Atheists?

[fschmidt]

I am surprised to see atheists here. I thought they preferred to stay in their safe echo chambers. As a former atheist myself, I hope they don't mind if I ask them a few questions.

First, why are you here? To learn about Islam? Are you more interested in Islam than other religions? If yes, why?

Are you against religion? Against all religions, some religions, or no religions?

How do you define God? Do you believe that your truths are just in your mind, or are actually in the external world (in the spirit of Plato)? If the latter, is there any more basis for this belief than for a belief in God?

I will be honest, I wouldn't mind having a real debate with an atheist. This is generally impossible because I am banned virtually everywhere where atheists are found, since modern culture is the world's most intolerant culture.

 

[Scimitar]

Wait... let me grab some popcorn... ah maybe I should wait, iftar is still some hours away... can this wait?

 

[sister herb]

It did not bother us that they are here. Does it bother you?

(Don´t eat all popcorns, scimi.)

 

[fschmidt]

It did not bother us that they are here. Does it bother you?

Not at all. I am thrilled with the possibility that open minded atheists may actually exist.

 

[Delphi]

I will debate you, if you want. It's always good to hear/have a decent debate.
I am honestly here to prove, or disprove the assertions of certain european Identitarian groups. Hopefully, disprove, but that to me depends on how much faith I have in human nature. Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Jihadwatch don't paint a good picture, and at least some of that is serious news instead of conservative ranting. I came here to hear the other side of the coin as I am traditionally leftist and only support such viewpoints with reluctance.

 

[EgyptPrincess]

Jihadiwatch is that an actual site? LOL ;D

 

[Delphi]

I always try to stay open minded. Personally I don't believe Islam is entirely negative - I've met many open minded modern muslims. Sufis, Mu'tazila, the Islamic/Arabic golden age of science, during which Christianity was stuck in the dark ages. I am honestly deeply upset by religious fanatics who want to remake the world in the image of their ancient holy texts, rather than the modern system of secular law and scientific reason that allows different cultures to live together in peace. I'm here to prove, or disprove, the assertion that conflict is inevitable. Hopefully, it is not.

 

[fschmidt]

I am honestly here to prove, or disprove the assertions of certain european Identitarian groups. Hopefully, disprove, but that to me depends on how much faith I have in human nature

Before debating, I would like to understand this. What assertions and which groups? I am not Muslim but I am sympathetic to most traditionalist groups including traditional Anabaptists, Karaite Jews, Muslims, and the European far right.

 

[Delphi]

Yes. It's Robert Spencer's website. He's an intellectual conservative. I myself am liberal, and probably more a fan of Richard Dawkins. I would only embrace those views if confronted with a clear and present danger of a theocracy in the west. Right now in my head, the jury's out. Freedom of Religion DOES mean something to me - I'm compelled by my humanistic code to seek a better answer than just to dismiss people. However, I keep feeling that the entirety of the west will fight to the last to preserve that freedom of conciousness and existence. However, far be it for us to tell traditionally Muslim countries what to do. I'd prefer to live, let live, and not intervene militarily unless for defensive purposes. I guess that means, yes, Afghanistan, no, Iraq. Ideally people would stay within their traditional spheres of influence and practice their traditional culture the way they wished.

 

[Delphi]

Pegida, the AFD, the English Defense League, ect. I don't like neofacists. My ancestors fought to keep england free of facist evil. "We will fight on the beaches, we will fight in the hills and on the landing grounds." I am honestly hoping they are wrong - that conflict is not inevitable. I think it revolves around the central matter of religion being a private matter of concience vs something that the state has the duty to endorse, enforce and promote. This is the age old conflict in western culture and after endless religious wars in Europe, our answer was that "It's a private matter. You can believe whatever you want, but you can't use force to enforce that. God/the divine/the universe will sort it out when you die." It's this law of peace that keeps multiculturalism together. We've all agreed to live, let live, and let the other live.

 

[fschmidt]

Delphi, okay I see. I didn't know about jihadwatch. So a few comments...

