Atheism

[Lateralus63]

Source:http://skepdic.com/placebo.html

Peace

You can change the word, expectation to belief, and throw some red herrings around it still does not change the meaning, my logic and reasoning is clear, check it again if it doesnt make sense.

Belief is different from faith in definition. We are dealing with definition of the words so we may shine clarity upon the issues. Ok fine, lets change the word to belief, "i believe that this doctor will cure me", its still a result driven concept.

And this is the very concept of faith, we have faith in god's existance, that faith is not based...or founded on the concept of result driven thoughts, it is based on spiritual introspection, experience, and contemplation upon god's various signs.

We're speaking in definition here, if you wanna go on about heaven and hell thats something different, thats hope and fear, that ORIGINATES, from the faith in God's existance which is the main qualm that athieism has.

If you wanna change the definition of faith to suit your needs for this discussion, be my guest, but your an athiest, and im a person of faith, im telling you what faith is from my personal experience as a muslim. You can take it or leave it, if you choose to leave my definition this discussion more or less ends here.

Peace

 

[root]

We're speaking in definition here, if you wanna go on about heaven and hell thats something different, thats hope and fear, that ORIGINATES, from the faith in God's existance which is the main qualm that athieism has.

I don't think Atheists have a problem with "Hope", even if it is one of the biggest lies we palm off. fear, on the other hand is quite another issue as you say.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings lateralus63,

Sorry to interrupt like this - I'd like to check a few things about faith with you if I may.

Belief is different from faith in definition.

What dictionary do you use? These two words are synonyms according to most dictionaries.

We're speaking in definition here, if you wanna go on about heaven and hell thats something different, thats hope and fear, that ORIGINATES, from the faith in God's existance which is the main qualm that athieism has.

Belief in heaven and hell is part of your faith is it not? Therefore your faith is partly driven by expectation and results, no? This is not what you said earlier:

Right. lets get it clear first, the placebo effect is an effect induced and excarbated by ones expectation.

Now to say faith is a placebo effect is to say faith is an expectation

Faith is not expectation. Clear logic.

Expectation is accompanied with a desire for a result

Where as faith is simply compulsive, we dont expect results.

Now the placebo effect only works since the desire for a result is so strong so that result arrives, however since faith is totally devoid of desire for result, you cannot call it a placebo effect.

If you wanna change the definition of faith to suit your needs for this discussion, be my guest, but your an athiest, and im a person of faith, im telling you what faith is from my personal experience as a muslim. You can take it or leave it, if you choose to leave my definition this discussion more or less ends here.

My friend, you've changed your own definition of faith at least twice over the last few posts.

Maybe I've not understood you correctly, in which case I apologise, but your various uses of the word "faith" here suggest something is not right.

Peace

 

[Lateralus63]

Peace.

I used dictionary.com, as well as the collins english dictionary, however im sure you and me have had sufficient, or more aptly, more that sufficient english education, i've taken the words from their purity, in my analysis, and by the definition thats written in the dictionaries, synonymity in belief and faith is by the religious context. When dealing with the placebo effect, its not in a religious context, rather scientifical.

Now, to deal appropriately with the excellent arguement set forth by root, i had to take the literal meaning of faith. In order to refute it.

Once i felt i had appropriately dealt with the arguement, "off" the case of the placebo arguement, i refuted what root had said with "belief in heaven or hell as a result of faith in god" by saying heaven and hell was hope and fear......UNDER the genre of faith in the existance of God.

So, i hope its clear, with heaven or hell, this was a seperate arguement (which root brought up, changing the meaning of faith first) so therefore i did have to change the definition of faith to refute it.

But with the placebo effect arguement. I used faith in its literal form.

Apples with Apples, Oranges with Oranges.

Hope this makes sense.

Peace.

 

[root]

Lateralus63 But with the placebo effect arguement. I used faith in its literal form.

Apples with Apples, Oranges with Oranges.

Hope this makes sense.

I am sorry but no, it does not make sense to seperate faith and the placebo effect. Here is an example that someone posted in this forum......

A few years ago, European scientists snickered when studies in the United States — for example, at Harvard and Duke universities — showed a correlation between faith, prayer and recovery from illness.

My point with the placebo effect and faith seems to be validated.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Lateralus63,

First of all, what a great name you have! Where does it come from?

In other matters, I haven't really been able to make sense of your post, I'm afraid. I'm not sure why this need to use separate definitions of faith has arisen.

i've taken the words from their purity, in my analysis, and by the definition thats written in the dictionaries, synonymity in belief and faith is by the religious context.

