Why can't atheists just be wrong?

[piXie]

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

Greetings jabeady,

If I believe this forum was created by itself and is self-regulated, why can't I just be mistaken or wrong?

 

[jabeady]

Thank you for writing this jabeady. It is a good read.

Seems that you and I came from opposite ends of the spectrum. You are an apostate and I never believed. I can not relate to the sense of losing faith in God(s), and I can only imagine what that must be like. I have met many atheists who went through something similar, and some much more dramatic exodus' from religion than yours.

Sometimes these people have told me that they now hate the religion. Bu other times they tell me they still respect the religion, still hold onto certain rituals from it, etc. Is the latter the case for you? Do you still see your former religion as a force for social good instead of bad?

My perspective to religion is and has always been as the outsider. So I can only judge by what I see and what actions believers take and what they claim to believe, etc.

Shrug. The "angry atheist/apostate" is a phenomenon I don't really understand. Most often it seems to involve a sense of betrayal that I never felt. The people that raised me and taught me to be a good Christian did so out of love and conviction, without any thought of malice. I should hate them for that? As I said before, I have grown to the opinion, supported by evidence and not rhetoric, that the religious are mistaken; I do not hold them to be deluded, stupid or evil, just mistaken.

I suppose this leaves me open to the charge of arrogance. Why, after all, should I think I'm right and think that everyone else is wrong? Well, it is embarrassing how easily demonstrated it is that people in general seek easy and quick answers, and almost always "follow the herd." Since this is an international board, I suppose a lot of folks here are unfamiliar with Orson Wells' radio broadcast of "War of the Worlds." As an American, it's an embarrassing incident but it's also embarrassing as a human being. Anyway, point being that this one incident illustrates how easily people are fooled and how slow they are to stop and ask questions. Sort of reminds me of our cats; last night, the wife dropped a metal pan on the kitchen floor, and both cats took off like rockets from the living room to hide under the bed. For all their fabled curiosity, cats are more prone to panic than to investigate. An evolutionary advantage, I suppose, but the whole point of human intelligence and reason is that we use them.

It's now time for another change in typeface. This change, the second in this thread, might lead some to think that I'm copying and pasting from another document. I am. I've been working for a year now on explaining my unbelief to myself. So, here's the next installment:

I envy believers. Really. Having once been of their number I have personal knowledge of howcomforting and comfortable it can be. Having an Our Father Who Art in Heaven, to whom you can take all yourtroubles and in whose lap you can safely sit until life's demons leave you inpeace, is marvelous. But there's aproblem. Faith is another word fortrust, and religious faith is inherently a complete trust in God. Generally, people trust one another until andunless shown that their trust may be misplaced. We trust our parents most of all, and if they say that there is acompassionate, all-powerful God in which you can and must have completeconfidence, it must be so. Then, at somepoint, you start to notice things: prayers seem to go unanswered, bad things happen to good people, whatyou're taught in church conflicts with what you're taught in school, andreligious explanations for what you see around you seem tortured andunsatisfying. In short, you come todoubt that God is completely trustworthy. And so it begins. Eventually youchoose to depart from the nest and strike out on your own. Yes, it's cold, wet and dangerous out here,but it's the way things are. It seemsbetter to see and deal with life as it really is, without it being filteredthrough an ancient set of morality plays.

 

[jabeady]

The vast majority of people are evil. Humanity has devolved into a rather bad species. Only religion elevates people to goodness and decency.

I disagree. Any random person is capable of placing himself in danger to save another person, and many do (for some reason, I've lately seen a rash of videos of people hauling drunks off of railroad and subway tracks at the last possible moment). Is it only the religious who do this? Almost everyone who has ever lived has been a loving parent; have the "vast majority" of them been "evil?" What about all the charitable organizations whose members put themselves into harm's way for little or no pay?

Yes, there are, have been and will be some real assholes in the world, but the are thankfully few.

 

[jabeady]

Hey, hope you're feeling better.

I agree that Dawkins is difficult to engage with and in all honesty, reading TGD, I was taken a back by his poor writing and constant contradictions (the same could be said for Krauss).

With regards to Sagan, I am completely unfamiliar with him, so could you give me a basic overview of what he wrote and why it convinced you so?

