Has a Happy Person Ever Become Atheist?

[Trumble]

That is a complete non sequitur.. so it is a pity indeed as the spin has failed both of you miserably.. anyone can make a pie, and pies still don't appear ex nihilo from ingredients that just happen to be in existence .. not everyone actually I should say no one can or has created a human and the search has failed miserably!

No, it isn't a "complete non sequitur" . It actually demolishes your point very effectively. Your bluster doesn't fool me, I'm afraid... although you might be fooling yourself. Your comprehension difficulties seem to originate with confusing a philosophical thought experiment with a real-world situation - one that was, in fact, introduced by yourself. In the experiment, 'anyone' has effectively been eliminated (it is a thought experiment, remember.. in the good ol' philosophical tradition of evil demons, inverted earths and beetles in boxes), thus presenting exactly the seeming ex nihilo situation (the essential point - you are making an unjustified ASSUMPTION) you describe.

Try harder if you are 'going to bother'

Excellent advice for you to follow!

 

[جوري]

No, it isn't a "complete non sequitur"

it is indeed.

. It actually demolishes your point very effectively.

I don't see how at all?

Your bluster doesn't fool me, I'm afraid

Don't be so afraid if my bluster hasn't fooled you!

... although you might be fooling yourself.

The whole thing is of little importance to me!

Your comprehension difficulties seem to originate with confusing a philosophical thought experiment with a real-world situation

Sounds like an adequate assessment of your own hinges.

- one that was, in fact, introduced by yourself.

I am amused by how much time you've wasted on a verbose and ineffective introduction.. how deep must I dive before you make a point?

In the experiment, 'anyone' has effectively been eliminated (it is a thought experiment, remember.. in the good ol' philosophical tradition of evil demons, inverted earths and beetles in boxes), thus presenting exactly the seeming ex nihilo situation (the essential point - you are making an unjustified ASSUMPTION) you describe.

What the ha? It is much simpler than all of that homer-- let go of the orotund and follow simple logic...

Excellent advice for you to follow!

Again, no interest, I am not the one after a none-existing scientific explanation. Though once you cook one up, I am sure we'd love to hear it..

all the best

 

[Gubbleknucker]

Given that we're talking about creation ex nihilo here (i.e. making something from nothing), that's kind of shifting the goal posts.

Ok, then, why are the gods exempt from this "law"?

 

[Gubbleknucker]

Story Time

I was just fortunate enough to witness the light of the setting sun landing upon the side of a thundercloud. As I looked up, my jaw fell. I compulsively threw my shoulders back and took a deep breath of the crisp air that had been washed clean by the rain. Upon exhalation, I said aloud, "There is no god."

As the crimson hues faded to purple, an arc of lighting streaked across the sky and fizzled out within the cloud, illuminating the darkening sky. This was the finale of the brilliant contrast between light and dark taking place on the vaporous cliff up above me, and shortly thereafter a fine mist of rain began to fall, cooling my upturned face.

 

[Muezzin]

Well everybody in my household denied baking the apple pie and next to it is a Holy Book with instructions and we too can accept the obvious.

......the apple pie was baked by God and he has left a set of instructions on how to lead a culinary life.

Peace

This example fails for a few reasons.

1) In the circumstances, not even theists would claim the apple pie was made direcly by God.

2) If you're using an apple pie as an analogy for the universe at large, you're presupposing the latter was in fact created. Which contradicts the atheist standpoint.

 

[Trumble]

This example fails for a few reasons.

1) In the circumstances, not even theists would claim the apple pie was made directly by God.

You are making exactly the same mistake as Gossamer skye in confusing a thought experiment with a real world situation. In terms of that thought experiment, all of the less 'obvious' bakers have been ruled out, so the 'default', as she put it, would indeed be God.

2) If you're using an apple pie as an analogy for the universe at large, you're presupposing the latter was in fact created. Which contradicts the atheist standpoint.

It was, in fact, introduced by Gossamer skye as as an analogy for abeogenesis, not the universe at large. There is no need to presuppose that the apple pie was 'created' in sense of requiring an intelligent Creator, only that it came into being as the result of some process, natural or supernatural, that is currently unidentified.

Obviously, in the real world no theist or atheist would give serious consideration to any other possibility than that the cake was baked in the normal fashion. However, as I said, we are not concerned with a real-world situation; if we were I'm sure we could all agree that baking a pie could never be analogous to abeogenesis in any meaningful way in the first place. Gossamer's point would therefore collapse without Joe98's response even being necessary.