What do you mean by "from their purity" here?

With regard to the last part of your sentence, do you mean that "belief" and "faith" are only synonymous in a religious context?

When dealing with the placebo effect, its not in a religious context, rather scientifical.

Right, but some scientists believe that religious experience can be partly explained by reference to the placebo effect, so there's no need for this distinction.

Now, to deal appropriately with the excellent arguement set forth by root, i had to take the literal meaning of faith. In order to refute it.

What do you mean by "the literal meaning of faith"?

Once i felt i had appropriately dealt with the arguement, "off" the case of the placebo arguement, i refuted what root had said with "belief in heaven or hell as a result of faith in god" by saying heaven and hell was hope and fear......UNDER the genre of faith in the existance of God.

So once you have faith in the metaphysical concept of god, you automatically have faith in heaven and hell? I don't really see how that follows, but surely having faith in heaven and hell is nonetheless a result-driven concept?

So, i hope its clear, with heaven or hell, this was a seperate arguement (which root brought up, changing the meaning of faith first) so therefore i did have to change the definition of faith to refute it.

Can you clarify where exactly root changed the meaning of "faith"? I was not aware that he had done so.

OK, I'm sorry for all this nit-picking, but in a technical discussion like this it's necessary for everyone to know what everyone else is saying, so that the validity of their statements can be assessed. Added to this, I'm normally pretty slow on the uptake, especially when the subject is quite deep (just ask Ansar or Muhammad!).

Peace

 

[akulion]

Salam Alaikum

Personally in my opinion Athiesm is a self defeating idealogy - And I dont just say this - I say this after taking on an entire room full of athiests in a debate (in the Christian vs Athiesm debate room in Yahoo) about a year ago.

I simply presented them the argument:

If you are an athiest then you can not call Hitler or Saddam or any one 'evil'.
Why?
Becasue since according to your belief there is no "God" then whatever 'moral standards' are set - will be done purely by humans.
Therefore none can truly say that my system is right and urs is wrong - because each system would have a right to propogate itself and in thus it would become a matter of 'Survival of the Fittest' rather than 'Right or Wrong'

The same argument would apply to crimes such as: theft, rape, murder and all others.

After 1 hour of arguing in the end all the athiests arguing (there where 6 main participants in that debate including me) admitted that what I was saying was right and indeed it was survival of the fittest.
Now look at the arrogance of these people - i was shocked - instead to admitting that indeed God exists and it is his order and laws and systems we should be living by for peaceful existance, instead they then started cussing and swearing to 'prove that there is no need for laws'....so it was time for me to leave.

lol go figure!

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Atheism does not imply a lack of moral standards - why should a metaphysical position such as atheism necessarily have anything to do with morality?

Having an established moral system is, in fact, beneficial for the survival of a society, and does not have to rely on any divine authority.

Peace

 

[akulion]

AHA but then how would u define morality?
Who decides?

The majority?

Well if I am an individual whose existance is based with no purpose except living and dying I would much rather live as I please - which I think would eventually turn out to be the case for a very large majority of people as a result of which there would be chaos since everyone would try and assert their own idealogies and systems causing widespread war and violence in my view.

Once again - i stress my point - if My only purpose of existance is to live and die - then let me live as I please and I will do whatever it takes to have the best of the best - cos hey I only live once!

 

[Muezzin]

AHA but then how would u define morality?
Who decides?

The majority?

Well if I am an individual whose existance is based with no purpose except living and dying I would much rather live as I please - which I think would eventually turn out to be the case for a very large majority of people as a result of which there would be chaos since everyone would try and assert their own idealogies and systems causing widespread war and violence in my view.

Once again - i stress my point - if My only purpose of existance is to live and die - then let me live as I please and I will do whatever it takes to have the best of the best - cos hey I only live once!

Yes, but also remember there's no such thing as absolute freedom. Otherwise people would be allowed to rape and murder others becuase they feel like it, and it'd all 'be cool'. Or something.

Edit: I think I've just missed the entire point of your post lol. Oops.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I think you're right, Muezzin. We have laws which aim to prevent things like rape and murder simply because the majority of people think those actions are wrong. If large numbers of people don't agree with a law, they'll break it routinely and the law will eventually disappear (e.g. British laws forbidding homosexuality).

The only purpose of human life that I know of is to survive. There are other things that are very important to me, such as getting on with people, making friends and pursuing a career, but I don't know if those could be said to be the purpose of human life. The reasons I don't rape or murder people are a) because those actions would have serious consequences for me (i.e. jail) and, more importantly, b) because they are intrinsically wrong - not because of any divine authority, but because of the authority of human society.

