Atheism

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Dark chocolate contain antioxidants called Catechins and Phenols. These antioxidants could prevent heart diseases and cancer... you can have it as a part of a balanced diet... if you follow it correctly you might even lose weight on it....

Well, I certainly didn't know that. I stand corrected.

the long and happy life bit... well no one can guarantee you that... not even disbelief in God

True.

Terminal patients have been known to go into remission so who knows maybe your grandad might recover and play with you again....

Not from what he's got. Sad story, it has to be said.

God spells Hope, guidance, and personal fulfillment... even if he "doesn't exist" there would be not much to lose for having believed as you go into the scary dark nothing of nonexistence......

A reformulation of Pascal's Wager. I think missing out on lots of fun in this life could be considered a lot to lose...

if you believe in science then science states those who have faith live longer, happier lives... and deal better with illness... their brain is known to secrete sertonin the same chemical found in anti-depressants...

True. Faith is recognised as conferring a genuine survival advantage to believers.

a natural opiate is this amazing thing called faith...

Certainly. As Karl Marx said, "It [religion] is the opium of the people."

Your thoughts seem to have coincided remarkably with atheism in this post!

Peace

 

[جوري]

Greetings,


Well, I certainly didn't know that. I stand corrected.



True.



Not from what he's got. Sad story, it has to be said.



A reformulation of Pascal's Wager. I think missing out on lots of fun in this life could be considered a lot to lose...



True. Faith is recognised as conferring a genuine survival advantage to believers.



Certainly. As Karl Marx said, "It [religion] is the opium of the people."

Your thoughts seem to have coincided remarkably with atheism in this post!

Peace

you put so much value on the words of philosophers who support your argument... you can replace them with a different set to make a counter view... Also celebrated "thinkers" (Descartes)the not so holy figures that we hold in high regard as if they coined immaculate thoughts.... Why is it etched in stone a sentence as religion is the opium of the people? Could not the same be said of work? Or play or sleep? do we not secrete endorphin a known opiate as an after math of a serious workout , melatonin, & other derviatves of opium that governs our sleep wake cycle? Why do you chose the words of people to make an "intelligent" argument against God? when their own thoughts are naturally flawed, moreover they are no better than you to pave the way...Where are they now to tell you of the so-called truth they saw as the rest dwelled driven and blindfolded? I am the antithesis of Atheism so No my thoughts aren't remarkably coinciding with it...... I don't think the one who created this universe cares for our acknowledgment... it was a thought of what it is you'd have to lose?---Ever saw an atheist on his death bed? I have.... you'd be amazed at how one look in their eye foretells ... they wished they had a do over!

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

you put so much value on the words of philosophers who support your argument...

I've studied their works, analysed them and come to my own conclusions. I don't agree with everything Karl Marx said, but on the matter of religion I think he was dead right. I agree with lots of things Pascal said, but when it comes to his wager I think he was dead wrong. What's wrong with that?

you can replace them with a different set to make a counter view...

Go on then. Let's see how their arguments stand up.

Also celebrated "thinkers" (Descartes)the not so holy figures that we hold in high regard as if they coined immaculate thoughts....

First of all, what is Descartes doing in this sentence? Are you familiar with his work?

Secondly, what is an immaculate thought, apart from a category mistake?

Why is it etched in stone a sentence as religion is the opium of the people?

I was not aware that it was. It's from Marx's Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right.

Could not the same be said of work? Or play or sleep?

Of course.

Why do you chose the words of people to make an "intelligent" argument against God?

I think you chose them.

when their own thoughts are naturally flawed, moreover they are no better than you to pave the way...

Thank you for crediting me as being of similar calibre to some great thinkers, but I would have to demur.

Where are they now to tell you of the so-called truth they saw as the rest dwelled driven and blindfolded?

Pascal and Marx are dead. Does that detract from the validity (or not) of their arguments? In any case, their thoughts live on in the texts they left behind.

I am the antithesis of Atheism so No my thoughts aren't remarkably coinciding with it......

When you unconsciously quote an atheist philosopher in an attempt to bolster your argument, I'd say the coincidence is remarkable.

it was a thought of what it is you'd have to lose?

