fellow atheists

[yourfriend58]

I am a Muslim .I believe in one almighty God who created everything . I think that it must be a God who created us and who is ruling the universe .
What do you think?

 

[Ramona]

I prefer the term "nontheist" to "atheist." Here's a post I made in another recent thread, which I think is pertinent to this one:

The almighty reveals itself to me through nature. Through the way my soul soars when I'm walking through the local park at dusk and I catch a whiff of the honeysuckle and wild roses. Through those nights when I'm in the freezing city, and then when I look up I'm actually able to see a couple of stars.

The almighty reveals itself to me through intellect. I get more of a rush when I walk into Barnes and Noble than I ever have in any church. I feel spiritual when I read Jewish and Hindu scriptures, whether I believe in them or not. I feel spiritual when I write papers for sociology classes. Sometimes I even feel spiritual when I memorize elements from the periodic table.

The almighty reveals itself to me through love. When I'm in my mother's embrace. When I play hide-and-seek with my three-year-old cousin. When I sit and share ice cream with good friends. I've even come to love a lot of people here on CF very dearly, many of whom are theists. When I see this people in such awe of their G-d(s), I am enthralled.

The almighty reveals itself to me through creativity and culture. When I dance, I feel it within me. When I see the crazy surrealist paintings at the local university's gallery. When I create or hear good music. Good books and good movies do it too. And immersing myself in cultural studies is among the most satisfying things in the world to me.

I can see the divine within all. I can tell that all is divine.

The other questions don't apply to me, as I do not believe in any deity or deities. Deities are just too small.

Cheers!

 

[glo1]

I prefer the term "nontheist" to "atheist." Here's a post I made in another recent thread, which I think is pertinent to this one:



Cheers!

That's interesting, HappyCat.

But I am sure some atheists would not share your perception of 'the divine' being present everywhere, and 'the almighty' being within yourself.
Aren't those rather Buddhist views?

glo

 

[SeraphymCrashing]

"Again, I said apparent design, and materialists do acknowledge that the universe appears to be designed. They then proceed to look for ways to explain why it appears that way when it, allegedly, really isn't. "

No, you are still wrong. Scientists do not believe that the universe appears designed. If you want to claim otherwise, then you are going to need evidence. Most scientists believe that there is a natural explanation for everything, and that the universe (and life) arose naturally through understandable (even if not currently known) principles.

And people certainly have moral views about the universe, and there are many common items amongst them, but there is hardly a universal set of morals agreed upon by everyone. Also to say the it is transcendant implies that morality somehow is implicit in the universe (or handed down from god) rather than a set of rules defined to best benefit a society. Again, there is hardly a universal agreement on this.

 

[A. believer]

No, you are still wrong. Scientists do not believe that the universe appears designed. If you want to claim otherwise, then you are going to need evidence.

[/FONT]

Sorry, but I don't have a storehouse of quotes from materialist scientists acknowledging the appearance of design, but I've read these kinds of statements from many of them.

Most scientists believe that there is a natural explanation for everything, and that the universe (and life) arose naturally through understandable (even if not currently known) principles.

Yes, I understand that this is the view of the mainstream scientific community whose view of science is based on a materialist philosophy. This isn't in dispute.

And people certainly have moral views about the universe, and there are many common items amongst them, but there is hardly a universal set of morals agreed upon by everyone. Also to say the it is transcendant implies that morality somehow is implicit in the universe (or handed down from god) rather than a set of rules defined to best benefit a society. Again, there is hardly a universal agreement on this.

This paragraph is somewhat incoherent, but respond as best I can to what you seem to be saying.

The point I'm making is not that there's universal agreement about what constitutes morality (although there's more widespread agreement, in principle, even if not in application, than most relatives will acknowledge.) But what is universal is the idea that man is morally bound to some specific principles. This notion of being morally bound makes no sense if morality is just a man-made agreed-upon set of principles for helping society to function better. There is no moral compulsion here--no ought. If morality is man-made, then the person who doesn't share the goals of the society (peace and harmony, for instance) has no obligation to abide by moral rules. And yet, even relativists speak and act as if people "ought to" behave certain ways. But why "ought" Islamic jihadists, for example, not fly planes into our buildings, if there's no standard outside of man, himself? Why "ought" Hitler not exterminate Jews?

The concept of "ought" (the moral imperative) is incoherent in a relativistic worldview, and yet even the relativists hold the concept, and hold it very dearly. You borrow concepts from a Christian worldview, even while denying that validity of the worldview from which you got the concept.

 

[SeraphymCrashing]

[/font]

Sorry, but I don't have a storehouse of quotes from materialist scientists acknowledging the appearance of design, but I've read these kinds of statements from many of them.



