Do you believe in (dis)belief?

[------]

:salamext:

Is just a concept, an human creation to be admired.

Whatever u say lol

 

[ricardo_sousa]

just a note to say that when I say "admired", I mean admire all the creations that humans invented to worship this "concept": churches, mosques, synagogue, the holly books... all the creations.

 

[Woodrow]

exactly. We can´t disprove anything. But you believe in one God... you believe in your faith...

But for me "God" is a concept created by humans, just like art... There isn´t anything to believe or disbelieve... Is just a concept, an human creation to be admired.

And this is my response to this thread.

I may not agree with you, but I do appreciate your making a concrete legitimate statement.

I can not disprove your statement. However, I am satisfied that I have found sufficient evidence that Allaah(swt) exists as an actual entity and not simply as a concept. To me the first evidence is words of the people that have had actual communication with him. The second is I am convinced that the Qur'an was not written in the words of Muhammad(PBUH). The third is the fact we exist, a creator is the most logical method by which matter would have come into existence.

 

[caroline]

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any atheists who do actively believe with certainty that there is no deity.

Wouldn't that make them agnostics? I was under the impression that atheists firmly believe there is NO God or Deity and that agnostics believe there might be but nobody can be certain because it can't be proven.

If I am correct in my definition of the two beliefs then you would be agnostic, not atheist.

 

[جوري]

According to Islamic teaching, are those people divinely intended to be unbelievers? Is it outside of their control?

Peace

It has to do with the creation of man from the earth.. I am sure you are familiar with

When God wanted to create Adam, he sent one of the Angels of the Throne to
bring some of the earth's clay to fashion Adam from it. When the angel came to earth to take the clay, the
earth told him: "I beseech you by the One Who sent you not to take anything from me to make someone
who will be punished one day." When the angel returned empty-handed, God asked him why he did not
bring back any clay. The angel said: "The earth beseeched me by Your greatness not to take anything from
it." Then God sent another angel, but the same thing happened, and then another, until God decided to
send Azra'il, the Angel of Death. The earth spoke to him as it had spoken to the others, but Azra'il said:
"Obedience to God is better than obedience to you, even if you beseech me by His greatness." And Azra'il
took clay from the earth's east and its west, its north and its south, and brought it back to God. God poured
some water of paradise on this clay and it became soft, and from it He created Adam

So it is understood by many, that the heart of man, is made of the earth, and if it were the good earth, so too shall his heart, and if it were the rotten earth so too shall his heart.. faith and goodness is truly a matter of the heart of man, a part of his free will to reflect, and decide, then his heart will lead him to the path of righteousness or will lead him to stray.......

Hope that helps?


peace!

 

[Gator]

Wouldn't that make them agnostics? I was under the impression that atheists firmly believe there is NO God or Deity and that agnostics believe there might be but nobody can be certain because it can't be proven.

If I am correct in my definition of the two beliefs then you would be agnostic, not atheist.

The way I've heard it argued, an agnostic is a person who believes the definitive existence or non-existence of God/s is unknowable.

From that point, you have to come down as to whether you believe, disbelieve or just don't know given your own reasoning.

I'm an agnostic in that the definitive proof of a god is unknowable, but am an atheist given my experience and how I interpret things, there's no god.

 

[aysenil]

just a fair question: why believe in just one God, when we can believe in several Gods, like the romans, greeks, egypcians...?

because it is true that we can disprove the existence of God, but can we disprove the existence of several Gods?

This is one of the best explanations of why God allows pain and suffering that I have seen...

A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed.
As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation.
They talked about so many things and various subjects.
When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said:
"I don't believe that God exists."
"Why do you say that?" asked the customer. "Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist.
Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people?
Would there be abandoned children?
If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain.
I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things."
The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument.
The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop.
Just after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard.
He looked dirty and unkempt. The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the barber:
"You know what? Barbers do not exist."
"How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber.
"I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!"
"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because
if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside."
"Ah, but barbers DO exist! That's what happens when people do not come to me."
"Exactly!" affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist!
That's what happens when people do not go to Him and don't look to Him for help.
That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."

