Why I Am Not an Atheist

  • Thread starter Thread starter IAmZamzam
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 89
  • Views Views 14K
I can also say this exact same thing about atheists:
I feel that ultimately what atheistic people ask me requires too many assumptions about the natural world; too much about the world is just taken for granted in their minds, because they simply take it as a given out of their philosophy books.
(I almost said "science books", but I retracted because I remember that science books does not and can never explain about the origin of life and the cause of everything, so there).

I think you should change that back to 'science books'. There are a plethora of ideas on the subject of abiogenesis (and even experiments) as well as theories and ideas in cosmology and theoretical physics attempting to explain why the big bang happened. I think philosophy has very little to do with this. So contrary to your opinion, science does frequently attempt to explain the origins of life and the universe; whether you consider this a fruitful endeavour is your opinion, but I'd trust the human brain, even if we are mere mortals :)
 
(I almost said "science books", but I retracted because I remember that science books does not and can never explain about the origin of life and the cause of everything, so there).

Certainly science doesn't. But it have been adding more and more knowledge to our understanding about the beginnings of life. Religion hasn't exactly contributed anything on this issue beyond the enigmatic, often senseless (and sometimes scientifically incorrect) verses of its scriptures.

Naidamar: what assumptions does science require that are not empirically tested and proven?


Religious people are wrong in thinking that science has answers to everything -- it doesn't. Science never claimed that it did, to begin with. You see, unlike religion, which so impatiently and presumptuously lays claim to universal truth and all knowledge, science is far more flexible and cautious, because it allows for error and correction. Darwin's theory was not perfect when he first published his works in the 19th century. However, for the past 100 years evolutionary biologists have been adding to the foundations of his theory. The same goes for the Big Bang -- science changes and corrects the elements that were wrong, and adds on new things, until everything becomes clear.
 
I wonder, can one say---religion without science is mere superstition?

Faith/Trust= the use of one's intellect and reason to arrive at conviction.

I think Athiests can be spiritual-seekers. Prophet Abraham(pbuh) in the Quran rejected wrong belief and by using his intellect and reason, arrived at right belief. Likewise, when Muslims say "there is no God, but Allah"---we are first rejecting wrong belief and then afffirming right belief.

Those who question theists are doing a favor. Spiritual growth requires change and this change comes through intellectual growth. By challenging our presumptions, traditions, dogmas, a questioner is able to shine the light to "wrong belief" and thus help us get to "right belief". Intellectual growth requires seeking knowledge and seeking knowledge requires asking questions. To be a spiritual-seeker, one also needs to be a knowledge-seeker.

Athiests can be partners in our (theists) spiritual journey.
 
Naidamar: what assumptions does science require that are not empirically tested and proven?

Does science explain with empirical evidence and proof the origin of life and the cause of everything (no, I don't mean big bang. big bang is merely a result of something before)?
 
Whooooa boy...So many communication breakdowns. So many corrections of so much nonsense to be made...so many things to say and I can't even say them yet! When I come back I am going to have to write one mondo post. Sigh, until then, may God bless you all and lead all to the straight path. I think I'm going to be a few more days, or more.
 
Does science explain with empirical evidence and proof the origin of life and the cause of everything (no, I don't mean big bang. big bang is merely a result of something before)?

No, and it doesn't claim to. Religion doesn't either, and it does claim to. Therein is one key difference between the two.
 
Whooooa boy...So many communication breakdowns. So many corrections of so much nonsense to be made...so many things to say and I can't even say them yet! When I come back I am going to have to write one mondo post. Sigh, until then, may God bless you all and lead all to the straight path. I think I'm going to be a few more days, or more.

What is the point of entering a thread just to tell people they are communication breakdown and full of nonsense? Seriously, if you have nothing more to offer at this time why interject just to express disdain? Why not wait until you are up to the task of making the points you wish to make (perhaps civilly).
 
I wonder, can one say---religion without science is mere superstition?

That would imply that science is applicable to religious claims. Is it? I suppose it is applicable to some specific claims such as if the bible says the earth is flat (as some have argued), but for the spiritual side of things I don't think science can say anything at all. You can study empirically what is beyond the empirical. You can of course study religion as a cultural and psychological phenomenon of course. The psychology of religion is a very interesting topic actually. What causes people to believe what they do, why do some resist more than others, etc.

Faith/Trust= the use of one's intellect and reason to arrive at conviction.

I would say that "Faith" is the opposite of reason. People have faith in many things, even outside a religious context, that they have no reason to believe, or even have reason to believe against. Many people have faith in their husbands or wives that they didn't do a crime or were not unfaithful even as evidence mounts against them. You may hear something like "He couldn't have done that, I have faith that he is a good person" . You also may hear "I have faith that he will come home safely from the war" even though his chances of survival are slim. Cold hard reason and logic would lead us to unacceptable conclusions (My husband killed that man / My son will die in the war) so we decide to believe something else. That decision to believe something because we wish to, without evidence, or in the face of counter evidence, is what I call faith.

I think Athiests can be spiritual-seekers. Prophet Abraham(pbuh) in the Quran rejected wrong belief and by using his intellect and reason, arrived at right belief. Likewise, when Muslims say "there is no God, but Allah"---we are first rejecting wrong belief and then afffirming right belief.

