I don't understand this about the atheists

[M.I.A.]

maybe to the 'sociopaths' life itself is a kill or be killed situation. You restrict it to the war, they take it one next level and think of every situation as war situation, consistent with the Darwinian model that it is about selection of the fittest, the mightiest, the most reproductively fit etc. What's the difference? Nothing.

your right in a way,

if you only see the world as competition then its quite a twisted world view.

the funny thing would be if it was natural, why would anybody second guess themselves, remain politically correct or take second place in such a world?

especially if your conversations were the rebuttals needed to take first.

an alpha male society.


its another take on morality if not religion.

and an insight into thought processes that lead to a slippery slope rather than our natural inclination that wants to achieve a higher position.


i mean if you break your head its a little hard to put back together,

there is little room for broken people within society.


and one would question how they could ever be fixed again, even after death.

not in body but mind.

maybe it is better to not break yourself in the first place and follow those with proven measure of success and happiness.


i mean people undergo some quite horrific things..

but the reward of an afterlife is the only incentive.. and nobody knows how that works.


just adding to the fire of athiesm vs religion.

 

[Pygoscelis]

but the reward of an afterlife is the only incentive.. and nobody knows how that works.

If the thought of an afterlife is the only incentive for somebody to live a good life, I imagine that would be a very empty life.

 

[glo]

If the thought of an afterlife is the only incentive for somebody to live a good life, I imagine that would be a very empty life.

That's not my perception at all.

I sometimes think that if at my moment of death instead of entering the pearly gates of heaven, the light just simply goes out and there is NOTHING (it's a very simplified and silly picture I am painting, but I hope you get my meaning ...), then I won't think "Blow it, if I'd known I would have spent my life doing X, Y and Z!".

Instead my last thought will be that it was a beautiful life and a life well spent.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I get what you are saying, but that isn't really my point.

My point is that if living for what you think may come next is the ONLY incentive you have, the only reason you have to live a good life, and the only meaning to your life.... then in my eyes that life is pretty devoid of meaning. There is SO MUCH more to live for than the promise of some afterlife. The thought of treating this life as a testing ground or waiting room for the next just sounds depressing to me.

 

[M.I.A.]

its not an empty void.

..you just cant listen and talk at the same time.


if anything it does not make ones life devoid of meaning. it makes you see the meaning in others.

and let me tell you, most people do not struggle for enjoyment of things.


they struggle to be heard.

to be in control.

...always for the things they want.


the thought of an afterlife is actually as a release,

because although you have fashioned yourself as a helper, most people will be perfectly fine without it..

its the distinction between working for a god and and knowing there are only pawns..

a rubbish analogy but until you meet the god it will have to do.


..and i doubt there are only pawns.


but it is depressing thats for sure, i cant imagine sharing a room with someone in the afterlife.. unless they reformat me or something.

and then what would be the point?


but i digress,

singing the praises of god not by experience but by scripture is the way forward.

simply because it is better received and most likely to be rewarded.

 

[TJ-alcapone]

Hello. For the haughty atheists that deny God, I will like for you to help me understand this thing better. Is that the atheist doesn't believe in Heaven and Hell right? Since he denies God, he must deny Hell also.

As an atheist myself, I am afraid you are misrepresenting the position of atheists. It isn't like you show me an object in your palm and I claim that your palm is empty. Most atheist are simply people who don't believe in the concept of god. Be it Allah, Krishna, Jesus or anything else. Take the Kalash people of the Chitral District in Northern Pakistan for example. Their religion is entirely different from the Islam that most people of Pakistan follow. So those Islamic Pakistani people are atheistic towards the religion of the Kalash people. Similarly, there are atheists like me, who don't believe in any religion or concept of god. And yes most atheists don't believe in supernatural concepts such as heaven or hell either.

I am quite poor so I may need to rob a bank, If I ever felt like killing someone I will refuse and discipline myself, I don't commit such things because I don't want to risk being in the hell of my creator even though in earnest I would ask and pray his forgiveness.

Are you suggesting that morality is the sole concept of religion (in your case Islam) and that people without it can't obtain morality through other means?

the fundamental concept you keep overlooking is that as people of religion we believe in a god.. above our own morals.

