Atheists' Marginalization of the Most Important Issue..

[CosmicPathos]

You are equating Atheism with a gun killer? Come on man!

He is not equating it with murder. He is saying that there is no difference in thinking process of the two.

 

[M.I.A.]

or a god that created the universe and turned its back on it as in the god of the deists and irreligious people…etc.

thats probably the easiest to answer.

a quick copy paste job.

We did not create the heavens and the earth and everything between them as a game. We did not create them except with truth but most of them do not know it. The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 44,Verse 38-39

He Who created death and life to test which of you is best in action. He is the Almighty, the Ever-Forgiving. The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 67,Verse 2

Verily We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm, in order to try him: So We gave him (the gifts) of hearing and sight. The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 76,Verse 2

Not for (idle) sport did We create the heavens and the earth and all that is between them! If it had been Our wish to take (just) a pastime, We could have found it in Our presence, if We would do (such a thing)! The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 21,Verse 16-17

That which is on earth We have made but as a glittering show for the earth, in order that We may test them – as to which of them are best in conduct. The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 18,Verse 7

i guess thats the approach to take with people of such thinking and an indication of the purpose of this life, maybe even the nature of god.

it is indeed a question of faith.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Well I see Al-Warraq still refuses to listen to atheists and understand what we actually think and believe (or don't believe). His endless stream of straw man claims about what atheists must believe and hold as creeds rolls on. I lost count of straw men after just a few paragraphs of that long post. It's impossible to reply to given all the false assumptions about atheism and what atheists believe.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Disbelief in God is claim no.1, but they didn’t mention the other claims resulting from it, like the full materiality of man including mind and emotions, and this is a claim without any scientific evidence. Also claiming that morals are created by human for the sake of interests, and that they are not rooted in ourselves. This claim is opposed by reality, mind and morality, and this chain of illogical claims goes on.

Looking back at the OP, does anybody here agree with these assumptions about atheism?

He is saying that atheism requires the full materiality of man including mind and emotions. Where does this idea come from? There are plenty of atheists who are not materialists.

He is also saying that atheism requires morals to be created by humans for the sake of interests and not rooted in ourselves. Where does this idea come from? I don't know a single atheist who believes in morality solely by culture and interests. All the ones I have met (including myself) believe in an innate sense of empathy. Similar senses of empathy, to one degree or another, can be seen in many other social animals as well (dolphins, dogs, chimps, etc). We just don't accept that this innate sense was put in us by a God.

He then goes on to ignore what actual atheists here actually believe, as he clings desperately to his imagined atheist views. I have noticed that happens a lot here. Why do people do that so often? It'd be like me saying Muslims must all believe X, and then going on to ignore muslims here saying they don't believe X and don't know of any muslims who do believe X. Telling others what they must believe in the face of them telling you they don't is a very strange phenomenon.

 

[Pygoscelis]

What do you mean by "atheism at the physical level" ?

And what do Einstein's theories have to do with it? I think he was a deist.

 

[M.I.A.]

Looking back at the OP, does anybody here agree with these assumptions about atheism?

He is saying that atheism requires the full materiality of man including mind and emotions. Where does this idea come from? There are plenty of atheists who are not materialists.

He is also saying that atheism requires morals to be created by humans for the sake of interests and not rooted in ourselves. Where does this idea come from? I don't know a single atheist who believes in morality solely by culture and interests. All the ones I have met (including myself) believe in an innate sense of empathy. Similar senses of empathy, to one degree or another, can be seen in many other social animals as well (dolphins, dogs, chimps, etc). We just don't accept that this innate sense was put in us by a God.

He then goes on to ignore what actual atheists here actually believe, as he clings desperately to his imagined atheist views. I have noticed that happens a lot here. Why do people do that so often? It'd be like me saying Muslims must all believe X, and then going on to ignore muslims here saying they don't believe X and don't know of any muslims who do believe X. Telling others what they must believe in the face of them telling you they don't is a very strange phenomenon.

ok so basically as an athiest you must be materialistic.. not in the traditional sense of the word but if you believed in anything other than the material world...

you would not be an athiest?


you must also have a world view..

im sure you do because you have a mind and emotions.


so if there is no god.. how does the world work?

without god there is still slavery..

everybody reports to a higher up.

work, social, family..

its better not to see those links because the world falls apart rapidly the more you analise it.

but as long as there is no conflict of interest... you probably wont mind.


its almost the illusion of free will because if you neglected or rejected those authorities or figures of respect within your life... then it would fall apart.

so tell me about morality again.

i mean most would say as long as you've been told by somebody to do something its ok.


i mean wheres the distinction between authority and morality.. i get that you are a part of what you are a part of..

but your presumably still complaining about syria and palestine.. burma.. somalia.. the list goes on.. (that one was for the muslims)




and the athiest movement is something that is represented. and as an athiest you should be very worried.

because, believe it or not...

there is a viewpoint and agenda being pushed and people are being taught what to think..

much the same as any religion you care to look down upon.


its a nice signature you picked.


as i know it there better had be a god and a heaven(in the traditional sense of the word), because iv pretty much rejected all...

ever thought about the immaterial world?