Yes, I understand that this is the view of the mainstream scientific community whose view of science is based on a materialist philosophy. This isn't in dispute.

You have admitted that the view of mainstream scientific community is one that acknowledges natural processes and origins. This is the opposite of an argument from design. The only acknowledgement of design you are likely to get is in the form of pareidolia
where people are likely to see a personal intelligent cause where none actually exists.

Also in terms of "ought" people act out of enlightened self interest, not because of a set of rules handed down from on high. I don't murder or steal because I don't want to be murdered or stolen from, and therefore I support a society that condemns and punishes such things.

You are never going to get an atheist to say that morality is something from a higher power. Humankind doesn't need standards outside of itself, we are perfectly capable of setting the rules to best benefit ourselves as a whole.

If we did have morality from some kind of transcendant force we should expect morality to be constant, why would a perfect omnipotent force change the rules us? Yet a quick look at history shows that moral views have changed pretty significantly in a short time. Slavery was once accepted, women were supposed to subservient, Nobility was destined to rule by god, whites were the superior race, inherent rights like freedom of expression were unheard of, interracial marriage was a crime against god, adultery and disobedience to your parents were crimes punishable by death. And this is just of the top of my head.

Morality has changed as society has changed. This is a pretty strong argument against a divinely inspired code of morality.

 

[SeraphymCrashing]

[/font]



The concept of "ought" (the moral imperative) is incoherent in a relativistic worldview, and yet even the relativists hold the concept, and hold it very dearly. You borrow concepts from a Christian worldview, even while denying that validity of the worldview from which you got the concept.

This is also incorrect. Most of the concepts which make up our society today are the direct result of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason: a European intellectual movement based on the idea that reason is the primary basis of authority. This is where we get the ideas that all men (people) are created equal and have inherent rights that can not be taken away by governments or people. You won't find these in the bible.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Sorry, but I don't have a storehouse of quotes from materialist scientists acknowledging the appearance of design, but I've read these kinds of statements from many of them.

Then you should be able to link us.

Yes, I understand that this is the view of the mainstream scientific community whose view of science is based on a materialist philosophy. This isn't in dispute.

Didn't you just claim that even mainstream scientists acknowledge the existence of a "designer"? That's the antithesis of materialism.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by WorldFriction
I prefer the term "nontheist" to "atheist." Here's a post I made in another recent thread, which I think is pertinent to this one:

That is pretty kewl. The "spirit" in the bible is also a "wind/breath".
One Indian remarked in a movie to a white man to "listen to the trees hoss". LOL.


Snip from thread:

The almighty reveals itself to me through nature. Through the way my soul soars when I'm walking through the local park at dusk and I catch a whiff of the honeysuckle and wild roses. Through those nights when I'm in the freezing city, and then when I look up I'm actually able to see a couple of stars.

http://www.indians.org/welker/greatspi.htm


"Oh, Great Spirit, whose voice I hear in the wind,

Whose breath gives life to all the world.

Hear me; I need your strength and wisdom.

 

[A. believer]

Then you should be able to link us.

Not without doing hours of research trying to drudge up old articles I've read. I have no inclination to do that, and even if I did, you'd just dismiss it.

Didn't you just claim that even mainstream scientists acknowledge the existence of a "designer"? That's the antithesis of materialism.

This is getting tedious. I said that the mainstream materialist view acknowledges apparent design. They acknowledge that the universe appears to be designed. They don't acknowledge that it is designed. Rather, they come up with other explanations (various versions of neo-Darwinian evolution on which there is no consensus) to try to explain why the universe really isn't designed, despite all appearance to the contrary.

 

[A. believer]

You have admitted that the view of mainstream scientific community is one that acknowledges natural processes and origins. This is the opposite of an argument from design. The only acknowledgement of design you are likely to get is in the form of pareidolia
where people are likely to see a personal intelligent cause where none actually exists.

Here's what it boils down to, and this has been my point from the get-go. A large portion of the mainstream scientific community (the materialists) deny design, despite the evidence for design (which is, in addition to other evidence, is the appearance of design.) There's no scientific consensus on the particulars of macro-evolution, and yet this position is held as a given by faith.

Also in terms of "ought" people act out of enlightened self interest, not because of a set of rules handed down from on high. I don't murder or steal because I don't want to be murdered or stolen from, and therefore I support a society that condemns and punishes such things.