As already pointed out, this can be very dangerous. I don't think there should be any action of our lives, where we suspend our morals for a cause. Regardless of whether that is for religion, nationalism or anything else. This is the kind of rationale that terrorists employ where they are willing to suspend their otherwise presumable moral outlook to fight for a cause that is beyond them.

------------------------------------------

These are my views about morality. Morality is indeed hard wired to an extent. The is massive amounts of evidence in the world of neurological and evolutionary physiology study which suggests that morality is indeed a product of inheritance. We have of course altered this sense of morality through lamarckian evolution also where we discuss and debate about moral outlooks and decide upon what is acceptable and what is not. Morality is not the sole product of human existence and can be found easily in the animal world too. In fact, Humans and Chimps are 2 of the few species that kills members of their own species for rather simple reasons. The relationship between religion and morality has been contested heavily and there is little evidence to show that it correlates positively. In fact if you look at the data from countries across the world, high rates of religiosity usually are in line with high levels of crime.

In fact I was just reading a study on religion in relation to crime based on statistics of the FBI from 2006. The findings of the study were that:

1) In America, religiosity in most states was in the decline
2) Decreasing religious belief has either had no impact, or a slightly positive impact, on the American crime rate
3) Religiosity had no significant relationship with violent crime, but it had a notable positive correlation with property crime.

So I am afraid this assumption between religion and higher standards of morality has been invalidated amongst countries, and also amongst states of the country that I live in, USA. I am not sure of the data between states in nations other than America, as I have no access to that data.

 

[GuestFellow]

I don't really understand what's so complicated here. Atheists simply lack belief in a higher being like God.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Hello. For the haughty atheists that deny God?

not the best way to appeal to a crowd bro LOL


made my day

 

[Gator]

Hello.

Hello.

For the haughty atheists that deny God,

Oh my, this is going to be really good (speaking as a haughty atheist mind you).

I will like for you to help me understand this thing better.

Now I haven't read the rest of this but I am going to venture a guess that I have no chance in hell of achieving this.

Is that the atheist doesn't believe in Heaven and Hell right?

I would assume one comes from the other, though I won't strictly presume exclusivity having been to Tallahassee, FL (not saying which one, for which this evidence provides).

Since he denies God, he must deny Hell also.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

So then since the atheist mindset cannot conceive of Allah (swt) and his wrath

Now you have cut me to the quick, sir. Conception is most constantly on my mind.

what is to stop the atheist from doing what he wants in this world?

Ummmm, like taking a walk? Loving my family? Going rock climbing or hiking? Writing lousy short stories? Having Bar-q-ques? Watching football (American, college specifically)? Going to Trivia night on Tuesday with a friend? Teaching tennis to my kids? Watching Grey's Anatomy and Downton Abbey (total guilty pleasures)? Playing Company of Heroes with my son while watching "A Bridge too Far" (my son is an avid history buff, no really he like knows all the generals involved in the battle of Gettysburg and Fredricksburg and the historical implications of the Treaty of Versailles). Voting Democratic? Volunteering at the local library to teach Excel classes to random people? Taking my daughter swimming on Thursday nights? Reading selected books (Just finished John Krakauer's book, "Where Men win Glory" about Pat Tillman, [Not super great, but I would recommend it])? Taking my wife to dinner to cool places and concerts (next up Citizen Cope [she likes him a lot and he's kind of grown on me, so I would also recommend. Though it is music so some of the more devout Islamic members reading this may not want to check him out.). Checking out my sister's photography blog? Reading Islamic Board, Conscience of a Liberal (Paul Krugman's blog at the NY Times), Economist's View (Mark Thoma's economics blog, etc. The last two really good if you like economics)? Doing well at work? Listening to Soma FM (again music)?

To the question I would say time and money.

(Wow, that was cathartic. We should start a thread where everyone lists what they like to do. Someone do that.)

I am quite poor so I may need to rob a bank, If I ever felt like killing someone

Ahhh, so we are getting to the point. What would a person do on the margin. How would you act when the world has turned against you.

