Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Marsh]

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

All of them? Are you sure? I can imagine someone, long after the last Christian has passed from this earth, stating matter-of-factly that no one ever believed that the world had been completely covered in water, or that Moses really turned his staff into a snake. Everyone in the past knew these stories were to be understood metaphorically. Really? I think you underestimate the gullibility of believers.

 

[Jabar]

He couldn't have picked a better prophet? Or location for the message (audience)?

Like what do you mean, a better Prophet than Muhammad?

Like i told you Allah is All-Merciful, he did not wanna make his message absolute and make it dominant over everything. Even so, Islam is fastest growing religion soon to outstrip Christianity

Not that, that is relevant.

Anyhow, he gave people a blessing by making the world diverse. Bring a better Prophet that would portray the message even better would not have really been all that Merciful.

Allah has made the world balanced. Everything he does is for a reason and fits like a puzzle piece.

Location do not matter. As long as they get the message while having a balanced society with beliefs and systems would be perfect.

Allah is All-Merciful and All-Knowing.

 

[Marsh]

Not if the pantheistic "Being" ceased to exist since the Sun is also part of it.

We wouldn't have lives since that "Being" would include us.

My claim that "... the fusion reactions at the core of the Sun would continue till the hydrogen ran out" even if the pantheistic "being, spirit, entity" ceased to exist is false, in the pantheistic view, because even the matter the Sun is composed of is part and parcel of the pantheistic "being" itself. So given that theological scenario the entire universe would in fact vanish. I get that now, but my new found knowledge does not improve the likelihood, in my eyes, that anything about the pantheistic claim is true. I am a dyed-in-the-wool atheist and hold the view, as Parsimony so aptly stated, that atheism is "the lack of belief that anything which exists qualifies as a god," and just like Lewisnotmiller I too admit to having all the spirituality of concrete dust (though in pantheistic terms even this qualifies as a god).

You have enlightened me on pantheism, Ouroboros, but not increased the probability of it being true, in my mind. I much prefer a totally material universe without the spirit part attached. I just can't accept the existence of a concept for which I can't see any evidence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Like what do you mean, a better Prophet than Muhammad?

No. Let's assume for a moment that Muhammad is the perfect prophet. I meant a better prophet than (for example) Jesus. Why did there need to be an abortive attempt to establish Islam (from your point of view) which led indirectly to the establishment of Christianity?

Like i told you Allah is All-Merciful, he did not wanna make his message absolute and make it dominant over everything. Even so, Islam is fastest growing religion soon to outstrip Christianity.

It's not about him making the message 'dominant'. It's about him knowing, BEFORE he has even selected a prophet, what the eventual impact of selecting a prophet would be. In other words, why did Allah want to establish Judaism and Christianity, amongst other religions.

Anyhow, he gave people a blessing by making the world diverse. Bring a better Prophet that would portray the message even better would not have really been all that Merciful.

A simple line in the Quran suggesting whether hadiths should be accepted or not, or including them in the original message strikes me as a means by which Allah could have shown more mercy without risking free will. What is your opinion?

Allah has made the world balanced. Everything he does is for a reason and fits like a puzzle piece.

Part of that puzzle piece, then, is giving us the capacity to question.

Location do not matter. As long as they get the message while having a balanced society with beliefs and systems would be perfect.

If location does not matter, why did God continuously select prophets from a single part of the world?

Allah is All-Merciful and All-Knowing.

An omnipotent and omniscient God strikes me as a strange concept, and doesn't appear to fit with the evidence of the world around me.
But I understand we have different views on that. I don't think that precludes us from conversing on this. At least I hope not. I find the discussion interesting, in some ways, so thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

[Ouroboros]

My claim that "... the fusion reactions at the core of the Sun would continue till the hydrogen ran out" even if the pantheistic "being, spirit, entity" ceased to exist is false, in the pantheistic view, because even the matter the Sun is composed of is part and parcel of the pantheistic "being" itself. So given that theological scenario the entire universe would in fact vanish. I get that now, but my new found knowledge does not improve the likelihood, in my eyes, that anything about the pantheistic claim is true. I am a dyed-in-the-wool atheist and hold the view, as Parsimony so aptly stated, that atheism is "the lack of belief that anything which exists qualifies as a god," and just like Lewisnotmiller I too admit to having all the spirituality of concrete dust (though in pantheistic terms even this qualifies as a god).