Right - Pascal's Wager again. It's an old argument.

Ever saw an atheist on his death bed? I have.... you'd be amazed at how one look in their eye foretells ... they wished they had a do over!

I haven't seen an atheist on his death bed. Remember that all atheists are different, though. Some go to their deaths perfectly cheerfully, with no fear of hellfire (e.g. David Hume, Bertrand Russell). I have no doubt that I will follow their course when my time comes.

Peace

 

[جوري]

Greetings,


I've studied their works, analysed them and come to my own conclusions. I don't agree with everything Karl Marx said, but on the matter of religion I think he was dead right. I agree with lots of things Pascal said, but when it comes to his wager I think he was dead wrong. What's wrong with that?



Go on then. Let's see how their arguments stand up.



First of all, what is Descartes doing in this sentence? Are you familiar with his work?

Secondly, what is an immaculate thought, apart from a category mistake?



I was not aware that it was. It's from Marx's Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right.



Of course.


I think you chose them.



Thank you for crediting me as being of similar calibre to some great thinkers, but I would have to demur.



Pascal and Marx are dead. Does that detract from the validity (or not) of their arguments? In any case, their thoughts live on in the texts they left behind.



When you unconsciously quote an atheist philosopher in an attempt to bolster your argument, I'd say the coincidence is remarkable.



Right - Pascal's Wager again. It's an old argument.



I haven't seen an atheist on his death bed. Remember that all atheists are different, though. Some go to their deaths perfectly cheerfully, with no fear of hellfire (e.g. David Hume, Bertrand Russell). I have no doubt that I will follow their course when my time comes.

Peace

Yes-- I am familiar with Descartes work as well as the others you mention... we have gone to graduate school as well.... what is the point of sitting here and talking about dead people's work?
we can discuss the Abbasids empire to correggio (jupiter and io), Rothko's Blue Green Blue on Blue Ground to (Zollinger-Ellison Syndrome) with some dextrity-- does my throwing these terms around impress you? if the answer is NO, and I suspect it is... then that is the point I was trying to make... their work lives on, because you choose to loan it credence ... which is something you are entitled to...I personally don't think any human is UNERRING as to hold his/her word/philosophy as truth ..
Now, I am glad some magic exists in your life that you were there at the moment David Hume and Bertrand Russell passed on, and saw them peaceful and assured as they slipped into the nothing .... Guess miracles exist after all???....
Atheists if they wish to choose a decent life that is, and I assume you regard yourself as a decent human being?... have borrowed greatly from religion for without it we wouldn't have the measure or laws if you will by which to set the standards for decency ... peace to you as well

 

[dougmusr]

I personally don't think any human is UNERRING as to hold his/her word/philosophy as truth

Were the prophets human?

 

[جوري]

Were the prophets human?

sure they were... you are on a roll tonight ey?-- all that deductive reasoning? they are human but their message is clearly divine... you'd have to speak Aramaic/Hebrew or Arabic to appreciate the brilliance more so for the period of time in which they were revealed and the life and status of those who revealed them....now here is a q for you... do you always draw satisfaction out of simplistic conclusions?

 

[dougmusr]

sure they were... you are on a roll tonight ey?-- all that deductive reasoning? they are human but their message is clearly divine... you'd have to speak Aramaic/Hebrew or Arabic to appreciate the brilliance more so for the period of time in which they were revealed and the life and status of those who revealed them....now here is a q for you... do you always draw satisfaction out of simplistic conclusions?

Actually I don't, but I do find that most of the answers I get are simplistic answers. I admit I am an engineer, and as such I analyze. I do this for the Bible as well as for the Quran.

If the Quran says Christ was strengthened by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is part of the Christian Trinity, and Muslims say they don't believe in the Trinity, then it would seem to me that there should be an explanation of why God chose to refer to the Holy Spirit in relation to Christ and not to other prophets.

If the Quran says Christ was the Messiah, and no other prophet is expressly referred to as the Messiah, then there must be a reason why God put the word in there.