I am a strong supporter of freedom of religion myself. Both traditional Christianity and traditional Islam have a good record for freedom of religion. Atheism has a terrible record. Christian history is mixed with Catholicism being pretty bad, but America was a Christian nation when it was founded and put in place very strong guards of freedom of religion. Islam actually has freedom of religion built directly into it with the dhimmi concept. This has been abused in the last few centuries, but hopefully Muslims will reject modern ideas and return to their roots which support freedom of religion. I don't think the world has ever seen a more intolerant religion than Atheism. Its most transparent form was communism, but modern liberalism is the same, only more hypocritical and so less transparent in its aim of destroying other religions. Here is an example just from today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPRdK4x7ojk

Now regarding jihadwatch... I only skimmed this but I assume it is standard far right anti-Muslim stuff. You may wonder how I can be sympathetic to both Islam and the European far right when they oppose each other. So let me explain. Leftism is a cultural disease much like cancer is to the body. It has made Western Europe rotten. In its weakened state, Western Europe is open to be taken over by some other culture. The obvious contestants are Islam and the European far right. They are competing to take over Western Europe, so naturally they oppose each other, but either one would be far preferable to the rot of Leftism. Here is a good explanation:

https://caamib.wordpress.com/2016/01/28/i-support-the-islamization-of-europe/

 

[Delphi]

I can respect the police harassing a person in grade 1 for handing out bible verses being a bit ridiculous. I learnt a lot about science at about the same age.

I'm not sure what to say about the second link. I'm honestly a lot more comfortable with traditional Chrstianity and the alt-right. It just seems to represent a very cynical view of human nature. If we're all just competing tribes of apes then eventually someone will raise the mating duel ante to nuclear weapons, and then we're all doomed, or the resulting cataclysm will severely damage our potential as a species. To me the only answer against our primitive nature is logic and reason.

 

[fschmidt]

I'm not sure what to say about the second link. I'm honestly a lot more comfortable with traditional Chrstianity and the alt-right. It just seems to represent a very cynical view of human nature. If we're all just competing tribes of apes then eventually someone will raise the mating duel ante to nuclear weapons, and then we're all doomed, or the resulting cataclysm will severely damage our potential as a species. To me the only answer against our primitive nature is logic and reason.

Don't you see the irony in your statement? From an evolutionary point of view, we are all just competing tribes of apes. Do you believe in evolution? I do. In fact the Old Testament, which I follow, also fundamentally views people as just competing tribes of apes. Leftism views people as some kind of gods who have escaped the forces of biology. So which view do you think is more scientifically accurate?

At this point, I am honestly starting to support the idea of nuclear war. Humanity is currently in rapid genetic decay, thanks to leftism and feminism. Some abrupt force is needed to put strong survival pressure on humanity to cause positive genetic selection to prevent irreversible genetic decay which would cause us to become primitive primates. I think nuclear war would do the trick.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I have no interest in stepping on Delphi's figurative toes, and I have little interest in debates online, but I will answer your questions And I will point out that wherever you wind up with Delphi, is Delphi and Delphi alone, and the same would be true of myself or any other atheist, as there is no common dogma for atheism - it literally just means one who doesn't have a belief in Gods. I've had as many disagreements with fellow atheists as I have had with theists

First, why are you here? To learn about Islam? Are you more interested in Islam than other religions? If yes, why?

I cam here shortly after 9/11 and all of the hysteria and islamophobia that came after it. I found a lot of what people were saying hard to believe, and some of it was just plain obviously wrong. I am Canadian, and I had people from the USA insisting to me that Canada had adopted sharia law and that we were cutting off hands, etc. I came here to see what other things I'd heard about Islam were false, and what may be true. I got answers pretty quickly, and in doing so formed some long lasting online friendships with some Muslims here. I am glad that I came here, as it helps me to rebuff islamophobic statements of other non-muslims around me in real life, and it helps me to broaden my view and see things from a perspective that is alien to my own.

Plus it just downright fascinates me. In Islam I am seeing an entire world view and extensive system of how life should be lived, including just about every aspect of it, based on what I see as the imaginary. And these are very intelligent and very well meaning people who honestly think this way. How and why does that happen? How could that not fascinate me?

Are you against religion? Against all religions, some religions, or no religions?