Sure.

My intention wasn't to convince you of the pantheistic view but to widen your perspective regarding the different aspects and other people's views of God, away from the monotheistic (Christian) version.

You have enlightened me on pantheism, Ouroboros, but not increased the probability of it being true, in my mind. I much prefer a totally material universe without the spirit part attached. I just can't accept the existence of a concept for which I can't see any evidence.

Wonderful. I wouldn't have it otherwise. And that you felt enlightened, that's all I needed to hear.

Good talk.

 

[Nefelie]

I won't disagree with you. I have a friend who practices some aspects of Buddhism. I think she would tell me that prayer can be a form of meditation and in meditation we can become more in touch with ourselves. I just don't believe anything else can hear that prayer.

You do, and that is enough

Perhaps I have misunderstood you. You are not saying we are gods in the classic sense of being able to turn into a swan, like Zeus, or throw lightning bolts, like Thor;

Symbolisms, metaphors and personifications of natural phenomena.

...But anyway, I see that Ouroboros already got you to a nice point for ending this debate, so I’ll pass too

All of them? Are you sure? I can imagine someone, long after the last Christian has passed from this earth...

We are referring to ancient Greek Mythology, dear

Christianity is another story...

~~~

*laughs* Got me. But it would still hold true, right? I'm as spiritual as concrete dust. Both of us would agree with that I think.

I don’t really understand exactly what you mean with the “spiritual as concrete dust”, but sure, I can agree with it if you like. Like I mentioned before <<you may believe in anything you wish, the One is not obligated in keeping a straight face>> (Zen teaching)

Hmm...I know I'm an atheist, and so I'm supposed to be all over science, but I'm not. Some bits interest me, some not so much. *waits for his atheist card to be revoked*

An atheist with no passion for science?

They should revoke your card and then place you under the same category with Bigfoot and the Lochnes monster!

However, if you are suggesting to me that the hard sciences (so to speak) support the view that we don't physically touch anything, but instead our energies are entwined with the object we are interacting with (some form of temporary merging I am thinking) then I'd be interested enough to read something, assuming it was reasonably approachable. Anything too technical would be outside my grasp.

“Quantum mechanics for dummies” is exactly what you need

No joke! There is in fact such a video on youtube! Look it up.

And you should also look up this one: “Quantum Physics: Double Slit Experiment & Consciousness”, also on youtube. Very simple, only 6:34 minutes long, very interesting.

I majored in science, but it was psychology, so...ya know...lol

Ahh... a psychologist... Now I get it...

But ultimately I don't see that I am denying myself, nor denying some sort of connection/commonality between all things.

You do realize that we are saying the same thing in other words... right?

I'm interested, if rusty. But perhaps a topic for another thread?

Sure! Just give me a myth to start with

.

 

[Jabar]

No. Let's assume for a moment that Muhammad is the perfect prophet. I meant a better prophet than (for example) Jesus. Why did there need to be an abortive attempt to establish Islam (from your point of view) which led indirectly to the establishment of Christianity?



It's not about him making the message 'dominant'. It's about him knowing, BEFORE he has even selected a prophet, what the eventual impact of selecting a prophet would be. In other words, why did Allah want to establish Judaism and Christianity, amongst other religions.



A simple line in the Quran suggesting whether hadiths should be accepted or not, or including them in the original message strikes me as a means by which Allah could have shown more mercy without risking free will. What is your opinion?



Part of that puzzle piece, then, is giving us the capacity to question.



If location does not matter, why did God continuously select prophets from a single part of the world?






An omnipotent and omniscient God strikes me as a strange concept, and doesn't appear to fit with the evidence of the world around me.
But I understand we have different views on that. I don't think that precludes us from conversing on this. At least I hope not. I find the discussion interesting, in some ways, so thanks for taking the time to respond.

Great question.
Allah made the world diverse for a reason.

He gave people a free will so that they can choose what they want however still receiving the message.

They choose to accept it or not.

Enabling Christianity, Judaism, and etc makes the world diverse, and Allah gave people that free will.

He selected certain Prophets at different locations to send the message for a particular group and time period.

Allah has blessed people and gave them a free will, they chose to not follow the truth when given which caused the parting of ways.

 

[Acim]