Edit: I completely agree with your final line.

I'm feeling a bit better, thank you.

Rather than give my own description of this particular book (I just spent an hour in the attempt), here's a better summary than anything I'm capable of: https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/12/20/carl-sagan-varieties-of-scientific-experience/

Even if you completely disagree with everything the man wrote, I think you'll agree that his prose is almost poetry. I have both a hard copy and an e-copy, and have made copious notes in both. Mind, I do disagree with him on certain points, but that's for another discussion.

 

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

I envy believers.Really.Having once been of their number I have personal knowledge of howcomforting and comfortable it can be.Having an Our Father Who Art in Heaven, to whom you can take all yourtroubles and in whose lap you can safely sit until life's demons leave you inpeace, is marvelous.But there's aproblem.Faith is another word fortrust, and religious faith is inherently a complete trust in God.Generally, people trust one another until andunless shown that their trust may be misplaced.We trust our parents most of all, and if they say that there is acompassionate, all-powerful God in which you can and must have completeconfidence, it must be so.Then, at somepoint, you start to notice things:prayers seem to go unanswered, bad things happen to good people, whatyou're taught in church conflicts with what you're taught in school, andreligious explanations for what you see around you seem tortured andunsatisfying.In short, you come todoubt that God is completely trustworthy.And so it begins.Eventually youchoose to depart from the nest and strike out on your own.Yes, it's cold, wet and dangerous out here,but it's the way things are.It seemsbetter to see and deal with life as it really is, without it being filteredthrough an ancient set of morality plays.

First and foremost, that's poetic and a beautifully worded honest reflection and reminiscent of the echoes in my own heart when I was an atheist. I like what you've written here very much Masha-Allah (as God willed). And it's eerily uncanny how you seem to just *get* it; yes, I used to envy the believers as well when I was an atheist; it's not that I wanted to be like the believers particularly, because the truth is that I didn't. However, yes, there was an underlying envy of something that I felt they had but which I knew I didn't. That said, no one can compel his/her heart to believe or disbelieve when the belief/disbelief is not there.

For the record though, I hope you don't see yourself *permanently* as a disbeliever. One of the things that in life both excites and scares me is the ability of the world around us - landscapes, trees, people - to change and likewise our own ability to change, to heal, to grow. I think part of growing into ourselves at any age is accepting that whoever we think we are is not permanent and is subject to the processes of life in which we all find ourselves as both spectators and actors. Nothing is *the end* until the final curtains have been drawn, and till then, it's still anyone's guess what will happen and we should be open to change both within ourselves and outside of ourselves because we're not permanently anything. Since as human beings we're not static, our beliefs are not static either.

So, keep an open mind and keep moving forward; and yes, I also agree with Born_Believer about liking the last line that you'd written about the difference between natural religion and revealed religion some pages ago; that said, I have a slightly different interpretation on that side of things. Submission to Being/Source or whatever you want to call in whatever form is the natural religion and that submission as I understand it is identified in Arabic as Islam which calls submission to that natural religion and has existed as long as man but in practical terms is also a revealed religion as means of guidance for persons so that they do not have to rely solely on the natural religion to guide them because our day-to-day living involves myriad functions and a great majority of those functions cannot be understood with reliance alone on natural religion.

Perhaps it might be strange to say but I've said it before when I was conversing with czgibson on PMs and will say the same to you, which is that I find myself as both a disbeliever and a believer, and you might see that as a very strange thing to say. However, in not having attained the perfection of submission which is required of deen (religion/way of life), in spiritual terms I recognize in myself the shortcoming of a disbeliever and disbelief. And in the sense that you may have some characteristics or views or things you've in yourself which you may not even realize but are the hallmarks of a believer and also have the primordial ingredients of a believer which is the natural religion, I see you also as a believer. So, though outwardly, the mirror reflects you as a disbeliever and myself as a believer, inwardly we both have an element of each as a human being as I understand it, and so I am both and you are both.

Life is a journey, and we're both going to be changing, and if we're wise we'll both meditate on how we can do so for the better.