That really depends. I can see some positives to religion: the sense of community, the ingroup bonding, the music and poetry and art and cultural contributions, the hope for ultimate justice, the comfort factor, etc. I also see a lot of negatives though, mostly the concepts of faith and revelation (rather than science and skepticism) as a virtue, and obedience to power trumping empathy etc. More specific negatives vary from religion to religion, but for me on the whole I see religion as a net negative.

When it comes to Christianity, I especially dislike the concepts of original sin (that I could be held responsible for something an ancestor did) and of vicarious redemption (that somebody else is allowed to pay for my "sins"). I also see the God depicted in the bible (which is a fictional character from my viewpoint) as more of a tyrant than saviour. When it comes to Islam, I am especially concerned over the pushing of obedience as virtue, and the idea that we should be "slaves" to Allah. I find a lot of the cultural aspects and fringe elements of it very troubling as well, but that varies wildly from Muslim to Muslim. I recognize that daesh is an outlier, but I do see them as following what they see as Islam.

How do you define God?

It changes every time I hear from a new theist. I try to listen to what they believe is God and try to address that accordingly. I know some people who believe that God is an active mind that literally watches all we do and literally interferes with our lives daily, that they will face him when they die like in a movie, etc. And I also know some deists as well as some people who think of "God" as nothing more than love or kindness itself, which would make me by their definition not an atheist.

Do you believe that your truths are just in your mind, or are actually in the external world (in the spirit of Plato)? If the latter, is there any more basis for this belief than for a belief in God?

I don't believe in any "Truth" to the same extent or with the same "Faith" that many religious people believe in religious truths. I am scientifically minded, and I believe that everything I think I know could be wrong (yes, including my atheism) and is subject to change with better evidence.

I will be honest, I wouldn't mind having a real debate with an atheist.

I don't know if that will be encouraged or shut down by the mods here. I do know that they have shut down threads before due to people encouraging belief in other religions or atheism. But if they allow it, then I look forward to reading through your debate with Delphi

 

[fschmidt]

Plus it just downright fascinates me. In Islam I am seeing an entire world view and extensive system of how life should be lived, including just about every aspect of it, based on what I see as the imaginary. And these are very intelligent and very well meaning people who honestly think this way. How and why does that happen? How could that not fascinate me?

There are actually many systems (religions) of how life should be lived. It is very healthy to recognize this, but this seems very rare in modern culture.

When it comes to Christianity, I especially dislike the concepts of original sin (that I could be held responsible for something an ancestor did) and of vicarious redemption (that somebody else is allowed to pay for my "sins").

I am not Christian, but I would like to answer this. The concept of original sin originated with Saint Augustine and is not intrinsic to Christianity. Eastern Orthodox Christians don't have this concept. They also don't really have the concept of vicarious redemption. Their view is Jesus's death made salvation possible. A completely secular way of understanding this is that Jesus's death made possible the spread of monotheism which made possible Islam, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment, thereby saving the West from terminal cultural decline that was seen in most other parts of the world (Mayans for example).

I also see the God depicted in the bible (which is a fictional character from my viewpoint) as more of a tyrant than saviour. When it comes to Islam, I am especially concerned over the pushing of obedience as virtue, and the idea that we should be "slaves" to Allah. I find a lot of the cultural aspects and fringe elements of it very troubling as well, but that varies wildly from Muslim to Muslim. I recognize that daesh is an outlier, but I do see them as following what they see as Islam.

Humans are primates who are only capable of being moral under the direction of a strong alpha-male. God serves as a virtual alpha-male who promotes morality. Without this, high levels of morality are not possible, as history proves.

It [definition of God] changes every time I hear from a new theist.

Don't you think that if you are going to say that X doesn't exist, you should know what X is and not change the meaning of X all the time?

I don't believe in any "Truth" to the same extent or with the same "Faith" that many religious people believe in religious truths. I am scientifically minded, and I believe that everything I think I know could be wrong (yes, including my atheism) and is subject to change with better evidence.

You still aren't differentiating yourself from the religious here. Many religious people would say that they aren't certain of the nature of God and that whatever they believe about this "is subject to change with better evidence". But they have faith that God exists. Analogously, I am not asking you about a specific truth, rather I am asking you whether you believe that external Truth exists regardless of exactly what that Truth is? And if so, what is the basis of this belief?