Peace

 

[akulion]

Well once someone told me "the brave may not live for ever, but the cowards never live at all"

And that is where I am coming from.

If I truly believed there is no accountability for my actions in the hereafter - there is not a thing which would prevent me from being totally immoral when I choose to be and moral when I choose to be. To me the only issue which would exist is the fact that I dont want to be dictated to by any individual or group as to what I should do or not do - I will live my life as I please. As a result of which I will seek out like minded individuals (which I am sure I will be able to find easily) and then form gangs and groups or even governments based on such idealogies.

Now here is the important part, so read carefully: Lets assume there are 2 groups now, Group A and Group B. Their beliefs are as follows:

Group A: To preserve peace and life through setting up a legal framework

Group B: To live to the max and do whatever it takes to be on top

Now taking into consideration that there is no Divine Being - there is no one to define a "universal right or wrong". Thus the opinion of Group A is just AS arguable as the opinion of Group B. They can both claim that they are right or wrong, but in reality they will both be right form their own prespective and neither will have the right to say the other is wrong! Thus the actions of both will be justifiable and legal since there is no creator and thus no universal "rights or wrongs" or no universal "judge"

I hope you get my point?


We take the concept of Morality very lightly - yet if you look at sociological studies conducted throughout the years they have found that Human being are NOT born with morality built into them!

Our moral values are tought to us, it is the reason why people in the USA may have different moral standards while those in Japan would have different etc. In some cultures people eat dogs and cats and is seen as perfectly ok, and in others pigs are forbidden and in yet others people may eat different things (ie vegans, etc etc).

Now we as Muslims are told in the Quran and in the Hadith (sayings of the Prophet) that when mankind came to this planet - he / she did not even know what hunger was! God sent down angels to instruct mankind on how to hunt and forage! And that is why revelations were sent to humanity to instruct them as to the right and wrong. Proof of this? Look at a baby, even a grown up kid who has not seen fire - he will probably hurt himself investigating it before he LEARNS the truth about it!

But in Athiesm - NO ONE holds the right to tell another he is right or wrong. Why ? Because all humans are Equal and each one holds the right to have their opinions and ACT upon them. Wether a majority holds a different opinion or not is irrelevant - since to that individual it is his beliefs which count the most. Thus he should live by what he believes in.

Now if you will tell me thats not possible, I will simply tell you this: If athiesm is the right system then you can count on ME to bring forward the idealogy of Group B and cause anarchy and chaos because I would much rather live life to the max have fun plunder loot murder and do whatever it takes to be on top until the day I die! Every man faces death eventually anyways, so why worry, PARTY ON! (The only thing that holds me back from this wild animilistic side of me is the belief in Allah believe it or not!) And you can be pretty sure there would be countless people out there who will follow me in my ststem and you would have no right to say I am wrong since I could easily argue "Mankind is already set at the brink of destruction. And we know this by science and the big bang theory that all things will come to an end, so I say lets PARTY! lol.

Well I dont know if I am explaining this properly but I hope I made some sense.
Peace be upon you too

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Akulion,

If I truly believed there is no accountability for my actions in the hereafter - there is not a thing which would prevent me from being totally immoral when I choose to be and moral when I choose to be.

What about the police? Laws? The disapproval of other people? Wouldn't they give you pause for thought?

To me the only issue which would exist is the fact that I dont want to be dictated to by any individual or group as to what I should do or not do - I will live my life as I please. As a result of which I will seek out like minded individuals (which I am sure I will be able to find easily) and then form gangs and groups or even governments based on such idealogies.

I think you'd struggle to do this if you lived in a country where the actions you're considering were severely frowned upon.

Now taking into consideration that there is no Divine Being - there is no one to define a "universal right or wrong". Thus the opinion of Group A is just AS arguable as the opinion of Group B.

Certainly both are arguable - and both have been argued. John Stuart Mill and John Rawls have put forward arguments for Group A, and Friedrich Nietzsche and the Marquis de Sade have done the same for Group B. Morality does not deal with issues of fact, simply what people in general are prepared to put up with.

They can both claim that they are right or wrong, but in reality they will both be right form their own prespective and neither will have the right to say the other is wrong!

True in theory, but in practice the majority opinion prevails.

Thus the actions of both will be justifiable and legal since there is no creator and thus no universal "rights or wrongs" or no universal "judge"

They would perhaps be justifiable, although that would certainly depend on one's perspective, but it's not possible for them both to be legal. After all, if Group B were running things, the concept "legal" would have disappeared.