All the best,

 

[Pygoscelis]

We're back at step one. I refrained from saying it last time but it's a load of nonsense. You are completely avoiding the question. If you don't have any basis for your belief than say so. Don't hide your lack of conviction behind this mumbo jumbo.

jabeady said it in one sentence. If you don't have the patience to read my paragraphs, maybe you'll read that one sentence? The basis for atheism is the lack of basis for theism. Simple as that.

 

[jabeady]

Greetings jabeady,

If I believe this forum was created by itself and is self-regulated, why can't I just be mistaken or wrong?

You can be. Juries become deadlocked every day; each member considers the same evidence as all the others, but for whatever reason(s) some of the members disagree with how the others interpret it. It's no mystery.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Nothing changes in the world but the lens through which you view the world and yourself changes.

Indeed. That is a good point. Is moreso the outlook that changes more than anything else from all I have heard from apostates of all sorts. Converts too.

I think probably the only time people atheists have trouble or hate for their former religion or belief system is when they have lived in a fundamentalist family that has typically moved to cram the religion/belief system down their throats.

That is often the case, but not always. I do know a few foaming at the mouth type anti-theists who became that way long after leaving the religion that they were only nominal members of. I've especially seen this with ex-Mormons. Something special about Mormons maybe...

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I don't remember Plato ever taking the traditional Greek gods seriously. What he really worshipped was his "ideal forms" and he literally proposed a priesthood based on this in "The Republic".

So let me get this straight: the reason you think Plato is the founder of atheism is because you don't remember him taking the Greek gods seriously. Are you kidding?

It's difficult to know how much of Plato's work reflects his own views, because he always uses Socrates as his mouthpiece, but if Plato wanted to promote atheism, do you think he would have had Socrates say things like this?:

"Wherefore we ought to fly away from earth to heaven as quickly as we can; and to fly away is to become like God, as far as this is possible; and to become like him, is to become holy, just, and wise." (Theaetetus 176)

If Plato really was an atheist, I'm sure he would be very surprised to see the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy saying this about him:

"To Plato, God is transcendent-the highest and most perfect being-and one who uses eternal forms, or archetypes, to fashion a universe that is eternal and uncreated." (Source)

When choosing a founder of atheism (if such a concept is even intelligible), you would have been well advised to consider figures like Diagoras of Melos, Democritus or Heraclitus, all of whom lived before Plato. They were also actual atheists, unlike Plato.

There are many minor things shared by atheists like liberalism, feminism, and other cultural diseases.

Rubbish. A person doesn't have to be a liberal or a feminist to be an atheist. You're talking out of your fundamental orifice here.

But the core of the atheist religion is that there exists an absolute universal truth outside of the mind that can be discovered with deductive reasoning.

In that case, to take one of many possible examples, how do you explain an atheist like Nietzsche, who did not believe in absolute truth, but thought instead that truth depended on perspective?

Where are you getting all these strange opinions about atheism from? Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

Peace

 

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Indeed. That is a good point. Is moreso the outlook that changes more than anything else from all I have heard from apostates of all sorts. Converts too.

That is often the case, but not always. I do know a few foaming at the mouth type anti-theists who became that way long after leaving the religion that they were only nominal members of. I've especially seen this with ex-Mormons. Something special about Mormons maybe...

Really, I didn't know that. Do you think it could be maybe some members maybe verbally attacking them afterwards? I think that could explain why that would happen or maybe because as they came out of that lifestyle they learnt more about how they felt they were conditioned and now feel badly about how that conditioning affected them when they were in that lifestyle or still has some effect on them in a way that they don't think is healthy or they recognize that others might be in undesirable or untenable situations due to that lifestyle still.

 

[jabeady]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)



First and foremost, that's poetic and a beautifully worded honest reflection and reminiscent of the echoes in my own heart when I was an atheist. I like what you've written here very much Masha-Allah (as God willed). And it's eerily uncanny how you seem to just *get* it; yes, I used to envy the believers as well when I was an atheist; it's not that I wanted to be like the believers particularly, because the truth is that I didn't. However, yes, there was an underlying envy of something that I felt they had but which I knew I didn't. That said, no one can compel his/her heart to believe or disbelieve when the belief/disbelief is not there.