I don't know if that will be encouraged or shut down by the mods here. I do know that they have shut down threads before due to people encouraging belief in other religions or atheism.

I don't know either, but I do know that on any forum in modern culture, this thread would have been shut down already, so Islam is already proving itself a better supporter of free speech.

 

[jabeady]

I am surprised to see atheists here. I thought they preferred to stay in their safe echo chambers. As a former atheist myself, I hope they don't mind if I ask them a few questions.

First, why are you here? To learn about Islam? Are you more interested in Islam than other religions? If yes, why?

Yes.
Yes.
I am interested in Islam because I know nothing about one of the major forces in the world today.

Are you against religion? Against all religions, some religions, or no religions?

I am not opposed to any religion, provided that religion does not attempt to impose itself onto others.

How do you define God? Do you believe that your truths are just in your mind, or are actually in the external world (in the spirit of Plato)? If the latter, is there any more basis for this belief than for a belief in God?

I define God as a super-being capable of suspending, violating or amending the laws of physics at will.

Atheism is neither truth nor belief. It is a lack of belief, period. That I do not believe in God is not to say that I believe God does not exist, it is rather that I see no verifiable evidence supporting his existence. Give me verifiable, incontrovertible evidence that he exists and I will change my interpretation of the totality of the evidence accordingly.

I will be honest, I wouldn't mind having a real debate with an atheist. This is generally impossible because I am banned virtually everywhere where atheists are found, since modern culture is the world's most intolerant culture.

Hmm...

 

[fschmidt]

I am interested in Islam because I know nothing about one of the major forces in the world today.

Very good. Have you tried reading the Quran?

I am not opposed to any religion, provided that religion does not attempt to impose itself onto others.

Also very good. So then if a Christian baker doesn't want to sell a cake to a homosexual couple, Secularism should not impose its views on him and force him to sell the cake, right?

I define God as a super-being capable of suspending, violating or amending the laws of physics at will.

But quantum mechanics shows that basically all aspects of reality are probabilistic, this being significant at the quantum level and becoming increasing statistically insignificant as mass increases. But still, this proves that essentially any imaginable miracle is possible without violating the laws of physics, just highly unlikely. Therefore God can do almost any miracle without "suspending, violating or amending the laws of physics".

Atheism is neither truth nor belief. It is a lack of belief, period. That I do not believe in God is not to say that I believe God does not exist, it is rather that I see no verifiable evidence supporting his existence. Give me verifiable, incontrovertible evidence that he exists and I will change my interpretation of the totality of the evidence accordingly.

We will need to clarify your definition of God before I can do this.

 

[jabeady]

Very good. Have you tried reading the Quran?

Yes, and I find the official translations difficult to follow. I can read Shakespearian English quite easily, but would really like to find a plain-English version.

Also very good. So then if a Christian baker doesn't want to sell a cake to a homosexual couple, Secularism should not impose its views on him and force him to sell the cake, right?

This is a political, not a religious, question. It is being decided in our courts, and I will comply with the decision.

But quantum mechanics shows that basically all aspects of reality are probabilistic, this being significant at the quantum level and becoming increasing statistically insignificant as mass increases. But still, this proves that essentially any imaginable miracle is possible without violating the laws of physics, just highly unlikely. Therefore God can do almost any miracle without "suspending, violating or amending the laws of physics".

I think I see why you have trouble on most atheist forums. The invocation of quantum mechanics is seen as a red flag that pseudoscience is being introduced.

Personally, I wasn't there when the universe came into being; all I know is that physicists are generally quite happy with the Big Bang theory, although there are indications that it may be due for some alterations. It is my understanding, however, that quantum mechanics, while they may signify a realm where the rules of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics no longer apply as we know them, still conform to certain rules of their own, which we are only now beginning to dimly recognize.

We will need to clarify your definition of God before I can do this.

See above. I believe my definition of God stands, as is. If you wish to discuss the Theistic v Deistic views of God, I'll bow out until God's existence has been validated.

 

[fschmidt]

I am not opposed to any religion, provided that religion does not attempt to impose itself onto others.

This is a political, not a religious, question. It is being decided in our courts, and I will comply with the decision.

I am confused. How can a religion impose itself on others if not politically?