Not because of a set of rules handed down from on high, but because of the God-given conscience that's part of our nature, having been created in the image of God. If you only refrained from murder or stealing as part of some kind of contract with society, you would have no grounds for moral indignation when others violate that contract. After all, if they never agreed to the contract, why should they be expected to adhere to it. And yet moral indignation abounds among relativists. Again, witness Michael Moore and his ilk.

You are never going to get an atheist to say that morality is something from a higher power. Humankind doesn't need standards outside of itself, we are perfectly capable of setting the rules to best benefit ourselves as a whole.

Of course an atheist won't admit this. There's too much at stake. After all, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness takes a lot of effort.

If we did have morality from some kind of transcendant force we should expect morality to be constant, why would a perfect omnipotent force change the rules us? Yet a quick look at history shows that moral views have changed pretty significantly in a short time. Slavery was once accepted, women were supposed to subservient, Nobility was destined to rule by god, whites were the superior race, inherent rights like freedom of expression were unheard of, interracial marriage was a crime against god, adultery and disobedience to your parents were crimes punishable by death. And this is just of the top of my head.

Morality has changed as society has changed. This is a pretty strong argument against a divinely inspired code of morality.

Although we're created with a conscience, our conscience is also fallen. We can rationalize anything if we think it benefits us. But the fact that we even feel the need to rationalize it is a witness to the reality of the light of conscience within.

 

[A. believer]

This is also incorrect. Most of the concepts which make up our society today are the direct result of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason: a European intellectual movement based on the idea that reason is the primary basis of authority. This is where we get the ideas that all men (people) are created equal and have inherent rights that can not be taken away by governments or people. You won't find these in the bible.

The so-called "Enlightenment" takes Biblical principles of morality and then cuts itself off from the tree that supports it. (And the ontological equality of all men is, indeed, a Biblical concept.) The Enlightenment, though, was a child of modernism, and postmodernism (which is, in reality, the logical conclusion of modernism) has supplanted modernism and exposed its fallacies.

Sorry, but no matter how hard you try, as long as you disregard the triune God as the ground of reality, you'll wind up with an incoherent worldview.

 

[The Bellman]

Not without doing hours of research trying to drudge up old articles I've read. I have no inclination to do that, and even if I did, you'd just dismiss it.

This is getting tedious. I said that the mainstream materialist view acknowledges apparent design. They acknowledge that the universe appears to be designed.

And you have provided absolutely nothing to support this claim.

Here's what it boils down to, and this has been my point from the get-go. A large portion of the mainstream scientific community (the materialists) deny design, despite the evidence for design (which is, in addition to other evidence, is the appearance of design.) There's no scientific consensus on the particulars of macro-evolution, and yet this position is held as a given by faith.

I don't know what you mean by 'the particulars of macro-evolution'; there is certainly a scientific consensus on evolution. That position is held not by faith, but based on evidence.

Not because of a set of rules handed down from on high, but because of the God-given conscience that's part of our nature, having been created in the image of God.

A claim which you cannot support.

If you only refrained from murder or stealing as part of some kind of contract with society, you would have no grounds for moral indignation when others violate that contract. After all, if they never agreed to the contract, why should they be expected to adhere to it. And yet moral indignation abounds among relativists. Again, witness Michael Moore and his ilk.

None of this is problematic for moral relativists. You don't seem to understand what moral relativism, or its basis, is.

Of course an atheist won't admit this. There's too much at stake. After all, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness takes a lot of effort.

Yawn.

Although we're created with a conscience, our conscience is also fallen. We can rationalize anything if we think it benefits us. But the fact that we even feel the need to rationalize it is a witness to the reality of the light of conscience within.

No, it's not.

The so-called "Enlightenment" takes Biblical principles of morality and then cuts itself off from the tree that supports it. (And the ontological equality of all men is, indeed, a Biblical concept.) The Enlightenment, though, was a child of modernism, and postmodernism (which is, in reality, the logical conclusion of modernism) has supplanted modernism and exposed its fallacies.

Another unsupported assertion.

Sorry, but no matter how hard you try, as long as you disregard the triune God as the ground of reality, you'll wind up with an incoherent worldview.

You seem to be very fond of claims that are not only unsupported, but unsupportable. According to this latest one, everyone in the world apart from Christians is not only wrong, but has an 'incoherent worldview'. That claim is just laughable.

 

[SeraphymCrashing]

The so-called "Enlightenment" takes Biblical principles of morality and then cuts itself off from the tree that supports it. (And the ontological equality of all men is, indeed, a Biblical concept.) The Enlightenment, though, was a child of modernism, and postmodernism (which is, in reality, the logical conclusion of modernism) has supplanted modernism and exposed its fallacies.