For the record though, I hope you don't see yourself *permanently* as a disbeliever. One of the things that in life both excites and scares me is the ability of the world around us - landscapes, trees, people - to change and likewise our own ability to change, to heal, to grow. I think part of growing into ourselves at any age is accepting that whoever we think we are is not permanent and is subject to the processes of life in which we all find ourselves as both spectators and actors. Nothing is *the end* until the final curtains have been drawn, and till then, it's still anyone's guess what will happen and we should be open to change both within ourselves and outside of ourselves because we're not permanently anything. Since as human beings we're not static, our beliefs are not static either.

So, keep an open mind and keep moving forward; and yes, I also agree with Born_Believer about liking the last line that you'd written about the difference between natural religion and revealed religion some pages ago; that said, I have a slightly different interpretation on that side of things. Submission to Being/Source or whatever you want to call in whatever form is the natural religion and that submission as I understand it is identified in Arabic as Islam which calls submission to that natural religion and has existed as long as man but in practical terms is also a revealed religion as means of guidance for persons so that they do not have to rely solely on the natural religion to guide them because our day-to-day living involves myriad functions and a great majority of those functions cannot be understood with reliance alone on natural religion.

Perhaps it might be strange to say but I've said it before when I was conversing with czgibson on PMs and will say the same to you, which is that I find myself as both a disbeliever and a believer, and you might see that as a very strange thing to say. However, in not having attained the perfection of submission which is required of deen (religion/way of life), in spiritual terms I recognize in myself the shortcoming of a disbeliever and disbelief. And in the sense that you may have some characteristics or views or things you've in yourself which you may not even realize but are the hallmarks of a believer and also have the primordial ingredients of a believer which is the natural religion, I see you also as a believer. So, though outwardly, the mirror reflects you as a disbeliever and myself as a believer, inwardly we both have an element of each as a human being as I understand it, and so I am both and you are both.

Life is a journey, and we're both going to be changing, and if we're wise we'll both meditate on how we can do so for the better.

All the best,

I strive to follow the evidence, wherever it leads. If God has dropped some breadcrumbs (referencing the fairytale of Hansel and Gretel) for me to follow, I will follow. If he's at the end of the trail of breadcrumbs, I'll believe. If he isn't, I'll look for evidence of where those breadcrumbs actually came from and why they seem to be laid out as a trail. To quote Sagan's widow, editor and colleague, Ann Druyan:

"Carl wanted us to see ourselves not as the failed clay of a disappointed Creator but as starstuff, made of atoms forged in the fiery hearts of distant stars. To him we were “starstuff pondering the stars; organized assemblages of 10 billion billion billion atoms considering the evolution of atoms; tracing the long journey by which, here at least, consciousness arose.” For him science was, in part, a kind of “informed worship.” No single step in the pursuit of enlightenment should ever be considered sacred; only the search was."

 

[jabeady]

I do know a few foaming at the mouth type anti-theists who became that way long after leaving the religion that they were only nominal members of. I've especially seen this with ex-Mormons. Something special about Mormons maybe...

It's been said that God created Scientology so that Mormons would have something to laugh at.

 

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

I strive to follow the evidence, wherever it leads. If God has dropped some breadcrumbs (referencing the fairytale of Hansel and Gretel) for me to follow, I will follow. If he's at the end of the trail of breadcrumbs, I'll believe. If he isn't, I'll look for evidence of where those breadcrumbs actually came from and why they seem to be laid out as a trail. To quote Sagan's widow, editor and colleague, Ann Druyan:

"Carl wanted us to see ourselves not as the failed clay of a disappointed Creator but as starstuff, made of atoms forged in the fiery hearts of distant stars. To him we were “starstuff pondering the stars; organized assemblages of 10 billion billion billion atoms considering the evolution of atoms; tracing the long journey by which, here at least, consciousness arose.” For him science was, in part, a kind of “informed worship.” No single step in the pursuit of enlightenment should ever be considered sacred; only the search was."

Isn't it great then that I named myself "Search"? :statisfie

 

[jabeady]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)



Isn't it great then that I named myself "Search"? :statisfie

;D;D;D;D

 

[Reminder]

Atheists are a growing minority

When you get solid science which proves you wrong, yet you completely ignore it, how do you possibly expect to ever see the truth?

https://www.google.ca/trends/explore?date=all&q=/m/0flw86,atheism,/m/0kpl,/m/0bhb30r,/m/035nv6

I have already taught you this many pages back in this very thread. Yet for some reason you still lie to yourself that Atheism is growing.