...at the very least it should make you think about slavery a bit more.

 

[Independent]

What do you mean by "atheism at the physical level" ?

I suspect that he means 'Physics' rather than 'physical'. In other words, he believes that Einstein's contribution to physics has been 'disproved'. For some reason he equates Einstein's physics with atheism.

 

[Pygoscelis]

ok so basically as an athiest you must be materialistic.. not in the traditional sense of the word but if you believed in anything other than the material world...

you would not be an athiest?

This is a misconception I tried to address on page 1 of this thread. Atheist means the person lacks a belief in Gods. It does NOT mean they lack beliefs in other non-materialist claims. Atheists can believe in ghosts. Atheists can believe in spiritual energy. Many budhists and taoists are atheists, in that they don't believe in Gods. Jedi from Star Wars are also atheists. Scientologists are usually atheists. There is a tendency for atheists to be skeptics (since they are skeptical about religious claims they are more likely to be skeptical of other claims), but not all atheists are skeptics, and not all skeptics are atheists. The two are not the same thing.

you must also have a world view..

im sure you do because you have a mind and emotions.

Yes, but not a uniform world view for atheists in general. Without religion telling us what to think we are influenced more by other social factors, and by figuring things out for ourselves. When you don't have a ready made answer for things, you are forced to think them out for yourself. I do think atheists tend to be less authoritarian, more liberal, and more individualistic (caring less about group cohesion and being less subject to peer pressure) than most theists, but that may be essential to breaking free from religious belief in a society dominated by it.

so if there is no god.. how does the world work?

I find it refreshingly honest to admit we don't know everything about everything.

i mean most would say as long as you've been told by somebody to do something its ok.

Just following orders? I find that incredibly and disturbingly authoritarian. We did see this in the Milgram experiments. I agree that we do have an innate drive to for social hierarchies and to subject ourselves to and follow authority figures. I find Abrahamic religion to be the ultimate expression of this, and it is one of the things about abrahamic religion that most disturbs me. The Christian Bible has Abraham being ordered by God to kill his son. It pits obedience to authority directly against morality and the God sides with obedience. And Islam means "surrender" right?

Along with group think and tribalism I hold authoritarianism to be one of the ugliest aspects of human nature, and that we should strive against it.

i mean wheres the distinction between authority and morality.. i get that you are a part of what you are a part of..

The confusion of obedience for morality in people absolutely terrifies me. It is how you can get well meaning people to engage in atrocity. If you confuse obedience for morality then there is no evil you won't do, so long as I can convince you a proper authority demands it of you.

 

[M.I.A.]

i wrote a big post and then deleted it.

i wont insult your intelligence, a lot of people get away with playing dumb.

i think your in the same boat as the rest of us.

heard and seen everything but god.



....the rest is just a question of faith.

 

[Roasted Cashew]

Atheism: the religion devoted to the worship of one's own smug sense of superiority.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Atheism: the religion devoted to the worship of one's own smug sense of superiority.

Abrahamic Religion: The false modesty and self depreciation that you are nothing without an authority figure, but that the creator of the universe designed it with you in mind.

 

[Al-Warraq]

If by "atheism" you mean "Materialism", then this is very true. The philosophical difference between materialism and idealism is very important. But one must remember that not all atheists are materialists.

Philosophically speaking, all atheists are materialists. Who leaves materialism has partially left atheism, and such a case is irrelevant to our topic.

Atheists became atheists on the basis of the materialistic view that depends on the senses, who leaves this view has left atheism either partly or completely. The immaterialist atheist has deviated from the creed of atheism and should not be considered an atheist thinker, because he left the materialistic method which he started from. Who adopts a certain method should continue to apply it in order for him to deserve to be named after that method. A scientist, for example, must continue to apply the scientific method, otherwise he'll not be called a scientist. So is the atheist, s/he should continue to apply the materialistic method otherwise s/he will not be called an atheist and can't be compared to the atheist who's devoted to his materialistic creed.

The trouble with many atheists (at least many of the ones whom I have known) is that they claim to be atheist and yet still remain idealistic in their outlook. You will see this among the so-called atheists who advocate for imperialist wars "for the sake of" everything from women's rights to free speech. These are the "atheists" who are openly hostile towards religion and regard it as contrary to human development. They often see religion as the cause of conflict (there is a very strong anti-Palestinian tendency in this camp) and ignore the economic causes.