That is a good point and it is exactly something the OP was addressing I think. You as Muslims truly are atheists in respect to all other religions, so you should be able to put yourselevs in our shoes so to speak. You actually do say "there is no God" and then add "but Allah".
 
Last edited:
Does science explain with empirical evidence and proof the origin of life and the cause of everything (no, I don't mean big bang. big bang is merely a result of something before)?

Explanations for 'the origin of life' or 'the cause of everything' are not necessary assumptions for science. One example of a necessary assumption is in fact, causation itself, and Hume provided a very strong argument why we have absolutely no rational reason to believe that 'cause and effect' exists at all! As far as I'm aware, his argument has never been 'refuted', although Kant provided a 'way out' for empirical science, much to the relief of everybody at the time. :statisfie

Another example would be the axioms of mathematics.


Whooooa boy...So many communication breakdowns. So many corrections of so much nonsense to be made...

I take it that's just your little way of saying you disagree with some of the points raised by other posters? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I agree that atheism iitself is no replacement for religion. There is actually a lively debate amongst atheists right now: If not religion, then what? Religion does offer certain things such as a sense of community, comfort from various fears (ie, fear of death etc), answers to the unanswerable, a sense of cosmic justice (that people who do wrong will pay for it even if we can't make them), etc. Most of this can be found outside of religion, but it doesn't come in one ready made package and it isn't always as comfortable, and I think that is a major reason why faith is so attractive to people.

Uncertainty and admitting ignorance can be uncomfortable. It takes a certain sort of humility to accept the limitations of our knowledge and admit that there are some things that we simply do not (and perhaps can never) know. And it can be uncomfortable to realize that we have to build our own justice and that sometimes bad things do happen to good people for no fair reason. The world can be harsh (all the more reason to help each other out). It can be tempting to lean on religion as a crutch against this, which is fine and can be good, so long as that crutch doesn't become a weapon, and doesn't create hostile divisions, and so long as people don't rely on it to such an extent that they fail to create justice and address problems for themselves (instead of relying on the gods).

Religion provides humanity with Guidence - if no religion then humanity is in a game to do whatever it wants - including rape, kill and destory and if theres nobody to stop them then thats the way it is.

Furthermore atheism doesnt have the answers or the questions - its just meaningless - nothing to bulid on whats so ever. If thats your cup of tea then you can have it.

would say that "Faith" is the opposite of reason. People have faith in many things, even outside a religious context, that they have no reason to believe, or even have reason to believe against. Many people have faith in their husbands or wives that they didn't do a crime or were not unfaithful even as evidence mounts against them. You may hear something like "He couldn't have done that, I have faith that he is a good person" . You also may hear "I have faith that he will come home safely from the war" even though his chances of survival are slim. Cold hard reason and logic would lead us to unacceptable conclusions (My husband killed that man / My son will die in the war) so we decide to believe something else. That decision to believe something because we wish to, without evidence, or in the face of counter evidence, is what I call faith.

Thats not accurate
Faith in like my 1000 times grandma which I cannot find any evidence of her existence but I'm preety sure I had one - I cant prove it empirically or even historically but I'm preety certian she existed - thats faith wouldnt you say? Sound faith.

But humans are not all about reason - to even reduce the world of humanity to reason is killing the human spirit - Faith, emotion is part of humanity and as important - some people even base there entire life on emotions - they get marriad, have children, live a particular place not because its rational but because out of emotion.

Faith in God is preety straight forward especially when there is no reason not to believe in God.
 
Last edited:
Religion provides humanity with Guidence - if no religion then humanity is in a game to do whatever it wants - including rape, kill and destory and if theres nobody to stop them then thats the way it is.

Your understanding of human nature is completely wrong. All humans have one thing in common: the pursuit of happiness. The only way humans are going to survive and live comfortably (which is necessary to happiness for most people) is by creating societies. Societies can't exist if people are killing each other and raping each others women; therefore, humans will create laws and customs condemning such behavior for the greater good of everyone else so it follows that people will not rape each other and not kill each other because it would detrimental to their own happiness.
 
Furthermore atheism doesnt have the answers or the questions - its just meaningless - nothing to bulid on whats so ever. If thats your cup of tea then you can have it.

As has been stated ad nauseam atheism is simply the belief (or doctrine, if you prefer) that there is no God. It makes no claims beyond that whatsoever.

There are plenty of alternatives for moral 'guidance' other than those claimed to originate with God including both those that are religions, such as Buddhism, and those with no religious content at all, such as utilitarianism.
 
Your understanding of human nature is completely wrong. All humans have one thing in common: the pursuit of happiness. The only way humans are going to survive and live comfortably (which is necessary to happiness for most people) is by creating societies. Societies can't exist if people are killing each other and raping each others women; therefore, humans will create laws and customs condemning such behavior for the greater good of everyone else so it follows that people will not rape each other and not kill each other because it would detrimental to their own happiness.