After this sentence I did read ahead and go through the responses, and of course as I would expect, many of the board's more sane (and I'm using this word in the least pejorative way to you personally as I can) religious and non-religious members have responded far better than I ever could. Thank you all.

I will refuse and discipline myself,

Really, I find your strength admirable, though I believe you may be the exception rather than the rule in certain cases of the religious and/or non-religious.

I don't commit such things because I don't want to risk being in the hell of my creator even though in earnest I would ask and pray his forgiveness.

I find this sentence odd, because as I read it, you don't do these things because you don't want to go to a really bad place that your creator (supposedly good I would think) will send you, though you would "ask and pray his forgiveness". But if you don't do them, you don't really need to be forgiven. Now I think I know what you mean, but you've built yourself a little bit of a conundrum here. Because, though you as a tower of strength of purity and goodness would never do this because you are threatened with hell, what about those who don't? They of course have transgressed the law, but yet they can ask for forgiveness? So its more of a guideline than a rule at this point I suppose.

But since the atheist doesn't believe in the Lord and has no concept of the Hell

Once again I must stress the Tallahassee experience (one way or the other, won't say which).

why he doesn't indulge all his worldly desires with impunity?

Now this is a tough question, because I have been very personal in my answer (see above, possibly exceedingly so) about what I desire. Living where I do and how I do, allows me to do these things without censure of society or government. If I live elsewhere, there may be some of these I could not do.

About the desires I (and possibly many members of this board) would categorize, and possibly relate too, as "not moral conduct". I would say may innate sense of love and fairness. The downside of what I would lose if I were to act upon desires (possibly my own secular version of hell). The stress and my basic laziness about being hassled if I were to try to act upon them.

This answer is very personal to me and you may take from it what you will in general.

Could this in fact be that the atheist deep down knows of day of judgement is coming and God's wrath awaits him and this holds him back and such?

IMHO (speaking as a haughty atheist), No.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

I don't really understand what's so complicated here. Atheists simply lack belief in a higher being like God.

It is complicated brother. This 'lack of belief' mantra has become rather fashionable position to take among new atheists. But what is it supposed to mean? And why do they take this line?


Question

In my discussions with atheists, they are using the term that they "lack belief in God". They claim that this is different from not believing in God or from saying that God does not exist. I'm not sure how to respond to this. It seems to me that its a silly word-play and is logically the same as saying that you do not believe in God. What would be a good response to this? Thank you for your time,

Answer

Your atheist friends are right that there is an important logical difference between believing that there is no God and not believing that there is a God. Compare my saying , “I believe that there is no gold on Mars” with my saying “I do not believe that there is gold on Mars.” If I have no opinion on the matter, then I do not believe that there is gold on Mars, and I do not believe that there is no gold on Mars. There’s a difference between saying, “I do not believe (p)” and “I believe (not-p).” Logically where you place the negation makes a world of difference.

But where your atheist friends err is in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.

There’s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.

So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence. He confesses that he doesn’t know whether there is a God or whether there is no God.

But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists). As Antony Flew confesses,

the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell, 1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew)

Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.

One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.

So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, “So is there a God or not?”

Source: reasonablefaith.org


In fact when pressed some new atheists have great difficulty trying to define what does atheism actually mean

Analysis, a bit humourous but you get the point.

Alright digression over.

 

[TJ-alcapone]

the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell, 1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew)

Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.

One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.

So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, “So is there a God or not?”

I think you are correct partly in your observations, except for a few inaccuracies. Primary of which is the way you have defined atheism and agnosticism. Atheists have in no way redefined the words. It is rather sad that pseudo philosophers like William Lane Craig use them for pure rhetorical purposes. I shall use the Oxford English Dictionary to assist me in my case.

agnostic: A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.
atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a god.

If you are asked IS there a god and your answer I don't know, then you are an agnostic.
If you asked do you BELIEVE in a god and you answer is no, then you are an atheist.

So again AGNOSTICISM is a knowledge based proposition.
ATHEISM is a belief based proposition. (A belief can be held for either good reasons or poor ones)

Through these definitions, all humans come under 4 philosophical brackets.