 

[Woodrow]

I don't believe people exist. It would be a biological fault for humans to ever form and if by accident they did form they would not have the ability to reproduce at a rate to replace all that die through their own hands.

1. Humans have a predisposition to destroy their own kind.

2. Humans are susceptible to a multitude of fatal diseases.

3. Humans have a complex unstable mating ritual that severally complicates reproduction.

4. Humans have no hereditary survival skills.

5. Humans have no established innate hereditary instincts and depend on learning to survive.

6. Humans have no instinctive nesting ability and would not know how to find shelter from severe weather.



Based on that, it would be impossible for a viable colony of humans to ever develop and if a small colony did somehow form, it would not last more than one or two generations.

Therefore I do not believe in the existence of humans. Prove me wrong.

 

[BlackMamba]

So god will send me to hell because he sealed my heart? :-\

Well I might have put a misleading quote. Look at this verse from surah Nisaa.

"but God has sealed their hearts in result of their denial of the truth, and [now] they believe in but few things - " (4:155)
So because they denied the truth Allah has sealed their hearts.

 

[wilberhum]

Well I might have put a misleading quote. Look at this verse from surah Nisaa.

"but God has sealed their hearts in result of their denial of the truth, and [now] they believe in but few things - " (4:155)
So because they denied the truth Allah has sealed their hearts.

Thanks.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Wouldn't that make them agnostics? I was under the impression that atheists firmly believe there is NO God or Deity and that agnostics believe there might be but nobody can be certain because it can't be proven.

If I am correct in my definition of the two beliefs then you would be agnostic, not atheist.

Like Woodrow said above, there is no way to disprove anything with certainty. I hold the likelihood of the Christian or Muslim God existing as about the same as there being an invisible alien sitting on my shoulder right now as I type this. I can't 100% disprove either isn't true, but I'm convinced enough that they are untrue that I'd call myself atheist instead of agnostic.

 

[Woodrow]

Like Woodrow said above, there is no way to disprove anything with certainty. I hold the likelihood of the Christian or Muslim God existing as about the same as there being an invisible alien sitting on my shoulder right now as I type this. I can't 100% disprove either isn't true, but I'm convinced enough that they are untrue that I'd call myself atheist instead of agnostic.

To me the only problem I find with some people is they tend to convince themselves that the inability to disprove equals proof and the inability to prove equals disprove.

 

[KAding]

For a number of years I strongly doubted that anybody truly believed in the Gods of the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim religions. I thought people deep down knew the stories were just stories and that they only went along with them to fit into culture and to gain a sense of belonging, purpose, direction, cosmic justice etc.

I have also met many theists who do not seem to be able to accept that non-believers truly don't believe in God. They insist that atheists do believe in God but rebel against him and hide their belief in him.

I think there is a strong tendency for many of us to gravitate towards these positions, both believer and non-believer alike. But I may be wrong. What are your views on this? Do you believe in (non)belief? Do you believe others do?

I've never had any trouble believing that others really do believe what they say the believe!

You actually see a similar tendency among many people when they discuss politics. Activists in particular often refuse to simply take people's word for it, they always seek hidden motives.

 

[Qingu]

That's a really good question, Pygo. I sometimes get frustrated when I'm debating religious people and have doubts that they actually believe what they say they believe, because their arguments don't make any sense to me.

But I remember when I believed in God, before I became an atheist. Up until I was around 13 years old, I just never really questioned what my parents told me and what society as a whole told me, I never had reason to. I pledged allegiance to the flag, under God. I said prayers to God every weekend at synagogue. From an extremely young age, I watched as every weekend my parents and everyone else in the temple stood up and sat down at the command of our rabbi, who was (I was told) a mystical sort of teacher, or (later) someone who's studied God more than I did and so knew better than me.

I really believed all that stuff, even though I never really thought too critically about it. I remember the first time I heard the Beatles song "Imagine" I got really confused by the lyrics. I had always just tacitly accepted that God existed and religion was good that the lyrics almost didn't register, like they didn't make sense: "How could no religion be a good thing?"