I think I see why you have trouble on most atheist forums. The invocation of quantum mechanics is seen as a red flag that pseudoscience is being introduced.

Personally, I wasn't there when the universe came into being; all I know is that physicists are generally quite happy with the Big Bang theory, although there are indications that it may be due for some alterations. It is my understanding, however, that quantum mechanics, while they may signify a realm where the rules of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics no longer apply as we know them, still conform to certain rules of their own, which we are only now beginning to dimly recognize.

I have a very strong background in science. I was raised atheist and studied science and history when I was young. I only became interested in religion later. The reason that atheists hate me is because I can respond to anything they throw at me, because I completely understand their way of thinking.

Science doesn't deal with certainty to begin with. Any theory may be disproven later. But the best theories of science can be subject to controlled experiments. Anyone who believes in inductive reasoning will accept such theories. Other theories are accepted because they seem to be the simplest explanation given the facts, in other words the most probable explanation. The Big Bang theory is such a theory. I happen to believe in the Big Bang, but I would never tell a religious person that his view of the origin of the universe is wrong, only that I personally find it less probably than the Big Bang theory. It is arrogant atheist with a shallow understanding of science who tend to be the harshest critics of religious views.

Finally I will explain the relationship of quantum mechanics, relativity, and Newtonian physics. All science is just an attempt to describe some realm of nature. Newtonian physics came first and accurately describes physics at human scale (in terms of mass and speed). But this broke down at high speed, so relativity came in and described the world at human scale and up in mass and speed. Newtonian physics works out mathematically to be an approximation of relativity at human scale. Quantum mechanics deals with the very small. Our human concepts break down here, but we can describe things mathematically without really understanding it conceptually. Quantum mechanics does not describe relativity, these are simply different domains so far. But to not describe doesn't mean to not apply. Of course relativity should apply to the very small, but it is focused on forces like gravity that are not significant here, so relativity doesn't actually describe much. Similarly, quantum mechanics applies to larger scale but is not significant enough to describe much. I hope that clarifies things.

See above. I believe my definition of God stands, as is.

Actually it doesn't. My criticism of your definition based on quantum mechanics is still unanswered.

 

[Pygoscelis]

They also don't really have the concept of vicarious redemption. Their view is Jesus's death made salvation possible. A completely secular way of understanding this is that Jesus's death made possible the spread of monotheism which made possible Islam, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment, thereby saving the West from terminal cultural decline that was seen in most other parts of the world (Mayans for example).

Vicarious redemption is at the core of the idea of Jesus "dying for your sins" and redeeming you through him, etc.

What does Jesus' death have to do with monotheism? You don't need a dead demi-god to have monotheistic beliefs. Nor do monotheistic beliefs save you from cultural decline.

God serves as a virtual alpha-male who promotes morality. Without this, high levels of morality are not possible, as history proves.

Obedience to king, fuhr, dictator or God may be a means of creating and maintaining order, but it is not morality. Morality is listening to our evolved senses of empathy and fairness. It sometimes means going AGAINST power. Might does not mean right. And in the case of Gods, ultimate might does not mean ultimate right.

Don't you think that if you are going to say that X doesn't exist, you should know what X is and not change the meaning of X all the time?

It would be disingenuous for me to insist on what God is and then argue against such a straw man. I have no identity or ownership over the word "God", and I am quite happy for you to define it and then to respond to your claims from there. As I said, it changes drastically from theist to theist.

You still aren't differentiating yourself from the religious here. Many religious people would say that they aren't certain of the nature of God and that whatever they believe about this "is subject to change with better evidence".

If they have an evidence based and falsifiable belief in God readily changed by evidence, then I agree, such a theist would not be very different from myself. That isn't the sort of theist I routinely encounter, especially online.

I don't know either, but I do know that on any forum in modern culture, this thread would have been shut down already, so Islam is already proving itself a better supporter of free speech.

What do you mean by "modern culture" and why are you excluding Islam from it? Are you saying that Islam is archaic or backwards culture? And none of the forums I visit that would have shut this thread down thus far, not even this one.

You seem to think that atheists hate you, etc. I can't see why that'd be so. Other than if you happen to carry on in a rude manner, which you haven't thus far. I can point you to an atheist forum where people will openly, calmly, and fairly address you if you would like.