But in Athiesm - NO ONE holds the right to tell another he is right or wrong. Why ? Because all humans are Equal and each one holds the right to have their opinions and ACT upon them.

Each person should have the right to their own opinions, but not necessarily the right to act upon them. If someone's beliefs lead them to commit crime, they do not have the right to act upon those beliefs, surely?

Now if you will tell me thats not possible, I will simply tell you this: If athiesm is the right system then you can count on ME to bring forward the idealogy of Group B and cause anarchy and chaos because I would much rather live life to the max have fun plunder loot murder and do whatever it takes to be on top until the day I die!

Why would you want to murder anyone? Is that fun?

Every man faces death eventually anyways, so why worry, PARTY ON! (The only thing that holds me back from this wild animilistic side of me is the belief in Allah believe it or not!)

That's pretty scary to be honest.

"Mankind is already set at the brink of destruction. And we know this by science and the big bang theory that all things will come to an end, so I say lets PARTY! lol.

Do we know for sure that all things will come to an end?

Peace

 

[akulion]

referring to the last parts of your reply:
- Why would you want to murder anyone? Is that fun?
and
- That's pretty scary to be honest.

I am not a violent man, however if I was poor and did not see hope and did not believe in God or any judgement upon me. I would not care for the law what so ever and thus turn to crim as a means for my sustenance.

The high figures of crime rates around the world already demonstrate what I am telling you. That people who lose all hope in life (due to poverty) and all faith in God often find themselves on the path to crime.

And as for your first comment :
- What about the police? Laws? The disapproval of other people? Wouldn't they give you pause for thought?

Why would I care how anyone else thinks of me? To me it would be a matter of my survival. And since I may not agree with a lot of 'laws' and 'rules' I will refuse to live by them. And to enforce my decisions I will probably seek like minded individuals and groups and join forces with them to be able to successfully fight the 'lawkeepers' which in my view would then become the 'supressors'.

It is a very complicated topic all the same - yet I sincerely believe that the role of "Belief in God" has played, still plays and will always play a huge role in keeping balance upon this Earth.

After all if you think about it: One mans terrorist is another mans hero!
So who decides who is right?
Majority?
I dont believe so!
Why?
Because under a system where there is no God - I am the 'God' of my own life. I would not fear the law simply because I know for a fact that I will die one day and to live to the fullest by what I believe in is what would matter to me the most.

As for "Is there really an end" (ur comment to the big bang theory)
That is undeniable - Science has observed that the universe is expanding and will eventually collapse onto itself. Killing and destroying everything. Eventually everything will be 'reformed' according to scientific theories.
And if you look around you will see that death cannot be prevented, even through cryogenic means! The human body decays naturally and will eventually die no matter how many precautions u may take! You can replace organs but for how long? And there is no gurantees in organ replacement operations that it will be successful.
Allah says in the Quran, "every soul shall face death, and if you dont believe, then avert death from your neck"
It is an open challenge in the Quran which has yet to be disproved! One may survive and accident, or be successful in cancer therapy - but eventually everyone dies!

Anyways I am in the middle of working on 10 different things currently - so ill end here lol. Insha'Allah catch u sooner or later.
Peace be upon you too.

PS: oh yea i forgot to say one thing which I wanted to but now I recalled!
- Only because you are a peace loving individual who loves law and order does not mean that everyone else will see through your eyes as well. That is why we have differing political idealogies around the world, religious idealogies, criminals, gangs, groups, mafia, cartels and so on and so forth. It is a reality of life - not something to be denied. And if one was to say Yes there is no God, then it becomes a free for all situation - things like 'terrorism, crime, murder, lies, incest, rape, etc" are then just subject to defination by each group and not a universal truth by any way! So in the end it comes down to survival of the fittest - might is right and such things!

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I must say I completely agree with akulon here. The key issue is opportunism. People are opportunistic by nature. Of course you'd have to consider law inforcement and public opinion. But what if nobody's watching? Murder isn't fun indeed. But being destructive is a much easyer way to gain rather then doing so by being constructive. Of course everybody has his/her limitations. But as an atheist the borders are very vague at best, and its very challanging to keep by it. Looking back now; I'm suprised just how decadent and egocentric, how opportunistic I used to be back when I was atheistic. And the worst thing was that I didn't even realise it. As an atheist there's no basis to start from, as long as it's explainable, everything goes.

Maybe one could say a religious person is also opportunistic. Afterall, he does believe in heaven and hell, reward and punishment, so what's the difrence between that and the police?