In general, when I ask a clear question, I usually get an "I don't understand the question" answer. I have been impressed with your knowledge on many topics and enjoy exchanging posts.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Yes-- I am familiar with Descartes work as well as the others you mention...

OK, great - so maybe now you can explain what purpose you had in mentioning his name.

we have gone to graduate school as well....

What are you implying?

what is the point of sitting here and talking about dead people's work?

In what way does the fact that they're dead invalidate their arguments? (I already asked you this).

we can discuss the Abbasids empire to correggio (jupiter and io), Rothko's Blue Green Blue on Blue Ground to (Zollinger-Ellison Syndrome) with some dextrity-- does my throwing these terms around impress you? if the answer is NO, and I suspect it is... then that is the point I was trying to make...

No, this doesn't impress me, because none of this is relevant to our discussion. I'm not trying to impress you by throwing names around randomly - what is important is the arguments, not one of which you have addressed.

their work lives on, because you choose to loan it credence ... which is something you are entitled to...I personally don't think any human is UNERRING as to hold his/her word/philosophy as truth ..

Of course not, but so what? If you have objections to any of the arguments I've put forward, then please announce them.

Now, I am glad some magic exists in your life that you were there at the moment David Hume and Bertrand Russell passed on, and saw them peaceful and assured as they slipped into the nothing .... Guess miracles exist after all???....

When did I make this absurd claim? In fact, I said the direct opposite - I've never seen an atheist on their death bed.

Atheists if they wish to choose a decent life that is, and I assume you regard yourself as a decent human being?... have borrowed greatly from religion for without it we wouldn't have the measure or laws if you will by which to set the standards for decency ... peace to you as well

I don't deny for a moment that religion has done important and valuable things for humanity, simply that it is based on supernatural assertions with no basis.

In this discussion I've answered every one of your points directly. You have not done the same in return. I've asked you questions that you have left unanswered. If you are familiar with the works of Descartes, Pascal, Hume, Marx and Russell, then why not use their arguments to support your view, instead of just saying, in effect, "they're all dead humans so their ideas aren't important and they must be wrong"?

Peace

 

[جوري]

Actually I don't, but I do find that most of the answers I get are simplistic answers. I admit I am an engineer, and as such I analyze. I do this for the Bible as well as for the Quran.

If the Quran says Christ was strengthened by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is part of the Christian Trinity, and Muslims say they don't believe in the Trinity, then it would seem to me that there should be an explanation of why God chose to refer to the Holy Spirit in relation to Christ and not to other prophets.

If the Quran says Christ was the Messiah, and no other prophet is expressly referred to as the Messiah, then there must be a reason why God put the word in there.

In general, when I ask a clear question, I usually get an "I don't understand the question" answer. I have been impressed with your knowledge on many topics and enjoy exchanging posts.

Lots of messangers were strngtherned by the holy spirit... Moses... Mohammed just to name a couple...... 2nd I already gave a thousand and one place in which the word annointed was used such as even annointing a lamp, or angels... So I fail to see how the whole of christianity falls on "annointed" and "holy spirit" if you are getting simplistic answers.. it is because a great detail was expended at some point which you obviousely didn't read... you may refer to previous posts to see multiple useages for annointed and the holy spirit...... =)
peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

On topic please! This thread is on atheism.

 

[جوري]

Greetings,


OK, great - so maybe now you can explain what purpose you had in mentioning his name.

Descartes meditations argues for God's existence ... if you are interested you may read his work... I am not going to sit here and discuss all of them with you so that you can argue against them ad nauseum .... have not the time nor interest really...

What are you implying?.

Implying that you should get off your high horse I am not impressed with your colorful wording.......

In what way does the fact that they're dead invalidate their arguments? (I already asked you this).?.

Simple they have not proven that there isn't a GOd... if they have perhaps you care to share it?

o, this doesn't impress me, because none of this is relevant to our discussion. I'm not trying to impress you by throwing names around randomly - what is important is the arguments, not one of which you have addressed.).?.

"A reformulation of Pascal's Wager. I think missing out on lots of fun in this life could be considered a lot to lose...
Certainly. As Karl Marx said, "It [religion] is the opium of the people."