1. Gnostic Atheist - Knows and believes there is no god.
2. Agnostic Atheist - Lacks belief, but does not know there is no god.
3. Gnostic Theist - Knows and believes there is a god.
4. Agnostic Theist - Believes, but does not know there is a god.

So through these definitions, I would classify myself and most other atheists as Agnostic Atheists. I lack a belief in god, but do I possess knowledge certain of his/her/it's non existence? No. You really can't disprove the existence of entity.

Take the Russell's Celestial Teapot, a analogy devised by the philosopher Bertrand Russell intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic to disprove the claims of religions.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

There are however a small subset of atheists who suggest that there CANNOT be a god. How these set of people choose to rationalize their opinions, I have no idea and frankly can't be questioned for it as my philosophical position is different. The notion of closet agnostics is ludicrous. As I have already mentioned, atheism and agnosticism are not contradictory to one another.

 

[Pygoscelis]

So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof.

This is true with ANY unfalsifiable claim. We could just as easily speak of invisible space alien visitors or faeries in the garden. You can't prove they don't exist. Does that mean we should give them even odds of being there?

The burden of proof is on the claimant, and fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.

 

[Muhaba]

one survey showed that a pretty big percentage of people in UK would commit murder for 1 million. I don't remember what percentage but it was huge, may 90%.

all those people were probably not athiests but they were still willing to commit the crime. the reason is that they probably don't have such a strong belief in God or Hell or God's punishment otherwise they wouldn't be so willing. So why don't they commit this crime or others normally? why are they only willling to do it for such a high payment? The reason is that the stakes are high. They fear some sort of punishment in this world if not in the Next. That punishment may be from the law enforcement agency or it may be being disowned by the community or by one's family and friends or simply one's conscience. Such forms of punishment stop people from not just such horrible crimes but also lesser ones such as fruad and theft. The fear of losing one's job stops a person from fruad in the company. The fear of being arrested also stops one from fraud and theft. In some countries where law and order is lacking, there are more cases of fraud and theft and even murder, even by people claiming to believe in God. Fraud and deception is also common among weak Muslims - a shameful thing!

so a person not committing crimes or sins doesn't mean they believe in God or the Hereafter.

one evidence of this is zina (fornication - that is sexual relatins out of marriage). In places like USA and UK where this is accepted, more people indulge in it. In the Eastern countries where it is considered a shameful thing, most peopel refrain from it. Doesn't mean that all the people in eastern nations are very religious while those in the WEST are all athiests/secular.

 

[glo]

one survey showed that a pretty big percentage of people in UK would commit murder for 1 million. I don't remember what percentage but it was huge, may 90%.

I'd love to see this survey. Such a high percentage seems really unlikely.
If you find the survey, will you post it, please?

 

[TJ-alcapone]

one survey showed that a pretty big percentage of people in UK would commit murder for 1 million. I don't remember what percentage but it was huge, may 90%.

Wow you must be really gullible. Firstly what is this research, what were the factors taken into consideration? Ticking a box on a piece of paper and actually being willing to kill someone is hugely different. Such surveys are a waste of time. Murder carries a life imprisonment sentence in the UK. Besides, stop looking at ludicrous surveys such as these and look at the actual data. As I have posted even before, sociological research shows that murder rates in a nation are not effected hugely by religiosity. If anything in more religious places, propensity for violent crime increases slightly. It is time to blow this myth out of the water once in for all. Religiosity nor capital punishment, neither have ANY significant effect on murder. If at all there is a anomaly, most often the relation is proportional. That is, places with more religiosity or more capital punishment are more violent.

The two factors however which effect worldwide violent crime rates significantly are poverty and inequality. Other factors which affect it a little lesser are gun ownership and unemployment. Murder rates in Middle, Eastern and Southern Africa are significantly higher that the rest of the world. This is presumably due to poverty. Homicides rates also spike in very significant ways in countries where drug trafficking is common.

So again I repeat myself yet again. Religiosity has very little effect on homicide rates. By not looking at proper statistics, you are only willfully keeping yourself ignorant. And some muslims seriously need to rid themselves off of this holier than thou attitude. They need to stop deluding themselves to preset positions and really look at the data.