I see your point, but I think you are stretching this way too far. When God/Allah are worshiped it is to pay them homage; in the minds of the faithful the deity will reward them in the next life, or even punish them.

I am worshipful of God, and it is in my mind for reward in the here and now, not some other non-existent time period.

Shall we have reverence for global climate/temps so that in a future date we will be rewarded with better living conditions on the planet? In our reverence, shall we go through rituals, or repeated studies to make sure we are getting things right, and not wrong?

These gods are sentient beings who care for the humans they created, and they may even grant special favour in response to prayer. No scientist prays to a force of nature, no scientist thinks the forces of the universe can grant them eternal life. No research scientist thinks any force of nature is sentient, or cares whether or not you are circumcised, eat pork, or have sex with same-sex partners. No force of nature passes moral judgement. I may be in awe of the universe, Acim, but I don't anthropomorphize it as a god.

Prayer is one aspect of worship. Not the only aspect. I can easily speak to the ways in which science is worshipful of the forces (greater than mere humans) that it holds in high regard. Already did that above. Probably could come up with dozens of other examples.

I'll grant that you have a point about anthropomorphizing god(s) as a distinction, but not like I've never heard scientific types do this, especially as a way to help others understand. To help convey certain models to the less initiated without the jargon that technicians take for granted.

For me, the whole anthropomorphizing comes from the observer/experiencing person perspective. A way to relate to something as if it is personal. In some ways, I find that more honest than pretending like an observed event can be stripped of any bias from (human) observer. Especially if analysis is later sought to help anyone (including original observer) to understand.

If considering that humanity / human mind is a force of nature, I wonder how well your claims would hold up?

 

[Acim]

But we are not gods.

I saw previous post/discussion that addressed this, but not in the way I understand it.

We are gods. For me, this could be where rational theists and rational atheist split ways. Obviously not the only split, but perhaps a very key one.

If anyone, includes myself, has understandings (really beliefs) about what God(s) must be for them to be called gods, that IMO is going to get in the way of actual (ongoing) understanding. For intellectual discourse, it is impossible to not have some past basis for the understanding, and then a likelihood of filtering everything through that understanding. All that strikes me as rational. But it becomes less rational when it is a block to further understanding. Some theists think God spoke to humanity once, awhile ago, through one prophet who is worthy of praise and considered holy. Other theists, like myself, think God (Creator) has never stopped speaking to Creation (gods as well). And I consider it blasphemous to assert a theological position as if it is true that Creator God has stopped speaking and is having us fend for ourselves, basing all theological defenses on some holy text from hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.

I assert we are gods, Creation(s) of the Creator God.
Possible to deny our own divinity. But impossible to get rid of it, lose it. The existence of a world / universe where Creator God is nowhere to be found and separation from Creation (others) ought to indicate to rationally aware people the power of the creative mind.

But alas, some will deny it, just cause they think it can be denied and works better for them. Just like some will claim humans are not natural, or what humans make is not natural, not realizing how this would greatly impact all understandings of what is then actually natural / act(s) of nature.

 

[Jabar]

I saw previous post/discussion that addressed this, but not in the way I understand it.

We are gods. For me, this could be where rational theists and rational atheist split ways. Obviously not the only split, but perhaps a very key one.

If anyone, includes myself, has understandings (really beliefs) about what God(s) must be for them to be called gods, that IMO is going to get in the way of actual (ongoing) understanding. For intellectual discourse, it is impossible to not have some past basis for the understanding, and then a likelihood of filtering everything through that understanding. All that strikes me as rational. But it becomes less rational when it is a block to further understanding. Some theists think God spoke to humanity once, awhile ago, through one prophet who is worthy of praise and considered holy. Other theists, like myself, think God (Creator) has never stopped speaking to Creation (gods as well). And I consider it blasphemous to assert a theological position as if it is true that Creator God has stopped speaking and is having us fend for ourselves, basing all theological defenses on some holy text from hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.

I assert we are gods, Creation(s) of the Creator God.