Your thoughts seem to have coincided remarkably with atheism in this post!"

This is all the deep discussion we have gotten out of you---
So actually you have done exactly that-- thrown names around, I haven't seen nor read any deep discussions as to per your afore mentioned philsophes...I see you have lots of time to cut and paste quote and unquote around my statments and that hardly qualifes that you have made a valid point......

Of course not, but so what? If you have objections to any of the arguments I've put forward, then please announce them..).?.

Again, I don't see arguments... I see some wikipeida article to support a statment I have made....

I don't deny for a moment that religion has done important and valuable things for humanity, simply that it is based on supernatural assertions with no basis...

Same actually goes for the argument against God's existence.... it is nonsensical .... can't be supported.... If you can't support that he doesn't exist then you shouldn't question those who know he does....Everything else will be wild theories that will border upon insane put in pseudo-scientific wording....

In this discussion I've answered every one of your points directly. You have not done the same in return. I've asked you questions that you have left unanswered. If you are familiar with the works of Descartes, Pascal, Hume, Marx and Russell, then why not use their arguments to support your view, instead of just saying, in effect, "they're all dead humans so their ideas aren't important and they must be wrong"?

Peace

I haven't seen an answer to any Question... Again I have seen you throw some names around, and a wikipedia link. What do you hope to gain at this stage from this discussion? you'll distill more words down, to reach some finite conclusion ... you'll throw in every character in the world to loan support a sentence ... fickle to some as they may be and at the very end you'll not be able to prove that there isn't a God ... anymore than anyone here is able to prove to you that there is.... where do you want to go with this? Because I honestly lost interest yesterday at 7PM.... There is nothing more about this that I wish or care to impart.....
Good luck with your life I wish you the very best.....

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Descartes meditations argues for God's existence ...

He does. His "Proof of God" is also found in his Discourse on Method.

if you are interested you may read his work...

Have done.

I am not going to sit here and discuss all of them with you so that you can argue against them ad nauseum .... have not the time nor interest really...

Descartes is a hugely important philosopher, but his arguments for the existence of god are now regarded as the weakest points of his work. However, since you don't want to discuss them, never mind.

Implying that you should get off your high horse I am not impressed with your colorful wording.......

I'm not trying to impress you, I'm simply trying to put forward my view. This is a thread on atheism, after all.

Simple they have not proven that there isn't a GOd... if they have perhaps you care to share it?

They haven't, you're quite right, but my question is what does this have to do with them being dead? If someone is dead should we automatically not take any notice of their ideas?

this is all the deep discussion we have gotten out of you---

You made an argument along the lines of Pascal's Wager; I gave a common objection to it. You claimed faith was an opiate; I pointed out how this coincided with the view of an atheist philosopher. You claimed that atheists get nervous on their death beds; I gave you two examples to the contrary. I asked what an "immaculate thought" was besides being a category mistake, and received no answer.

None of these objections and questions have been answered.

so actually you have done exactly that-- thrown names aroun, I haven't seen nor read any deep discussions as to your afore mentioned deep philsophes...I see you have lots of time to cut and paste quote and unquote around my statments and that hardly qualifes that you have made a valid point......

I think you misunderstand the nature of philosophy. It doesn't have to be "deep" (whatever that means) to be effective.

Again, I don't see arguments... I see some wikipeida article to support a statment I have made....

If you read all of the article, you'll find that the list of objections to Pascal's Wager is huge. In short, it's a discredited argument, and the wikipedia article does not support your statement at all.

Same actually goes for the argument against God's existence.... it is nonsensical .... can't be supported.... If you can't support that he doesn't exist then you shouldn't question those who know he does....

You believe that god exists; you do not know it. Faith is not the same as knowledge.

What do you hope to gain at this stage from this discussion?

I hope to show that the atheist position is rational, and I was hoping to engage you in a discussion - you keep on posting, but you say you're not interested, so it's unlikely we'll make any progress.

you'll distill more words down, to reach some finite conclusion ... you'll call on every character in the world to support your claims ... fickle to some as they may be and at the very end you'll not be able to prove that there isn't a God ... anymore than anyone here is able to prove to you that there is....