Well said, but I wonder what's the connection between their materialism and atheism, and their advocacy for a religious country like Israel which was founded on the basis of the Torah?!

This reveals to us the connection between the paradoxes, which created atheism in the first place and urged people to leave their religion and convert into this unknown religion. Although the destination of this unknown religion makes it quite known.

Conversely, most materialists don't actually even describe themselves as atheists. Not because they believe in God, but because the idea of a materialistic universe doesn't actually allow for a non-material entity (for a very good discussion on this point of view, google "Why Marx Was Not an Atheist" and click on the top result. Sorry, I can't post links yet). For my part, I view religion as a demonstrably natural development of human social and cultural structure.

Thanks for enriching the thread and for the valuable information, and I agree with what you said at first, so you are very welcome my dear friend.

I disagree with you, however, on the idea of religion as a product of natural development, this is a common and false idea. The existence of atheism is an evidence of its falsehood. Does the development of religion leads to its complete opposite? That if we consider atheism- as they do- as the starting point. Religion exists since the existence of man, because of the existence of reason and feeling within people and prophets, and those two always lead to the existence of a higher will created the universe and regulated it, and created man and guided them through prophets in every human nation.

Also, where is development in religion when we see followers of the three religions go back to their old origins through the fundamentalist movements? And where are the new religions since religion is developing? The last religion is 15century-old.
The idea of development and evolution in any field -except civilization- is an incoherent idea. Civilization, industry and science are what develops, but man is man, their religious feeling is the same, their needs are the same, and all living beings are the same in their rejection of change and evolution.

The idea of evolution is taken from science and industry after the amazement with the advanced technological achievements, and has been generalized on everything including nature! We should get rid of the idea of generalization that mixes issues together, like generalizing the idea of evolution and development on everything.

What are materialists to make of religion? What are idealists to make of religion? The idealist is a moralist who must attribute to "character" human actions rather than admit material causes. Have some crimes been committed in he name of religion? Certainly there have been, but they are anomalies. Fifteen terrorists flew airplanes into buildings, you may say. Over one BILLION did not. Those billion looked after their neighbors children, helped a sick friend, smiled at a stranger, or struggled to save a strangers life on that very same day.

In my view, I consider the idealist philosophy a form of materialism, through the mind that reflects matter. I see the true opposite of materialism to be moralism/immaterialism. Morality has an immaterial basis even if it comes out in the form of material behavior. The materialist person sees the right thing to do is to take as much as he can from people's money without giving them anything, because he aims to accumulate money which is material, and giving it away reduces this accumulation. The moral person motivated by love and mercy gives that money away to gain love, i.e. his motive is immaterial which is something the materialist doesn't admit.

The rationality of Socrates, Hegel or Kant shouldn't be called idealism, it should be called rationalism, because materialism depends on the senses and the idealist philosophy depends on the mind, and both mind and the senses are looking towards matter. The word "ideal" is taken from Plato's theory of ideas not from the idealism which means righteousness and goodness.

Thus, there is a shortage in the western philosophy, a shortage of the moral philosophy, which exists in the soul of Islam regardless of the different sects.

Socrates is the first to direct philosophy from the materialism of the atomists and sophistics towards rationality, that's why he is considered the founder of the idealist philosophy in which he took attention away from matter to the mind. In other words, materialism views matter through the senses, rationalism views matter through the mind, and that's why it didn't give much attention to experiments.

Thus, western philosophy is materialistic since the times of the Greeks, with its two wings: the purely materialist and the rational idealist. Non of them, however, paid attention to the immaterial motives which are the depths of man. Mind and behavior are outer layers compared to the immaterial/moral part of humans (the innate feeling).

I can't speak for all materialists, but I view religion's role in society as a social construct that reenforces humans altruistic behavior. If you look at the net behavioral effect of religion, we see that it has been the rationalization for a lot of the charity, mercy, and compassion in the world. The idealist is incapable of taking this view because he is unable to see the materialist causes and effects of human thought and action.

This proves what I said above that the idealist is eventually a materialist. And I do claim that without religion altruistic behavior wouldn't have existed and had respect in human civilizations, without religion it would be an ambiguous behavior and a vague feeling. That if we consider non-religion = materialism, and materialism doesn't admit altruistic behavior.

That doesn't mean that religion brought the altruistic behavior form nothing, it does exist in the innate human nature, but religion is what brought it out from vague innateness to reality and turned into a social virtue.

Notice that the weaker religion gets the stronger selfishness and materialism becomes. And materialism is the furthest away from altruistic behavior, which gives us an indication of a link between altruistic behavior and religion, and it's not just reinforcement.

