am still waiting for your point. So what if Islam is vastly higher in numbers than the non-religious? What do you think that proves? Nobody said otherwise before you made that post, and still nobody has, so we have to wonder why you push it as if it makes some sort of point?
 
Please don't make implications on my behalf for you to respond to. I didn't say that people are not as religious. I said that there are many who hide it, to the point that the data reporting numbers of people in each group is misleading. It'd of been even more misleading in the middle ages when you'd not just be scorned, but burnt at the stake for not believing.

And I am still waiting for your point. So what if Islam is vastly higher in numbers than the non-religious? What do you think that proves? Nobody said otherwise before you made that post, and still nobody has, so we have to wonder why you push it as if it makes some sort of point?


Once again, not the point.

You thought it was a lot bigger.

Until I informed you otherwise, that is.

It's not meant to prove one way or other right.

Rather to make you realize atheism isn't so important.

Before, you thought it was more popular.

Now your trying not to admit.
 
Rather to make you realize atheism isn't so important.

Before, you thought it was more popular.

Now your trying not to admit.

I'm not trying not to admit anything. I'm trying to figure out what you are on about. Now you appear to be explicitly equating importance with popularity. Am I reading that wrong? If you think I am trying to say that Atheism is popular, I'm not. Most people believe in Gods, or at least pretend to.
 
I am also from Ontario.

It is one of the most atheistic areas of the world.

Growing up here, I also thought people weren't serious about their religion.

Only later did I learn my previous thoughts had been wrong.

I projected my Atheism onto others, which is not reality.

Google doesn't hunt down people searching about Atheism.

People are not lying to Google when they search about religion.

Anyway, I am done with this thread.
 
Last edited:
If you think I am trying to say that Atheism is popular, I'm not. Most people believe in Gods, or at least pretend to.
Atheism used to be a tool for revolutionaries who wanted to get rid of a ruling class that they considered obnoxious and that was backed by the Christian clergy, who thoroughly abused religion to justify injustices, because let's just admit that the Christian alternative to the Qisas is utterly despicable: Matthew 5:39: But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. What do you think you can expect if you introduce a rule like that? Of course, all of that will end with a ruling class that claims to have the God-given right to slap everybody on their right cheek, because the underlings being slapped, are supposed to turn to them the other cheek also. In that sense, getting rid of Christianity was not particularly optional. If they hadn't done that, the situation would only have degenerated further.

Still, now that the ruling class itself has become atheist, and have introduced injustices of their own, in fact much worse than the old Christian regime, atheism has not only completely lost its value as a tool for revolution, it has become something to get rid of as well.

In fact, the atheist revolutionaries themselves already saw it coming. At some point, Maximilien de Robespierre urgently tried to get some kind of religion going, because he came to understand that atheism would simply amount to no good:

Accordingly, on 7 May 1794, Robespierre supported a decree passed by the Convention that established an official religion, known historically as the Cult of the Supreme Being. The notion of the Supreme Being was based on ideas that Jean-Jacques Rousseau had outlined in The Social Contract.

Unfortunately, Jean-Jacques Rousseau was not a valid prophet and "The Social Contract" was not a workable scripture. Robespierre did not see that only very few people have been chosen to bring a message from the singular God:

Multiple sources state that Robespierre came down the mountain in a way that resembled Moses as the leader of the people, and one of his colleagues, Jacques-Alexis Thuriot, was heard saying, "Look at the bugger; it’s not enough for him to be master, he has to be God".

It is not a good idea to pretend to be a prophet, when in reality you are not one. You will probably not survive it, and neither did Robespierre:

The same day, 28 July 1794, in the afternoon, Robespierre was guillotined without trial in the Place de la Révolution.

The atheist State is feminist, and that is exactly what will be its undoing. The men will not even be allowed to fight for it -- many will actually not even want to -- because these men will obviously also use their new drive and power to rule over the women again, and that would be the end of the feminist State. Murphy's Law predicts that it is exactly when the atheist-feminist State will have become too weak to put up a credible defense that the men defending it will have to prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for it.
 
Why do you equate atheism with feminism? Do you equate religion with misogyny? And why equate feminism with antimilitarist? I know some pretty militant feminists.

And who will invade? Muslims? Don't you think Muslim invaders would have trouble attacking an all female army? Couldn't they just go topless and then the Muslim invaders wouldn't be able to look to shoot at them?
 
Growing up here, I also thought people weren't serious about their religion.

Only later did I learn my previous thoughts had been wrong.

That is a good point, and it brings us back on topic in a roundabout way. I too didn't think people truly believed in Gods but pretended to, same that adults don't believe in Santa but pretend to and for similar reasons; to keep kids in line, to create metaphors, etc. I thought it was too nonsensical for anyone to take seriously and that it was all allegory and metaphor. I thought that the "Holy Spirit" meant community spirit and kindness, just as many people say "Christmas Spirit" to mean kindness and generosity, etc, without actually believing in Santa (or Jesus, etc). A little later I realized that people actually DO really believe Gods to literally exist, and then a little later I realized that many of the same people think everybody else does too, including those of us who say that we don't. So yes, not believing the other side is genuine does happen in both directions.