Proof is not the issue here. No-one expects proof on this question either way, least of all me, since we're talking about beliefs. I believe that Martin Scorsese is the best living film director, but I can't prove it.

If you don't want to carry on the discussion, that's fine, but at least be aware that serious questions can be asked over god's existence. If you don't have any answers to them, then think carefully about why it is that you believe in god.

Peace

 

[QuranStudy]

How was mass and energy created?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

How was mass and energy created?

I've no idea.

The Big Bang Theory is of course the most widely accepted explanation among scientists, but nobody really knows for sure.

Peace

 

[جوري]

Greetings,
They haven't, you're quite right, but my question is what does this have to do with them being dead? If someone is dead should we automatically not take any notice of their ideas?

I don't put philsophy in high regard... at least not higher than relgion... I consider that some of them have laid to waste their life... but that is just me .....

You made an argument along the lines of Pascal's Wager; I gave a common objection to it. You claimed faith was an opiate; I pointed out how this coincided with the view of an atheist philosopher. You claimed that atheists get nervous on their death beds; I gave you two examples to the contrary. I asked what an "immaculate thought" was besides being a category mistake, and received no answer.?

yes interestingly you said they don't get nervous, yet weren't around to prove that the two you mentioned weren't besides nervous wasn't the word I used, you denied you were there-- yet here you are again asserting it... so which is it?
2ndly a category mistake is an error of logic where concepts belonging to different categories are inappropriately related by defintion... so how is it related to an immaculate thought?

I think you misunderstand the nature of philosophy. It doesn't have to be "deep" (whatever that means) to be effective..?

in order for something to be effective ... there has to be something positive gained some appropriate end result ... if we get no more an end result than we would let's see being Theists then I don't see how it is effective.…

You believe that god exists; you do not know it. Faith is not the same as knowledge...?

I believe God exists and I know it ridiculous of you to make the assumption that it is on blind faith ... you'd use book to prove your point to his nonexistence and so would I... remarkably much of science which by the way is my specialty coincides with what it in the Quran...Either way I am not obliged to tell you how I arrived to my own conclusions...

Proof is not the issue here. No-one expects proof on this question either way, least of all me, since we're talking about beliefs. I believe that Martin Scorsese is the best living film director, but I can't prove it....?

This is a subjective opinion...... And a simplistic one to draw in assimilation of something as complex as divinity......

If you don't want to carry on the discussion, that's fine, but at least be aware that serious questions can be asked over god's existence. If you don't have any answers to them, then think carefully about why it is that you believe in god.

Peace

I'd have to recommend for your person some Quranic reading and in Arabic in order that you make the assertion that he doesn't exist... everything else is futile... you'd have to start with a book anyhow to draw an appropriate conclsuion if it is one about religion then you should start with a religion book...

 

[جوري]

on a seperate note
... When religion/meditations or faith influences the secretion of certain neurotransmitters as to release compounds similar to those in antidepressants, I think it should be considered a good thing ... in fact according to many scientific articles one I just posted a few days ago it is... ..... An endogenous immune enhancer ... if it is very effective and if "evolution" or whatever forces you believe in chose it to be effective it is because there is an inherent need for it, a need for spirituality a need for God ..... the same way your senses and other functions are important and needed..... peace

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

yes interestingly you said they don't get nervous, yet weren't around to prove that the two you mentioned weren't besides nervous wasn't the word I used, you denied you were there-- yet here you are again asserting it... so which is it?

I assert this because I've read accounts of their death bed scenes. Hume's is reported by Boswell, and Russell's is reported in a biography which I can't locate at the moment. Here is a book that refutes the idea that unbelievers have second thoughts about their beliefs when close to death by giving reports on their last moments. You may or may not want to read it, but here it is nonetheless: Infidel Death-Beds.

2ndly a category mistake is an error of logic where concepts belonging to different categories are inappropriately related by defintion... so how is it related to an immaculate thought?

How exactly can a thought be immaculate, and what do you mean by the phrase anyway?

in order for something to be effective ... there has to be something positive gained some appropriate end result ... if we get no more an end result than we would let's see being Theists then I don't see how it is effective.…

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying philosophy doesn't have an end result?