Sorry, but no matter how hard you try, as long as you disregard the triune God as the ground of reality, you'll wind up with an incoherent worldview.

Sorry, but you are the one who is deluding themself. The enlightenment had nothing to do with the bible. If anything it was breaking away from previously held biblical notions.

The triune god is a fable, a myth, and is far more responsible for an inchorent worldview than anything else. But obviously we have reached a point where neither of us will be convinced by each others arguments. You think I'm willfully disregarding some kind of divine being, and I think your stuck in a 2000 year old fable which is blinding you.

I guess we'll just have to leave it at that.

BUt I'll leave you with one thing to ponder. If we have supposedly developed our current morality based upon christian principles why is it that 7 of the 10 commandments would be blantantly unconstitution to implement into law? A great example of christian principle we have based our society upon.

 

[A. believer]

Sorry, but you are the one who is deluding themself. The enlightenment had nothing to do with the bible. If anything it was breaking away from previously held biblical notions.

The triune god is a fable, a myth, and is far more responsible for an inchorent worldview than anything else. But obviously we have reached a point where neither of us will be convinced by each others arguments. You think I'm willfully disregarding some kind of divine being, and I think your stuck in a 2000 year old fable which is blinding you.

I guess we'll just have to leave it at that.

BUt I'll leave you with one thing to ponder. If we have supposedly developed our current morality based upon christian principles why is it that 7 of the 10 commandments would be blantantly unconstitution to implement into law? A great example of christian principle we have based our society upon.

There are no "self-evident" principles of morality based upon "pure reason" (i.e., reason not grounded in some basic ontological first principles). And not all of the commandments are criminal acts (e.g., God doesn't command criminal penalties against covetousness), but your claim about what's "unconstitution" [sic] is not based upon the founders' interpretation of the Constitution, but a modern interpretation by men who have rejected the first principles of our founders.

But we agree on one thing. Enough has been said.

 

[A. believer]

And you have provided absolutely nothing to support this claim.

You're right, I haven't dredged up any quotes. If I did, what you concede? Is it worth my time and energy?

I don't know what you mean by 'the particulars of macro-evolution'; there is certainly a scientific consensus on evolution. That position is held not by faith, but based on evidence.

Yes, there's a general consensus that evolution is the working model for studying origins. There's no consensus on the mechanism, etc. It's a philosophical consensus, not a scientific one.

A claim which you cannot support.

Do you dispute that man possesses a conscience?

None of this is problematic for moral relativists. You don't seem to understand what moral relativism, or its basis, is.

How is it not problematic?

No, it's not.

A brilliant rebuttal!

Another unsupported assertion.


You seem to be very fond of claims that are not only unsupported, but unsupportable. According to this latest one, everyone in the world apart from Christians is not only wrong, but has an 'incoherent worldview'. That claim is just laughable.

Obviously only one worldview is right and every other one is wrong. Do you reject the law of non-contradiction?

And obviously I'm persuaded that Christianity is the correct one. Other worldviews contain internal contradictions and/or rely on assumptions that are not justifiable within the context of their own worldviews. I don't expect you to take my word for this, but some better apologists than I'll ever be have made this point very clear.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Atheism is nothing to me other then a component of my humanism. If god were to exist, and my happiness can be created upon dwelling upon its existence, then i would gladly become a believer. I am satisfied now though, knowing i am my own man, and my life is mine alone, contingent upon me and me alone.

 

[A. believer]

Atheism is nothing to me other then a component of my humanism. If god were to exist, and my happiness can be created upon dwelling upon its existence, then i would gladly become a believer. I am satisfied now though, knowing i am my own man, and my life is mine alone, contingent upon me and me alone.

I love this kind of candor. Your explanation for why you are not a believer is a succinct statement of the very essence of the original rebellion--a declaration of autonomy. Thank you.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

It very much is, but the concepts have changed, but it is evident that the primary ideology still retains itself within newer philosophies that use atheism as one of the basis' that motivate it.

 

[Jersey]

what is atheism to you?

To me, the term "atheist" just about sums up what I think. The word literally means "not a theist" I really don't care what theists do or think as long as it doesn't cause mental or physical suffering-which unfortunately it sometimes does. But on the whole i think religion can do good things for people: faith gives people a sense of belonging and companionship, it makes them feel that they are doing good in the world, it makes them feel that a higher power is watching over them.

I just don't have that faith, nor do I want it. Thats right, I'm an atheist and not an anti-theist

How about you?

Atheism to me is the most most logical position to take regarding the issue of god and the supernatural.

It's obvious from the perspective of simple observation of the world around us that there is no evidence for a God or anything pertaining to supernatural forces.