When you believe in nothing, you become nothing. From a global perspective, that's just what Atheism is, virtually non-existent.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Isn't it great then that I named myself "Search"? :statisfie

Hahaha Indeed!

 

[Reminder]

I have to confess something to you... I actually faked these numbers: https://www.google.ca/trends/explore?date=all&q=/m/0flw86,atheism,/m/0kpl,/m/0bhb30r,/m/035nv6






https://goo.gl/9Q3qsB

 

[kritikvernunft]

Totally off topic (which appears to be your routine) but I find this fascinating.

You seem to misunderstand religion quite a bit. The essence of religion is not its metaphysics. In all practical terms, religion is about what law you accept as legitimate. Religious people believe that only Divine Law is legitimate. All other law just represents false, pagan beliefs.

You blame atheists for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Atheists accept people who are even worse than these two as law makers. Fine, but atheists also insist that religious people would accept them as law makers. Not fine. People like that enforce their self-invented law with quite a bit of violence, and that is indeed what fuels the growing levels of violence against the atheist populations who endorse these clowns. You see, it is obviously much easier and more practical to target the atheists themselves than the clowns that these atheists vote for. Regardless of whoever wins that presidential election, you and I know that he is going to misbehave, and make a lot of people angry. Who do you think that these angry people will be sending the bill to? To the clown? No, of course not. They will send it to you.

Atheists are a growing minority, and there are many more who hide their atheism ...

For all practical purposes, watered-down Christians do not recognize Divine Law, consider the clown's self-invented laws to be legitimate, and happily allow the clown to overrule Divine Law. Therefore, they are in fact atheists or at least pagans.

I am also curious if you are seeking anarchy (no laws or government) ...

No, I have already said that I would agree to trying out what the Mamluks and Ottomans had rolled out: Rule by slaves. Government officials must be specifically purchased and trained for their roles. The Sultan must be the son of the previous Sultan and one of the slave girls that was specifically bought for that purpose. The law itself must just be Divine Law and the judges will be religious scholars. Policemen will be bought, acquired, trained, and held in storage, by the Sultan's administration, which will monitor inventory levels for that purpose.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

When you get solid science which proves you wrong, yet you completely ignore it, how do you possibly expect to ever see the truth?

https://www.google.ca/trends/explore?date=all&q=/m/0flw86,atheism,/m/0kpl,/m/0bhb30r,/m/035nv6

I have already taught you this many pages back in this very thread. Yet for some reason you still lie to yourself that Atheism is growing.

Non-belief is definitely growing in many parts of the world, and your denials won't alter this fact. I don't know what you think your Google numbers demonstrate.

Have a read of this article.

Peace

 

[Reminder]

I don't know what you think your Google numbers demonstrate.

I just posted clear SCIENTIFIC FACTS which demonstrate that since 2004, Atheism has seen 0growth worldwide.

Non-belief is definitely growing in many parts of the world, and your denials won't alter this fact.

1) You demand scientific evidence, but when we provide scientific proof, you deny it. For someone who needs scientific evidence, you would think you might spend a few minutes checking it out?

2) You clearly did not study the data.

By the way, are you seriously trying to convince us that National Geographic has more accurate data than GOOGLE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

:haha:

You clearly dislike this data. It is also clear you did not even study it (as mentioned above).

Simply select any country to view Atheism trends in that particular country:

E.g. Canada: https://www.google.ca/trends/explor...m/0flw86,atheism,/m/0kpl,/m/0bhb30r,/m/035nv6

You will note that even in Canada, perhaps the most Atheistic country on the entire planet Earth, interest in Atheism has only seen 1 or 2 points rise in the past 12 years.

If the trend continues for another 100 years, it will equal Islam in CANADA.

However, this doesn't even include other monotheistic religions (Christianity + Judaism + Zoroastrianism + Mormonism, etc.) let alone others (Buddhism + Hinduism, etc.).

Keep in mind, from a GLOBAL perspective, interest in Atheism isn't growing AT ALL.

It might have grown 2 points in Canada, but it fell equally in other places.

People do not fake Google searches. The data is 100% real.