Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[RabbiO]

God explains to us that we choose Him or the Enemy (Satan) A or B, there is no C option. I believe atheists just refuse to choose, which automatically means you choose B. So, I think that Atheists are Satanist. Anyone who doesn't worship God or denies his existence are Satan worshipers. Satanism is all about self indulgence with no rules and no consequences.I mean does that even sound reasonable? It sounds to me that it's irrational and ignorant. the choice is simple it's black and white. Are you soooo sure that you are willing to bet your eternal soul? And if you're are wrong about it wouldn't' you want to know? I mean when you die that's its over. What do you have to lose anyways by taking a chance with Jesus? Well you lose control, which we never had anyway, you would lose the unaccountability, freedom to do bad and smile about it. Most importantly, your soul! But what is there to gain, redemption, forgiveness, grace, unconditional love, contentment, discipline, wisdom and most importantly eternal life in the Presence of the Lord. Check out Proverbs, try God on for a month, you can always go back. I mean some people just love to sin and sin has destroyed everything from the very 1st one. it will eventually destroy you as well. But gave us free will and the choices we make up to, and including where we want to spend eternity. Don't believe in eternity? What if your wrong?

I think you've run afoul of Rule 8 of the forum.

 

[Nefelie]

Tell you what...let's both agree I'm as spiritual as concrete dust. That works from both a panentheist AND atheist viewpoint.

OK, but I’m defending Pantheism

No clue what you mean. I'll try and check it out but it doesnt sound that interesting to me. Solipsism suggests not even my energy is entwining, so ultimately we end up back a subjectivity, perhaps.

It’s interesting up to the point that our own senses can be misleading. Same as the fact that if you are smelling chocolate while eating a steak, you will think that you are eating chocolate.

So, yes, we are back to subjectivity.

<< Two men where watching a flag winnow and were arguing if it was the air that was moving or the flag. A Zen master happened to hear the debate and said to both: “it’s is neither the air or the flag that is moving. It is the mind” >>

It makes me think, yes. But I've actually spent more time recently in my life considering less dogmatic religious views.

Why dogmatic? Nor religion or faith has anything to do about this. This is plain physics and understanding of our interaction with the universe.

Your point is well made. But yes, actually. At the risk of my atheist credentials, I can even give a specific example some might describe as spiritual. I lived for a year in a very, very, very remote location. No electricity. A few of us took a small boat out, sitting in single file. We motored out for quite a while, and then just killed the engines.
There seemed more stars in the sky than space between them, and they stretched quite literally from horizon to horizon. But even more remarkably, there were some sort of tiny glowing sea creatures all around. No idea what they were. But it was like being completely surrounded by the stars. Once the engines were silent, no-one spoke. Some sort of mutual unspoken agreement to enjoy the moment.
So...yes. I have thought about it.

The Greek word for “human” is “anthropos” which means “looking up”. This is both literal as in “looking up to the stars” and metaphorical as in “aiming high”.
Many ancient philosophers argued that it is that awe we feel as humans when looking at the night sky that inculcates our spiritual/religious feeling and, at the same time, begets our scientific part, that motivates us to understand it and... concur it.
What you felt is the archetype feeling that makes you human, distinguishes you from all other earthly creatures and unites you with all of humanity, from the beginning of our time.
It is also that same feeling that inspired the first Gnostics to believe that: << each and every human is a point from where the universe realizes it self >>. And, therefore, denying the supreme being is denying your own self.

...Food for thought

Hmm...no. Not that I have any issue if that's your list. But I wouldn't see something like 'energy' or 'matter' as God.

Why not? What’s the deference?

I suspect, for me, God needs sentience, ultimately.

That’s your part in the play

And I work with a lot of multilingual people. Colour me jealous...lol

Hahaha…! Yes, now I am jealous too!

Sidenote, I have always loved reading about classical Greece (so to speak) including Greek myth. Especially when I was a kid I read huge amounts on those topics.

If you are interested, we can talk about what the myths really meant. All of them are metaphorical. Kinda like parables.

.

 

[Jabar]

I don't think you would lie to us, least of us when you have no reason to, so I must assume that you do indeed believe that Allah exists while, say, Shiva does not. That is not really in dispute.

However, there is no logical reason I can see why Allah's reality is established. It is no more logical than any other deity's. Your analysis above is correct.

There is. The reason you do not know why the universe was created because of the disbelief in God, it is logical.

 

[Jabar]

You're still talking. I'll hope you're also listening. I don't mean that to sound arrogant, just that I'm spending time on this to discuss it with you, not be monologued at.

That said...
I have never told you 'things were just there'. Rather, I would say 'I don't know'. I have no issue admitting my own ignorance.

The grave? How did you feel before conception? Much the same.