 

[Tony]

Don't be so afraid if my bluster hasn't fooled you!

very lol. GS u definately win the ascorbic comedy award. sometimes its a treat just anticipating ur replies. May Allah bless u and ur ever sharpening tongue sister, Ameen :laugh:

 

[Muezzin]

You are making exactly the same mistake as Gossamer skye in confusing a thought experiment with a real world situation.

It's a very flawed thought experiment then.

In terms of that thought experiment, all of the less 'obvious' bakers have been ruled out, so the 'default', as she put it, would indeed be God.

The obvious bakers have not been ruled out. Only people in the immediate vicinity. That is far too soon to revert to 'default'.

If that's the point, that religious people jump to this conclusion too soon, it would be a mistake to suggest that religious people do.

It was, in fact, introduced by Gossamer skye as as an analogy for abeogenesis, not the universe at large. There is no need to presuppose that the apple pie was 'created' in sense of requiring an intelligent Creator, only that it came into being as the result of some process, natural or supernatural, that is currently unidentified.

Yet Joe98's reply was not criticising it for being a bad analogy for abeogenesis. It read more like a very strange refutation of the Watchmaker Argument.

Ok, then, why are the gods exempt from this "law"?

Because God created this law?

I didn't intend to argue this point (because I suck at it). I was simply pointing out what appeared to be a misunderstanding of the gist of the discussion.

 

[Trumble]

It's a very flawed thought experiment then.

Why? The whole point of a thought experiment is not to present a real-life situation which are always immeasurably complex, with most complications being totally irrelevant, but to almost surgically isolate the issue at hand. By your measure all of the most famous thought experiments in the history of philosophy are 'very flawed'.

The obvious bakers have not been ruled out. Only people in the immediate vicinity. That is far too soon to revert to 'default'.

Maybe, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. In the thought experiment you could rule out some more people. Then some more people. And as many other people as you think are necessary. And end up at exactly the same place.

 

[Muezzin]

Why? The whole point of a thought experiment is not to present a real-life situation which are always immeasurably complex, with most complications being totally irrelevant, but to almost surgically isolate the issue at hand.

The apple pie example did not surgically isolate the issue at hand, almost or otherwise. Instead of crticising a bad example for abiogenesis, the writer of the message I responded to decided to make some bizarre refutation of a Watchmaker Analogy. He compounded a bad example with a worse alleged thought experiment.

By your measure all of the most famous thought experiments in the history of philosophy are 'very flawed'.

Hey, I just call them as I see them. And I seriously doubt Joe98's post was a thought experiment in the first place.

If you'd like to continue to imply that because I disagree with you on a particular example, I also necessarily disagree with every authority on every example, and am therefore wrong, go for it. It's quite amusing.

Maybe, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. In the thought experiment you could rule out some more people. Then some more people. And as many other people as you think are necessary. And end up at exactly the same place.

You're missing the point. It would be intellectually dishonest to stop questioning simply because you find no answers in the immediate vicinity. Even if you come to exactly the same place, you've done so as a result of exhausting other avenues.

You're also missing the point that it does not appear that Joe98 even intended for this to be a thought experiment.

 

[Trumble]

If you'd like to continue to imply that because I disagree with you on a particular example, I also necessarily disagree with every authority on every example, and am therefore wrong, go for it. It's quite amusing.

I am pleased you are amused. However, on re-reading your remarks it is clear either that your comment was intended to be a general one or that your phrasing left quite a lot to be desired.

You're missing the point. It would be intellectually dishonest to stop questioning simply because you find no answers in the immediate vicinity.

I don't know what point I am supposed to missing, but I'm delighted to see you actually GET the point of the whole exercise! Now maybe you could tell Gossamer skye.

You're also missing the point that it does not appear that Joe98 even intended for this to be a thought experiment.

You are suggesting this pie actually exists? Now that IS amusing . Of course he intended it to be a thought experiment. The only question is how far he, and indeed Gossamer skye, intended to portray the whole pie scenario as simulation of a potential real life event. I would have thought the obvious answer was "not very", although they may choose to disagree.

 

[Muezzin]

I am pleased you are amused. However, on re-reading your remarks it is clear either that your comment was intended to be a general one or that your phrasing left quite a lot to be desired.

Probably. A lot like this silly apple pie example.