A lot of religious people say their faith "transcends logic," and that they would believe even if they didn't see any reason to. I definitely believe them when they say that. For me, as a kid, my belief in God certainly transcended logic. And I think, as most people raised in religious environments grow up, they tend to grab a handful of reasons that seem to support their faith, and ignore or throw away the reasons that might tell them not to.

So, I think religious people have honest beliefs, but I'm not convinced that their reasons supporting those beliefs are intellectually honest.

As for nonbelievers honestly not believing, I can't think of anything that would motivate me to be lying to myself about my atheism.

 

[Pygoscelis]

So, I think religious people have honest beliefs, but I'm not convinced that their reasons supporting those beliefs are intellectually honest.

I forget who said it but there was a prominent atheist who said something to that effect. That smart people will believe nonsensical things for non-rational reasons, but then because they are smart be able to rationalize their belief and become even more entrenched in it. And the really smart ones will come up with lots of "good reasons" to believe what they do, even though all of those reasons are justifications for what they already believe rather than logic that lead them to that belief. That's good food for thought.

 

[Muezzin]

For a number of years I strongly doubted that anybody truly believed in the Gods of the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim religions. I thought people deep down knew the stories were just stories and that they only went along with them to fit into culture and to gain a sense of belonging, purpose, direction, cosmic justice etc.

Yeah, believers tend to find attitudes like that deeply insulting.

The same is true for disbelievers when believers insist that disbelievers are just pretending.

My position? I'll try and show people my way of life, which I think is great, in the hopes of winning them over. But I won't ridicule their way of life or beliefs, since they hold them just as dearly as I hold mine.

I wish people in general (and especially on the Internet) realised this.

To the Internet Atheist Stereotypes: Stop dismissing religious people's beliefs so blithely. People died for those beliefs. Also, if you believe you are so tolerant, then show it, by not belittling anyone who does not fit into your little paradise-box of 'rationality'. Show some respect for your fellow man.

To the Internet Religious Nut Stereotypes: Stop dismissing non-religious people's beliefs so blithely. A lack of religion does not mean a lack of morals or intelligence. Insulting and belittling people you disagree with is not likely to win them over, and isn't exactly the mark of good character. Remember that the people you're insulting disbelieve as fervently as you believe. Show some respect for your fellow man.

So, I think religious people have honest beliefs, but I'm not convinced that their reasons supporting those beliefs are intellectually honest.

I forget who said it but there was a prominent atheist who said something to that effect. That smart people will believe nonsensical things for non-rational reasons, but then because they are smart be able to rationalize their belief and become even more entrenched in it. And the really smart ones will come up with lots of "good reasons" to believe what they do, even though all of those reasons are justifications for what they already believe rather than logic that lead them to that belief. That's good food for thought.

Statements like that are what I'm talking about. They smack of elitism and a sneering 'I'm smarter than you' attitude. They both come down to the maker of the statement saying, 'Well, I don't agree with religious people, therefore they're stupid and/or are deluding themselves'.

To me, they're no different than when religious people accuse atheists of lacking morality or of atheists deluding themselves. Stop with this undercutting, everyone, please! Look at it from the other side of the fence and imagine how you would feel if accused of such things simply because you hold dearly a belief that the maker of the accusation disagrees with. Forget the rightness or wrongness or the intellectual complexities, just think about basic human empathy.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I think it is one of the most difficult paradigm shifts for a person to make, to see the world as a believer if you are a disbeliever or to see it as a disbeliever if you are a believer, even for a moment and for the sake of argument. It is simply difficult to imagine the opposite being true.

This seems to go for many things and not just religion. Abortion is another. The base belief as to whether or not the unborn is our equal and deserves protection is often not recognized. And pro-life people see pro-choice people as not caring about our fellow unborn and pro-choice people see pro-life people as not caring about a woman's right to control her own body.

Its an intersting psychological thing, these mass paradigm shifts and thats what makes me find apostates and converts to and from religions for example to be so interesting. They are the few who have seen it both ways.