And sorry...but 'having an answer' is NOT more logical than not having an answer. This is particularly true of more dogmatic, specific and detailed beliefs. If i want 'an answer', I'll go with panentheism or deism.

I am about to make a statement with no errors, and no contradictions...

'The seat I am sitting on is black.'

As a bonus, I made it difficult to falsify. Makes it more 'holy scripturish' that way.

I myself does not know God, or direct proof like meeting God. However, if you have logic it will be easy to discover that Allah is real and that every creation is not just unknown, it just does not make sense. Therefore, it is logical that there is a God. That there is a creator, designer, and producer. Everything would not just run like how it is on an unknown cause.

 

[McBell]

I myself does not know God, or direct proof like meeting God. However, if you have logic it will be easy to discover that Allah is real and that every creation is not just unknown, it just does not make sense. Therefore, it is logical that there is a God. That there is a creator, designer, and producer. Everything would not just run like how it is on an unknown cause.

Merely labeling the "unknown cause" god, or Allah, does nothing but relabel the "unknown cause".
You have not answered anything.
You have merely added more unknowns to the dilemma.

How is that "logical"?

 

[Jabar]

Merely labeling the "unknown cause" god, or Allah, does nothing but relabel the "unknown cause".
You have not answered anything.
You have merely added more unknowns to the dilemma.

How is that "logical"?

It absolutely is logical. This is gonna go back and forth because of the different beliefs we have so i do not think repeating what i say is relevant. You yourself have not answered anything, making everything an unknown cause. I have an answer. That there is a creator. Anyhow, this will go back and forth due to our beliefs. So, it would be preferred to give evidence to you using a taste of your own medicine, science.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is. The reason you do not know why the universe was created because of the disbelief in God, it is logical.

It actually isn't.

You have learned to accept it as logical. But ultimately it is just an appeal to a miracle - and one that is at odds with several competing miraculous origin claims.

There is no particular reason to believe any of them, and no logical way to trust any above any other.

And that is assuming that any of them was meant to be taken as a literal explanation in the first place, which is uncertain at best.

And even if one overcomes all those hurdles, at the end of the day it is no explanation at all, just an attribution.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I myself does not know God, or direct proof like meeting God. However, if you have logic it will be easy to discover that Allah is real and that every creation is not just unknown, it just does not make sense. Therefore, it is logical that there is a God. That there is a creator, designer, and producer. Everything would not just run like how it is on an unknown cause.

You just made Allah into a God of the Gaps.
But let's assume for a second you didn't. Islam involves quite specific belief sets. It goes far beyond mere supposition that 'someone musta made this stuff'.
Deism would make more sense, if we're talking logic. Which apparently I don't have. Go figure.

 

[Jabar]

You just made Allah into a God of the Gaps.
But let's assume for a second you didn't. Islam involves quite specific belief sets. It goes far beyond mere supposition that 'someone musta made this stuff'.
Deism would make more sense, if we're talking logic. Which apparently I don't have. Go figure.

Deism is illogical. A God who basically does nothing. This is a man made religion while Islam existed time immemorial. When man set foot on earth.

 

[Jabar]

It actually isn't.

You have learned to accept it as logical. But ultimately it is just an appeal to a miracle - and one that is at odds with several competing miraculous origin claims.

There is no particular reason to believe any of them, and no logical way to trust any above any other.

And that is assuming that any of them was meant to be taken as a literal explanation in the first place, which is uncertain at best.

And even if one overcomes all those hurdles, at the end of the day it is no explanation at all, just an attribution.

Yea, obviously because of your beliefs. You have a different way of defining logic. Logic is basically sense and reasoning. If you think the cause of the universe is unknown then that would be very illogical. You have no reasoning whilst i provide logic.

 

[Thief]

Yeah. That is indeed the most sincere answer. And the most convincing, I suppose, and far as I can tell the correct one.

Which is why people should not be expected to believe in His existence unless they feel like it.

I don't believe in God because I feel like it

there is far too much 'substance' moving on it's own volition
in various degrees and to various ability

I think a scheme to it all....is obvious

 

[McBell]

It absolutely is logical.

Your usage of that word indicates you do not understand what it means.

This is gonna go back and forth because of the different beliefs we have so i do not think repeating what i say is relevant.

I agree.
But only because you are merely repeating the same thing over and over with nothing in support of it.

You yourself have not answered anything, making everything an unknown cause.

I give the most honest answer I can.
I do not know.
That you have the need to add, without anything other than wishful thinking, another level of unknown to the dilemma...

I have an answer. That there is a creator. Anyhow, this will go back and forth due to our beliefs.

The problem is that claiming "GodDidIt" is not really an answer.
It merely pushes the question back and adds more to the dilemma.