Possible to deny our own divinity. But impossible to get rid of it, lose it. The existence of a world / universe where Creator God is nowhere to be found and separation from Creation (others) ought to indicate to rationally aware people the power of the creative mind.

But alas, some will deny it, just cause they think it can be denied and works better for them. Just like some will claim humans are not natural, or what humans make is not natural, not realizing how this would greatly impact all understandings of what is then actually natural / act(s) of nature.

We are not Gods,

If we were Gods we would not be dying.

 

[Demonslayer]

We are not Gods,

Acim's definition of "God" includes darn near anything, I've come to find out.

 

[Acim]

I won't disagree with you. I have a friend who practices some aspects of Buddhism. I think she would tell me that prayer can be a form of meditation and in meditation we can become more in touch with ourselves. I just don't believe anything else can hear that prayer.

Another one of those split thingies between theists and atheists. Theists are obviously of the belief that divinity is aware of prayer. I would guess atheists see it as pointless due to lack of belief in anything being divine.

To me, prayer is communication. It could be a request (for help) but as many dictionary definitions note, it can also be expression of gratitude, thus having nothing to do with need for help. In all my understandings of prayer as a request for help, it is already known (by Divine Being) what the request is before it is asked. And the answer is already delivered before the question has been expressed as a formal prayer. This is how divinity works. It's not hung up on communication in the ways we are. The answer may not be heard, or heard and not understood, or understood and not agreed with. But all that doesn't mean that lots of theists aren't getting answers to prayers. Yet, also needs to be stated that many theists aren't using prayer as way to get answers, but instead as a way to show appreciation.

Personally, I do not think privacy of thoughts works at the Divine level. And that divine beings are keenly interested in all requests for assistance. The other part of mind, the chatter dealing with non-requests, non-appreciation is heard but treated as the trivial stuff it is.

I think prayer actually helps in focussing awareness around the (or a plausible) answer that has already been delivered. Because humans are making requests all the time, and not formatting it necessarily into a mindful prayer, it ought to be clear that one doesn't need to go to a holy place to make these type of requests. Especially considering the actual holy place exists within. May just help (in receiving) to have a little more reverence in the request for assistance. That own self can know it is genuine and not willy nilly.

 

[Acim]

You have enlightened me on pantheism, Ouroboros, but not increased the probability of it being true, in my mind. I much prefer a totally material universe without the spirit part attached. I just can't accept the existence of a concept for which I can't see any evidence.

Show me your objective evidence for the existence of a material universe. Until you do, I'll take your last assertion as - not so accurate.

 

[Acim]

We are not Gods,

If we were Gods we would not be dying.

Our material form is not gods. Agree with that. Our being is God. And is not dying. Never has.

 

[Desert Snake]

Show me your objective evidence for the existence of a material universe. Until you do, I'll take your last assertion as - not so accurate.

What does this argument prove?

 

[Acim]

What does this argument prove?

That material existence is (without a doubt) a matter of faith, and is plausibly not actually existing.

 

[Desert Snake]

That material existence is (without a doubt) a matter of faith, and is plausibly not actually existing.

Sure, depends on definitions, as well. You are certainly correct that the 'materialist argument', itself, is basically a joke.
That being said, it may not prove your arguments, by default.

 

[Acim]

Sure, depends on definitions, as well. You are certainly correct that the 'materialist argument', itself, is basically a joke.
That being said, it may not prove your arguments, by default.

Agreed. But helps to level the playing field where one side claims to be based on rationality and 'actual existence' while claiming the other side is fundamentally illogical because it doesn't 'actually exist.'

Because I choose to maintain faith in the physical world, I don't look to disprove it as existing, just that it is nice when people are honest about it depending on faith, rather than assuming it is objective without any evidence for that.

 

[Ouroboros]

We are not Gods,

If we were Gods we would not be dying.

So you don't believe in life after death? I thought Islam believed in the afterlife and heaven and hell?

 

[Jabar]

So you don't believe in life after death? I thought Islam believed in the afterlife and heaven and hell?

??????

When did i ever say i never believed in the afterlife.

I'm guessing comprehension is not your strong suit.

I said if we were Gods, we would not be dying as Gods do not die.