I don't know what point I am supposed to missing, but I'm delighted to see you actually GET the point of the whole exercise!

Oh, I saw the point of the whole exercise. It's still a badly structured hypothetical situation, because if one discovered a phantom apple pie next to a holy book, one would simply not conclude that God must have made it. Yes, yes, that's the point, it's exposing a flawed principle, except I don't really see anyone subscribing to that principle, in thought or otherwise.

A better example would have been 'supposing nobody in the world ever owns up to baking this apple pie, and supposing nobody in the world ever saw anybody else baking the apple pie, would it be reasonable to assume that God Himself baked it?'

You are suggesting this pie actually exists? Now that IS amusing

I skipped breakfast.

Of course he intended it to be a thought experiment.

I was trying to give him some credit. It's such a bad hypothetical situation he couldn't possibly have intended it to be regarded with any degree of seriousness. The engine of thought experiments is illumination rather than ridicule.

 

[جوري]

I don't know what point I am supposed to missing, but I'm delighted to see you actually GET the point of the whole exercise! Now maybe you could tell Gossamer skye.

I love how you often find an alternate route to assert a non-point.
whether bombastic, satirical or by third party understanding.

Knowing what you know of 'how' apple pies come to be, you'd not dismiss an apple pie that is cooling by your window as a multiple chance event, especially if it had few burnt crusty edges.

The universe and all therein is no different in one regard (only) it isn't a multiple chance event to yield a perfect outcome or what some of you deem an askew outcome -- the only difference is, whereas you know how pies are made, you actually have no idea how the universe was made.. (you theorize) your theories are beliefs given that they are not supported by experimental & physical outcome. If you can't find a viable resolution, you'd rather deem it (whatever it is you want to deem it) than accept the obvious.. and that fails you on two grounds:

1- you have neither conceded your surrender like those who have tread the path before you (because well they are all ignorant) God of the gaps or whatever other bull **** you sedate yourselves through life with.
2- Nor have not provided an executable, practical solution to how it all came to be, one that isn't only logical but reproducible and preferably puts all under the principle of parsimony. Only the hope that science will someday avail you!

I have no idea why this circuitous route, you are like a deer caught in the headlight, except waiting for the one opportunity where you'd not only overcome death but pounce and seek revenge and the hilarity of it all, is it isn't your battle to win, if only the good atheist had come up with a better simile, perhaps this would have evolved better to your advantage..

all the best

 

[fawad]

While procrastinating during my study time I was thinking...

How come I have never heard an atheist say, I was outside on a beautiful summers day gazing at the greenery when I said to myself, "There is no God."

It always seems to be:

1. I saw suffering
2. These people acted evil and hurt me or someone else
3. The world is a bad place
4. There can't be anything on the other side, we're just animals and will turn to dust.

On the contrary, people who become Muslims or Christians mention:

1. Someone did good to me or someone else
2. The heavens and the earth so beautiful and complex
3. There has to be something out there, we're not just animals, we have eternal souls.


Seems like more often than not, atheism sprouts from negativity, while theism from positivity.

Now you may say that you "logically arrived" at atheism, but new theists would say the exact same thing about their views. This doesn't change the pattern of negativity and positivity that I mentioned above.

Well there are a lot of counter-examples to what you are saying. For example, many African Americans in the US convert to Islam in Jail when they are suffering or in a bad place. Similarly, 'born-again' Christians also result because of some incident like an injury, an accident, an illness, etc.

You cannot statistically associate a state-of-mind with the start of the changing process towards a particular religion or belief

 

[fawad]

I do not think that a Atheist can be happy, sure they can have a family life as normal as everyone, and think they are happy, but inside there will always be somethig missing, God.And when they get to the end of the road they will regret.One can not dismiss the existence of god, it is illogical in my opinion.

Lots of athiests are happy just like lots of believers are happy. Why would you say or how would you know if someone is happy or not?

I am very happy with what I believe and I suppose you're too with what you believe in,no?

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Well there are a lot of counter-examples to what you are saying. For example, many African Americans in the US convert to Islam in Jail when they are suffering or in a bad place. Similarly, 'born-again' Christians also result because of some incident like an injury, an accident, an illness, etc.

You cannot statistically associate a state-of-mind with the start of the changing process towards a particular religion or belief

I don't think you got my point though.

Many atheists say "I saw/underwent all this suffering, and If God existed there wouldn't be suffering, so I became an atheist" or something along those lines.