I understand that do to your beliefs you can accept that sort of non-answer answer and feel good about not actually knowing.
Though I cannot help but wonder how much of your acceptance is more for "bragging rights" than because you are interested in truth.

So, it would be preferred to give evidence to you using a taste of your own medicine, science.

I am still awaiting for you to present some science in support of your claims.

Though, if this thread is an example of your "science evidence" I shant be holding my breath

 

[Jabar]

Your usage of that word indicates you do not understand what it means.


I agree.
But only because you are merely repeating the same thing over and over with nothing in support of it.


I give the most honest answer I can.
I do not know.
That you have the need to add, without anything other than wishful thinking, another level of unknown to the dilemma...


The problem is that claiming "GodDidIt" is not really an answer.
It merely pushes the question back and adds more to the dilemma.

I understand that do to your beliefs you can accept that sort of non-answer answer and feel good about knowing.
ThoughI cannot help but wonder how much of your acceptance is more for "bragging rights" than because you are interested in truth.


I am still awaiting for you to present some science in support of your claims.

Though, if this thread is an example of your "science evidence" I shant be holding my breath

Qur'an talks about the universe expanding, science has approved of modernly. This shows that it is divine.

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)

 

[McBell]

Qur'an talks about the universe expanding, science has approved of modernly. This shows that it is divine.

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)

The Forer Effect, though a powerful tool amoungst choir members, does not impress outside the choir.

 

[Jabar]

The Forer Effect, though a powerful tool amoungst choir members, does not impress outside the choir.

You always use that word. It is not Forer Effect, and if you think it is tell me how?

 

[McBell]

You always use that word. It is not Forer Effect, and if you think it is tell me how?

It is what you have done through this whole thread, take a verse from the Koran and twist it to mean something that fits with science, then claim the Koran is "Divine" because you can manipulate the verse to fit your agenda.

You stop using the Forer Effect and I will not be able to point out your use of the the Forer Effect.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Forer Effect, though a powerful tool amoungst choir members, does not impress outside the choir.

I think we're facing the Dunning-Kruger effect.

"Amoungst"?
I didn't know you're Canuckistanian.

 

[Marsh]

I think superstition should be differentiated from religion and, if at all possible, purged from it.

Yes, I must assume many will feel offended by the idea.

One of my aunts would go out her way to prevent a black cat from crossing her path, my mother-in-law would throw salt over her shoulder, and my wife's girlfriend reacted when I set newly purchased running shoes on the kitchen table (it didn't matter that they had never been worn, I was informed it was bad luck to place shoes on a table). All of these women were Christian, but I don't believe their superstitious natures had much to do with their religious beliefs. I don't see much of a connection between Christian faith and superstition.

 

[Jabar]

It is what you have done through this whole thread, take a verse from the Koran and twist it to mean something that fits with science, then claim the Koran is "Divine" because you can manipulate the verse to fit your agenda.

You stop using the Forer Effect and I will not be able to point out your use of the the Forer Effect.

Twist? I think you have not read the Qur'an. You are being very arrogant. It clearly says it, i am not tampering with anything. Go read the Qur'an yourself before you start making false accusations.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Deism is illogical. A God who basically does nothing. This is a man made religion while Islam existed time immemorial. When man set foot on earth.

That is some serious bending you're doing there, mate.
1) A Creator God who created both the Earth and life, but doesn't intervene in our day to day affairs is not something I believe in. But it's a more logical (there is that word again) conclusion based on the evidence around us. An all-knowing, all-powerful interventionist God is playing a strange game, imho, and isn't someone I'd worship even if they DID exist.
2) Your flawed premise about the object and the machine fits well with Deism. Observance of the natural world around us (and indeed our own capacity for reason) is the best evidence of God.
3) Not all Deists believe God is non-interventionary. The common bonds of Deism have more to do with a belief in a single God, and a rejection of revealed religions.

If any Deists here want to correct my very brief mud-map, please feel free.

As for Islam, define it anyway you like if it helps you believe it existed before the Prophet. People were submitting to a monotheistic God, of course. More than one, actually. They were also submitting to various polytheistic Gods, although the level of 'submission' varied greatly, and probably isn't a word that should really be applied. I don't think they would agree with you that 'Islam' existed since men walked the earth. Nor do I think pre-Muhammedian Arabs could be considered 'Islamic' in any sense.

So I get that you mean God pre-existed the Prophet, and I get that in your opinion worship of that God pre-existed the Prophet. But Islam? Nope. Not that I see that as particularly problematic when considered on the broader scale of things.
God was sitting around doing not much of anything for a loooooooooong time before he created the Earth, right? So no real reason to suppose he would be in a mad rush to correct the errors of earlier prophets and clarify his message, I guess.