 

[Muezzin]

I think it is one of the most difficult paradigm shifts for a person to make, to see the world as a believer if you are a disbeliever or to see it as a disbeliever if you are a believer, even for a moment and for the sake of argument. It is simply difficult to imagine the opposite being true.

Maybe. But basic empathy isn't that hard, surely? Thinking about what effect one's words will have on the recipient before one speaks?

This seems to go for many things and not just religion. Abortion is another. The base belief as to whether or not the unborn is our equal and deserves protection is often not recognized. And pro-life people see pro-choice people as not caring about our fellow unborn and pro-choice people see pro-life people as not caring about a woman's right to control her own body.

True. It's up to the mother, ultimately. I think abortion should only be carried out if the birth would threaten the mother's life, or the baby is a product of a rape.

On the other hand, pro-choice campaigners would say it's not that simple, and that thought must be given to the mother's financial, social and familial situation etc. I would argue that the mother should adapt to her circumstances, but I would still accept and respect the mother's choice if she did decide to abort. After all, it's not my choice - it's hers.

Its an intersting psychological thing, these mass paradigm shifts and thats what makes me find apostates and converts to and from religions for example to be so interesting. They are the few who have seen it both ways.

What's weird is that in itself doesn't guarantee such a person would be open-minded and empathetic. You'd think it would, but for some reason it doesn't necessarily. Sometimes, some such people become staunch, hateful critics of the belief system they just exited, because they feel they were deceived. Which is a natural, human reaction, but not one I would support, because it doesn't promote understanding, and thus doesn't convice anyone - at best, it's venting; at worst it's self-gratification.

On the other hand, there are those who do become open-minded and accepting of others' beliefs, even if they do not share them. Just one of those things.

I've never had any trouble believing that others really do believe what they say the believe!

You actually see a similar tendency among many people when they discuss politics. Activists in particular often refuse to simply take people's word for it, they always seek hidden motives.

The worst thing about this is when people from a specific group are demonised, not because they are hurting people, but simply because the person doing the demonising doesn't agree with his target's views.

All this 'You're a wussy Liberal!' or 'You're a bloody-minded Conservative!'-type namecalling which so often seems to pass for political discussion is just childish and grossly oversimplifies the position of each party.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Maybe. But basic empathy isn't that hard, surely? Thinking about what effect one's words will have on the recipient before one speaks?

You'd think so, but really it isn't. You have to first accept that the person believes what they say they believe, and I think many don't accept that. This is why I often hear theists telling me I shouldn't defy God or shouldn't be so self-important as to not follow God's will etc... they don't seem to want to accept that I don't believe in any such God so can't be defying it and I don't believe in any such got so can't be refusing to follow it's orders. And I think the opposite is also often true. The atheists see the thesits as self deluded and relying on religion as a crutch and so try to show the theist secular ways to cope with issues.

Somebody should do some experiments on this. Its a phenomenon that fascinates me.

 

[Muezzin]

You'd think so, but really it isn't. You have to first accept that the person believes what they say they believe, and I think many don't accept that. This is why I often hear theists telling me I shouldn't defy God or shouldn't be so self-important as to not follow God's will etc... they don't seem to want to accept that I don't believe in any such God so can't be defying it and I don't believe in any such got so can't be refusing to follow it's orders. And I think the opposite is also often true. The atheists see the thesits as self deluded and relying on religion as a crutch and so try to show the theist secular ways to cope with issues.

Somebody should do some experiments on this. Its a phenomenon that fascinates me.

Frankly, I think it's just garden variety human pig-headedness. That type of stubborn arrogance is not limited to theists or atheists, but is one of those things that the whole species seems to share.

Of course, females of the species would probably insist that this type of phenemon is limited to males, and the males would probably agree if only to stop the nagging.

But I think this kind of thing comes into the will to dominate (intellectually or physically - and physical domination is just wrong on so many levels), which seems to be part of what makes us human. Not everything that makes us human is exactly... admirable, however.