I believe God exists and I know it ridiculous of you to make that assumption

What assumption?

... you'd use book to prove your point to his nonexistence and so would I...

You'd prove his non-existence? I'm surprised!

God's existence could only be proved by him being observed by somebody. His non-existence could never be proved.

remarkably much of science which by the way is my specialty coincides with what it in the Quran...

I've heard this claim many times, and I've never been convinced that it represents anything out of the ordinary.

This is a subjective opinion...... And a simplistic one to draw in assimilation of something as complex as divinity......

Belief in god is also a subjective opinion. That's kind of my point.

I'd have to recommend for your person some Quranic reading and in Arabic in order that you make the assertion that he doesn't exist... everything else is futile...

Is it impossible to believe in god without having read the Qur'an in Arabic?!

you'd have to start with a book anyhow to draw an appropriate conclsuion if it is one about religion then you should start with a religion book...

I've read lots of books about religion. I find it to be a very interesting human phenomenon.

Peace

 

[جوري]

Greetings,


I assert this because I've read accounts of their death bed scenes. Hume's is reported by Boswell, and Russell's is reported in a biography which I can't locate at the moment. Here is a book that refutes the idea that unbelievers have second thoughts about their beliefs when close to death by giving reports on their last moments. You may or may not want to read it, but here it is nonetheless: Infidel Death-Beds.

Would rather take my eye witness account of it rather than a refutation article.. I have attended countless autopsies and tried needlessly beating on someone's chest in hopes of bringing them back... I was there when they "hallucinated" and when they were fearful... so why the need for your article?

How exactly can a thought be immaculate, and what do you mean by the phrase anyway?

lol you are funny--- a dictionary defintion that isn't in concert with your idea of "category mistake" are we arguing semantics or defintions? what is the point of this? see it as it relates to the original argument...

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying philosophy doesn't have an end result?

Most I have encountered yes-- if I remember any crap from my philosophy 101--- lots of it was junk... and bordering upon Greek mythology--

God's existence could only be proved by him being observed by somebody. His non-existence could never be proved.?

well I observe him in everything around me so there is where you are wrong. I take something like this

فَإِذَا انشَقَّتِ السَّمَاء فَكَانَتْ وَرْدَةً كَالدِّهَانِ {37}
[Shakir 55:37] And when the heaven is rent asunder, and then becomes red like red hide."
the word "وَرْدَةً" literally means Rose--Prophet mohammed wasn't an astronmer or an embryologist or a scientest by any mean, this alone is enough for me---except there is so much more if you were looking!
By the way the above photo image is from NASA not computer generated!

I've heard this claim many times, and I've never been convinced that it represents anything out of the ordinary..?

That is too bad---

Belief in god is also a subjective opinion. That's kind of my point..

we have also made the point that it was a simplistic conclusion on your behalf... like comparing apples and oranges....

Is it impossible to believe in god without having read the Qur'an in Arabic?!..

Not impossible... it depends on how deep you want to go with your understanding however...

I've read lots of books about religion. I find it to be a very interesting human phenomenon.

Lots of books aren't the one book--- but anything to ultimately support your view you will find--- I could read a book about Suppurativa Hidradenoma but it wouldn't be the same as experiencing it... or having appropriate tissue to examine to confirm what it is in concert with what I have read... more over I can be getting one authors view... is the cut he made sagittal? transverse?coronal?...which one of these views are right? wouldn't I have to read as much as I can to get every possible account of how it may present, and then compare it to my eye witness view then draw my own conculsions?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Right - I'm giving up on this. You obviously aren't interested in having a serious discussion, so good day to you.

Peace

 

[جوري]

Greetings,

Right - I'm giving up on this. You obviously aren't interested in having a serious discussion, so good day to you.

Peace

I always enjoy when someone makes an "obvious" or a "serious," conclusion about another person as if holding the key to their psyche--just because they can't handle a different point of view; they prefer to get lost in pre-formed semantics and strongly support it with an ailing philosophy to draw a pseudo-intelligent understanding of the world around them....
Good day to you as well...