But that doesn't mean that closeted atheists aren't a real thing. There are many of them and they are more likely to stay that way if the social pressure is strong. When you see people lose friends, family, and in some extreme cases even their freedom or lives for renouncing their previous religious beliefs, it just isn't important enough to a lot of people to come out, and they pretend to keep believing. Some people base their entire identity around their belief in Gods, so it is especially difficult for them to admit to themselves or others when they lose belief. There is a fascinating group of priests who no longer believe what they preach being studied by Dan Dennet and others. Imagine how difficult that must be for them. http://clergyproject.org/. What is an Imam or Scholar of Islam to do if he one day realizes that he no longer believes Allah exists? What would you do?
 
Last edited:
Why do you equate atheism with feminism?
Well, I do not think that you will find a religion that is compatible with feminism. What you will typically find, is: Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Or Quran 2:223: Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like. None of that sounds very feminist, does it?
I know some pretty militant feminists.
Yeah, don't make them angry because they will scratch out your eyes! ;-)
A little later I realized that people actually DO really believe Gods to literally exist
You see, with time progressing by addition, it cannot be infinite, and if it is then finite, it has a beginning, in which you will find the first cause, which is then the principle of causality to everything else. It is Aristotle who discovered this link. Seriously, it is your environment that suggests that there must be a Creator. It is a bit like what Erastotenes discovered. He observed that the same pole will have almost no shadow in Syene, Upper Egypt, but will have one in Alexandria. If the earth is a globe and the distance between Syene is Alexandria is 800 kilometres, and since the angle in Alexendria between the pole and the shadow was around 7 degrees, he came to the conclusion that the earth was a globe with a circumference of around 800*360/7 ~ 40 000 kilometers, which was spot on, but which Columbus did not believe, and which is why he also did not believe that America was another continent. He said it was India! It is not good to be bad at math, and then start navigating in unchartered waters. Lots of people still do not believe that it is the finitude of time itself that suggests that there is a principle of causality to everything else.
 
You see, with time progressing by addition, it cannot be infinite

Why not?

[qutoe], and if it is then finite, it has a beginning, in which you will find the first cause, which is then the principle of causality to everything else. [/quote]

Why just one first cause? If there can be one first cause from nothing, then why not multiple causes from nothing popping up later on?

Seriously, it is your environment that suggests that there must be a Creator.

Why mus a "first cause" be sentient or conscious much less be a God?

It is a bit like what Erastotenes discovered. He observed that the same pole will have almost no shadow in Syene, Upper Egypt, but will have one in Alexandria. If the earth is a globe and the distance between Syene is Alexandria is 800 kilometres, and since the angle in Alexendria between the pole and the shadow was around 7 degrees, he came to the conclusion that the earth was a globe with a circumference of around 800*360/7 ~ 40 000 kilometers, which was spot on, but which Columbus did not believe, and which is why he also did not believe that America was another continent. He said it was India! It is not good to be bad at math, and then start navigating in unchartered waters.

How is that in any way related to your claims above?
 
It isn't an "opinion". Atheists have "opinions". Believers have knowledge. We don't make stuff up based on our individuality.

You don't like what I told you (truth hurts) now you want some others to tell you I am wrong. And they will.

It is like good cop/bad cop. At the end of the day, we are all in on it, and you are the subject. We simply want to convert you, period.

You're wrong.

The Ahlul R'ay are the People of Opinion and make up the vast majority of Muslim Jurists.

Scimi
 
How is that in any way related to your claims above?
You can know that the earth is a globe just by looking at rather subtle clues in your environment, and you can even compute its size from these subtle clues. It is the same as with the subtle clues that suggest there is is first cause, which is the principle of causality to everything else. Hubble's detected that there had to be a beginning of times by looking at the redshift in the light of faraway galaxies. There are lots of subtle clues that suggest that there is a beginning of times, and a first cause, many of which we have probably not even discovered. The point is that you have to look very carefully. Seriously, there are lots of ways to just look around you and compute the size of the earth from that, but the one method is more subtle than the other. Eratosthenes calculation from subtle clues is just a very famous one.
You see, with time progressing by addition, it cannot be infinite
Why not?
In the article Maths and the finitude of the past, they summarize three arguments why the past cannot be infinite. First, David Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel. Second, basic arithmetic with infinity: infinity+number=infinity; you would not see progression. Third, the impossibility to traverse infinity. You would never arrive.
 
You can know that the earth is a globe just by looking at rather subtle clues in your environment, and you can even compute its size from these subtle clues. It is the same as with the subtle clues that suggest there is is first cause, which is the principle of causality to everything else. Hubble's detected that there had to be a beginning of times by looking at the redshift in the light of faraway galaxies. There are lots of subtle clues that suggest that there is a beginning of times, and a first cause, many of which we have probably not even discovered. The point is that you have to look very carefully. Seriously, there are lots of ways to just look around you and compute the size of the earth from that, but the one method is more subtle than the other. Eratosthenes calculation from subtle clues is just a very famous one.

In the article Maths and the finitude of the past, they summarize three arguments why the past cannot be infinite. First, David Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel. Second, basic arithmetic with infinity: infinity+number=infinity; you would not see progression. Third, the impossibility to traverse infinity. You would never arrive.

Nice, bro :)

Ya know, flat earth theory was rife right up til the late 80's and then the books of a certain author became popular... Terry Pratchett and his DISCWORLD universe kept all those flat earth shills subdued in Terry's fantasy novels.

Then - he dies last year and BADABING BADABOOM - the web becomes infested with Flat Earth Shills. Out of containment, they hit the web with a relentless, misplaced, unscientific and a-religious zeal.

LOL

It's like they be in a car with handbrake on, revving the gas, they feel powerful but aint going nowhere :D

Scimi
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top