Well First of all an act can have a lot of reasons, just because one of those reasons are beneficial, doesn't make the whole act opportunistic. Secondly, A religious person trys to be as honest as possible towards himself (or at least, is expected to do so). So he/her isn't supposed to be hypocrite. Being concequent in what you believe is right.

Let me end with a simplistic example.
everybody knows that stealing is wrong. Its such a universal value, it would be pointless to deny that. But lets look at some cases and how an atheist (I don't mean to say every atheist, just some) or religious person might react on it.
Lets say your late and you need to catch a bus for work, but you don't have any change. If you can't take the bus there's a high chance your boss will fire you, or at least give you a hard time about it. The bus fare is 1$. You see a guy stepping into a limosine and while doing so he accedentally drops a 1$ bill. He didn't notice. You could just pick it up and ask if you could have it but this guy has such an arrogant look that you're to afraid to ask him for the bill or you could wait a sec 'till he drives away. What do you do?
An atheist knows that stealing is wrong. But this guy won't even miss that bill and since there's no afterlife; what difrence does it make to keep the bill? For you a lot, for him not. See how morality is a lot more opportunistic for an atheist?

 

[hidden_treasure]

assalamu alaikum,
I cant believe that there are some people that dont believe in the Creator of the heavens and earth.

Just look at how we are created. We have been blessed with eyes ! We are able to see a broad spectrum of colours. we are able to see our loved ones, watch sunsets and view the stars.

We have been created so perfectly with fingers and toes, hands and feet. We all have our own fingerprints, which are unique, and there is not one person in the world with the same.

We hear birds that sing, children that play, sweet (and not so sweet words).

We are able to smell sweet aromas, and we are able to breath.

Do you consider the body?....look at all the organs, how perfectly they function, and how many purposes they serve.

Look at how the human embryo is developed. That in itself is absolutley amazing! We all start off as a blood clot, but are able to feed and grow within our mothers womb.

What about our brain...where would we be without it? Would we be able to think?...speak?...walk?...talk?...see?...function?...

There is no denying the existence of the One Supreme Creator. Look at all the miracles surrounding us...look at all His creation !!!!

Allahu Akbar (God is great)...SubhanAllah (Glory be To Him).....

 

[Imam786]

i believe in 1 God but it all depends on ur faith

 

[Abu Omar]

Listen to the profound wisdom of the Bedouin when he was asked about the evidence for Allaah's Existence (from Tafsir ibn Kathir):

"All praise is due to Allah! The camel's dung testifies to the existence of the camel, and the track testifies to the fact that someone was walking. A sky that holds the giant stars, a land that has fairways and a sea that has waves, does not all of this testify that the Most Kind, Most Knowledgeable exists."

The atheists simply can't beat that profound wisdom.

In fact, this post testifies to that someone was writing it.

Atheists often claim that they are "rational" and "free-thinkers" and that religionists are superstitious, primitive, and stupid. But despite their supposed "rationalism", atheists can be truly zealous. Look at the fanatical frenzy they enter when it comes to defend the theory of evolution, and their devout attempts to supress and criticism against it. When criticism against their beloved theory is put forth, more often than not they resort to ridicule the critic rather than answering his arguments. So much for their "rationalism".

 

[Tasneem]

Of course there are evidence that there is a creator


I mean look at everything

How did it get here???

The tress,Birds,Bugs,Grass,US God created everything
That is in the heavens and the Earth.

I remember i was walking in the park

With my little sister(it was in the summer)and
MashAllah she is soooo smart for her age

I was like,''icky(her nickname)Who created God???

She said,''God created himself''

So i said,''who created the tress and us???

She said,''Allah of course!

And then i said,''where is Allah???

She said,''Above the heavens looking down at us''

I mean MashAllah can you imagine a 5 year old saing this?(she was actually 4 at the time)

She prays and knows ALOT of surahs

O.k i think im going OFF TOPIC

But yeah there is alot of evidence to back there is a God


SaLaMz

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Of course there are evidence that there is a creator
I mean look at everything
How did it get here???
The tress,Birds,Bugs,Grass,US God created everything
That is in the heavens and the Earth.

Does anyone else want to throw up the argument from design? It's been seriously questionable for at least 200 years now, yet people still bring it up.

Here's an article discussing it in detail:

Teleological Arguments for the Existence of God

I remember i was walking in the park

With my little sister(it was in the summer)and
MashAllah she is soooo smart for her age

I was like,''icky(her nickname)Who created God???

She said,''God created himself''

By asking "Who created God?" you've asked a very important question, one that blows a hole in the cosmological (first cause) argument for god's existence. If you believe god created himself, can you think of anything else that has also created itself? I can't.

Peace