A person converting to Islam in jail doesn't use the suffering part as a reason for their reversion. We don't say, we saw suffering so we became Muslim.

 

[fawad]

I don't think you got my point though.

Many atheists say "I saw/underwent all this suffering, and If God existed there wouldn't be suffering, so I became an atheist" or something along those lines.

A person converting to Islam in jail doesn't use the suffering part as a reason for their reversion. We don't say, we saw suffering so we became Muslim.

Well, that could be your opinion but not a fact. Do you have any statistical study to back up your claim? Because I can claim the opposite of that but that won't make it any better?

Most people I have met (including myself) believe in atheism when they question what is being taught to them and research on it and find no or hollow answers. Basically, you have to be convinced of something to be a true believer in it, otherwise its just a son of a muslim being a muslim and a son of a christian being a christian, and that of an athiest being an atheist.

Even those born again guys think deeply and question what they have been believing before coming to that conclusion and then believing it strongly as opposed to just believing it as a routine.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Well, that could be your opinion but not a fact. Do you have any statistical study to back up your claim? Because I can claim the opposite of that but that won't make it any better?

It is not a matter of statistics. It makes absolutely no sense Islamically for anyone to claim that the existence of suffering was the cause of their belief. While on the contrary, atheist have made up arguments such as the problem of evil which center around things like suffering. The two sides are hardly even, and if you need statistics to tell you the blindingly obvious, I'm not sure this discussion will go anywhere.

Most people I have met (including myself) believe in atheism when they question what is being taught to them and research on it and find no or hollow answers. Basically, you have to be convinced of something to be a true believer in it, otherwise its just a son of a muslim being a muslim and a son of a christian being a christian, and that of an athiest being an atheist.

My point exactly. They saw suffering and think that there was no reason for it.

Even those born again guys think deeply and question what they have been believing before coming to that conclusion and then believing it strongly as opposed to just believing it as a routine.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to what we are discussing, namely the reason and not the process.

 

[fawad]

It is not a matter of statistics. It makes absolutely no sense Islamically for anyone to claim that the existence of suffering was the cause of their belief. While on the contrary, atheist have made up arguments such as the problem of evil which center around things like suffering. The two sides are hardly even, and if you need statistics to tell you the blindingly obvious, I'm not sure this discussion will go anywhere.

I think you have a pre-determined stance on what other people think. I don't know how many people have visited this forum or those whom you have had contact with and what they told you.

That's why I asked if you are basing your comment on statistics or what?

My point exactly. They saw suffering and think that there was no reason for it.

But that is your opinion. I never even mentioned anything about suffering at all. Its funny you're trying to tell me what I think or what I saw which I did not.

What I am saying is not what you said so how could it be your point exactly? You're bring the words "they saw suffering" which I never mentioned or implied. No, my decision has nothing to do with seeing any sufferings.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to what we are discussing, namely the reason and not the process.

Its relevant because contrary to what you are saying, there exists many people who either converted or reverted to Islam (or other religions) because they experienced some suffering when they made this decision and tried to console themselves or find a way out of that. This is contradictory to what you are saying that "happy people" convert to Islam and "not happy people" go to other religions or athiesm.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

I think you have a pre-determined stance on what other people think. I don't know how many people have visited this forum or those whom you have had contact with and what they told you.

That's why I asked if you are basing your comment on statistics or what?

Show me where I said this was your opinion. In addition to this, I've stated that it makes no sense in the Islamic concept but atheists have used it.

But that is your opinion. I never even mentioned anything about suffering at all. Its funny you're trying to tell me what I think or what I saw which I did not.

See above.

What I am saying is not what you said so how could it be your point exactly? You're bring the words "they saw suffering" which I never mentioned or implied. No, my decision has nothing to do with seeing any sufferings.

See above.

Its relevant because contrary to what you are saying, there exists many people who either converted or reverted to Islam (or other religions) because they experienced some suffering when they made this decision and tried to console themselves or find a way out of that. This is contradictory to what you are saying that "happy people" convert to Islam and "not happy people" go to other religions or athiesm.

I'm repeating myself now.

The existence of suffering and evil is one of the reasons people choose to become atheists because they think that if there was a benevolent God, stuff liek that wouldn't happen. See, again, "the problem of evil" which has been used to attack theists by atheists. The existence of suffering doesn't lead a person to believe. Rather, belief would help them persevere.

You see that in one case suffering is the reason (atheists) and in the other suffering is not the reason (theists).