In a way, the idealist atheist has only denied the existence of one sort of god, yet he has created a substitute to which he is willing to sacrifice human life. Poor people must starve to protect the "right" of a wealthy person to hold on to every penny that is "rightfully" his. A wedding party in Afghanistan must be collateral damage in order to continue a war against people who are the enemies of western "progress".

Yes, all those are western materialistic ideas, and all are false as you can see. Which means that there is a disproportion between the materialistic philosophy and human morals. This also proves the connection between reason and morality, and that morals are existing facts and not mere emotions.

Should the Muslim or Christian fear the materialist? Or should he feat the idealistic atheist?

They are both materialists. And any materialist causes fear even if they were religious. When a person becomes materialist it turns him into a monster alien from his human nature, making him/her deny the existence of mercy, love and values which humans know and respect. A materialist person is like a machine, and we certainly fear a machine that gives no value to our feelings.

 

[Al-Warraq]

Didn't we already have this thread? This is pretty much identical to the other atheist thread the OP started. It is the same empty claims and I am betting he will again ignore the responses to them.

I have replied to your response and you were the one who ignored my response, and even now you are not replying! You just describe the topic as empty claims like you did in the previous thread.

You can reply to claims you don't like, what's stopping you from refuting what I claimed even with little words since you are so sure that's they are wrong and trivial? And that all truth is on your side? Why hesitate?

I would like to see him have a discussion on here with an atheist scientologist or atheist taoist or an atheist ghost hunter. Atheism does not equal materialism. Atheism really is no more than a lack of belief in Gods. Anything beyond that isn't mere atheism, but something else combined with atheism.

Atheism is a disbelief in God. How did the atheist reach this truth? It's from the materialist thinking that relies on the senses. Therefore, the atheist is a materialist. Is that a mystery?

 

[Logikon]

Therefore, the atheist is a materialist.

We are not only materialist. We also have morals. We have 2 dimensions.

Our morals came to us via........see the book I quoted above.

.

 

[Al-Warraq]

If you eat french fries with cheese or with garlic dipping sauce or dressed up in ketchup it is the same thing no? same baseline, same foundation, different dressing!
Same principles apply. Same double negative exists, same questions remain, same answers applied, same mazes of weak sophistry, same conclusions in the end!

Exactly what I wanted to say..

 

[Al-Warraq]

Reminder to my brothers and sisters, sometimes anger and impatience evaporates from your posts till everyone gets a sense of it.

Please answer clearly with Allaahs pleasure in mind or the shaytan will cause us to do more harm then good.

Atheism is the way of the lost whos hearts have become darkenned from a state of forgetfulness of Allah, thus Allah has forgotten them.

Thats all I have to say about them, if they return to Allaah in sincerity then their hearts will find a light thats been lost for a long time now.

Those words need someone to listen to their heart in order to be fruitful.

 

[Al-Warraq]

Now I'm hungry for french fries.

If "atheism" is a french fry, then "materialism" is the restaurant where they are served.

Words of an expert..!

 

[Al-Warraq]

That's the best thing I've read here in a while. I've never seen a forum with such sustained hostility.

And almost for the first time this is something that extends a welcome to non-Muslims.

This forum is supposed to be open to non-Muslims as well as Muslims. But if every single remark is to be treated with such venom then perhaps it would be better to close it to non-Muslims altogether and be done with it. Even visitors who are falling over backwards to be considerate are getting abuse.

I agree with you, and I want the non-Muslim to say all what s/he thinks, so that the truth is cleared for whoever wants it. I say that and I'm a muslim to God.

 

[Pygoscelis]

The immaterialist atheist has deviated from the creed of atheism

There is no "creed of atheism". You can keep demanding that there is, but that doesn't make it so. Atheism is simply the lack of theism - the lack of belief in Gods. Anything more you add to that is no longer mere atheism.

Philosophically speaking, all atheists are materialists. Who leaves materialism has partially left atheism, and such a case is irrelevant to our topic.

Wrong.

When a person becomes materialist it turns him into a monster alien from his human nature, making him/her deny the existence of mercy, love and values which humans know and respect.

Wrong.

You are continuing to make and repeat false claims about what atheists think and feel, even in the face of actual atheists telling you that you are mistaken. You claim to speak for our hearts and minds and say we are wrong about what we tell you we actually think and feel. So you are either calling us liars or ignoring us altogether. How are we to react to that?

 

[glo]

Also claiming that morals are created by human for the sake of interests, and that they are not rooted in ourselves.

Pygo, I think he is referring to the idea that morals have been evolved (and that certain attributes usually only survive and develop when they are of benefit for the species) and are not given by an external entity.