People can make laws and customs to support there "persuit of happiness" - which can range from preety much anything - its so open that anything goes. From raping killing, to making hospitals, getting marriad, massing material weath on the backs of others or any other thing that people believe will gain them happiness.
 
Last edited:
As has been stated ad nauseam atheism is simply the belief (or doctrine, if you prefer) that there is no God. It makes no claims beyond that whatsoever.

There are plenty of alternatives for moral 'guidance' other than those claimed to originate with God including both those that are religions, such as Buddhism, and those with no religious content at all, such as utilitarianism.

as i said meaningless. This just shows that humanity needs guidence and authority - If they dont take it from the divine they will just go some where else - but still looking for Guidence - be it Buddhism, Kant, virtue theory, emotions etc etc.
 
Last edited:
Not true at all - its happend in the past - people can make laws and customs to support there "persuit of happiness" - which can range from preety much anything - its so open that anything goes.

no like i said in my previous post you can't have a society where 'everything goes'. people form societies for mutual benefit and people don't form societies where they agree to let their women get raped and their family members get killed. i think you are confusing relativity of values with 'anything goes' which is a mistake religious people often make. just because a group of people's standards is relative to that group of people it does not mean their vlaues will be 'raping and killing eachother'. humans are one species and it is inevitable that some of our qualities and desires will be universal (i.e., avoidance of pain and seeking happiness-as with all living things). this, right off the bat, makes it impossible for 'anything goes'.


what the? where did you come up with this and made it so collective a human pursuit?

people don't want to be happy? i don't mean some platonic sense of 'true happiness' i am talking everything that stimulates pleasure or happiness even if that's eating a sandwhich in the morning or praying 5 times a day for spiritual fulfillment or to avoid going to hell. i think every decision anyone ever makes is for the purpose of feeling happy or pleasure. even little girls who cut themselves with razor blades do so for relief.
 
people don't want to be happy? i don't mean some platonic sense of 'true happiness' i am talking everything that stimulates pleasure or happiness even if that's eating a sandwhich in the morning or praying 5 times a day for spiritual fulfillment or to avoid going to hell. i think every decision anyone ever makes is for the purpose of feeling happy or pleasure. even little girls who cut themselves with razor blades do so for relief.

I don't know what people want to be.. however I don't even understand the conditions, definition or state of happiness per humanity. If we're to go by opinions then I personally think folks seek contentment rather than happiness.. you started to be besotted in the middle there and then completely closed off on a confabulation.. what the hell are you babbling about of avoiding hell and cutting with razor blades?..
 
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1393614 said:


I don't know what people want to be.. however I don't even understand the conditions, definition or state of happiness per humanity. If we're to go by opinions then I personally think folks seek contentment rather than happiness..



there is no need to talk about contentment or anything like that. i am simply talking about basic pleasures; humans as biological organisms seem basic pleasures like eating, having shelter, having health, etc. I was telling zafran that these pursuits can only be attained for most people through an establishment of a society; therefore, his claim that without religion people would fall into some kind of 'free for all' is unwarranted as our biological needs would quickly generate a set of laws in which we would all compromise anyway. in other words, humans can never fall into a 'anything goes' state (with or without religion simply because no body wants a world where 'anything goes'.
 
Last edited:
there is no need to talk about contentment or anything like that. i am simply talking about basic pleasures; humans as biological organisms seem basic pleasures like eating, having shelter, having health, etc. I was telling zafran that these pursuits can only be attained for most people through an establishment of a society; therefore, his claim that without religion people would fall into some kind of 'free for all' is unwarranted as our biological needs would quickly generate a set of laws in which we would all compromise anyway. in other words, humans can never fall into a 'anything goes' state (with or without religion simply because no body wants a world where 'anything goes'.

in fact you said
All humans have one thing in common: the pursuit of happiness.
which is simply untrue.. the more people regress and become animal like the more they only seek hedonistic pleasures, you are right that, it is devoid of religion I'd agree with that, but I'd also argue against said happiness being fulfilling or even subsisting.. we are not ALL animals in spite of atheist assertions only seeking to satisfy basic needs, but I can understand why as an atheist you'd think so, and believe so. The problem I am having with what you have written is firstly it is simply untrue least of which to 'ALL' people.

all the best
 
[
QUOTE=Lynx;1393603]no like i said in my previous post you can't have a society where 'everything goes'. people form societies for mutual benefit and people don't form societies where they agree to let their women get raped and their family members get killed. i think you are confusing relativity of values with 'anything goes' which is a mistake religious people often make. just because a group of people's standards is relative to that group of people it does not mean their vlaues will be 'raping and killing eachother'. humans are one species and it is inevitable that some of our qualities and desires will be universal (i.e., avoidance of pain and seeking happiness-as with all living things). this, right off the bat, makes it impossible for 'anything goes'

Not everybody who lives in a society does it for mutual benefits - many people who are born in socities do kill people and rape people - so from there your wrong that all people have the same outlook of what the "persuit of pleasure" is. Some people will hurt people to get there way. seeking pleasure and avoiding pain does not mean conforming to a society which believes in mutual benefits. Furthermore I'm talking about indviduals - not sure where the society debate came along - that only comes about when a group of people decide that X should be the norm.
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top