Atheism - I don't understand it

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't bother with monotheism, polytheism etc much; and I rather take the position that these groupings of faiths are comparatively recent and are artificial. But all that will divert this thread.

Yet you call yourself a Muslim, not a generic theist. Why such specificity if you think the distinction is artificial? I mean, you're effectively saying "meh" to the Shahadah here. I would've never expected a Muslim to argue that the distinction between monotheism and polytheism doesn't matter.

The way I see it, is that right now I am a baby (in matters of faith). A baby won't notice a temperature outside and will keep playing.

This undercuts the missionary message. If we're "babies" in matters of faith, then the proselytizer is in no better position than the proselytizee to discern truth.

By the way, here is a Quranic verse:

And here's my issue with this: we know full well that techniques similar to those described in that verse can be effective at instilling false beliefs. In light of this, I don't see how we can take indoctrination (and that is what this passage describes) as a reliable method to get to truth.

 

[Astravalon]

let me explain with an example; I cannot disprove the claim that a transcendent deity exists because that claim is an unfalsifiable hypotheses. But I can disprove the god of the bible because the bible says that god created the earth around 6000 years ago and we know that the earth is much older than 6000 years.

Okay, I understand what you're saying.

For myself, I can't say that I know how old the earth is, for sure. I know some of what has been said about it's age, which has been a lot, and varied, but I cannot know for certain the age of the earth because I hadn't yet existed when it came into being. For all I know, it may be 6,000 years old, or it may be 6 gazillion years old. My only choice would be to pick someone in whom to place my faith that their assessment of the earth's age is, indeed, correct (which isn't as dire as it sounds; I'm not hugely concerned how old the planet is, lol!).

I was going to answer your post in more detail but it became apparent to me that your standards of evidence are completely different to my own. So Id like to ask you, How do you determine what is true and what if false?

Pretty much the same way anyone else would, I think. Still, could you point out a specific part of my previous post that makes it seem different?


-

 

[camanintx]

Actually throughout this thread I am primarily addressing those who claim to know with certainty that God doesn't exist. Those who have an agnostic stance/are not bothered with God, that's all different and I understand their way of thinking. I was (and except for the few people who have clearly described their reasons, am still) not clear how people claim to know with certainty that God doesn't exist.

I claim with certainty that God doesn't exist the same way I claim with certainty that square circles don't exist, it is inherently contradictory. My definition of God is an intelligent agent responsible for the creation of the universe and everything in it. Everything we know about the universe indicates a steady progression from disorder and simplicity to order and complexity. Hence the initial state of the universe would be one of infinte disorder and simplicity while anything I would consider God would have to be infinitely complex and ordered.

 

[Desfox]

If faith is being used as synonymous with belief, then yes, there is a different between faith and blind faith. However, that's not usually how it is employed. It is used almost exclusively to refer to religious beliefs. There tends to be a different criteria of evidence used for religious beliefs than other sorts of beliefs, hence the development of the concept of "blind faith".


Words develop connotations due to long association and usage. It seems like many religious people are desperately attempting to shed those connotations, even though they are well earned, by suddenly using a word to describe something that is actually a respectable way in which to discover reality.

Well of course I am trying to shed the connotation . If all people who have a profile picture with a monkey began to be associated as an idiot, wouldn't you do your best to erase such a grotesque generality, even if some monkey bearing profiles in the past really did belong to idiots? (a silly example, I know)

Science is a completely respectable way to discover reality, I'm just pointing out the faith factor that still remains. Science is part of my faith. I'm not rejecting science or changing its value in any way, just pointing out a generally not thought about truth concerning it.

 

[A-ManESL]

Yet you call yourself a Muslim, not a generic theist. Why such specificity if you think the distinction is artificial? I mean, you're effectively saying "meh" to the Shahadah here. I would've never expected a Muslim to argue that the distinction between monotheism and polytheism doesn't matter.

Why is that? I am not sure you understand that what is really meant by tawheed and how it differs from a superficial understanding of monotheism=1 God; polytheism = many Gods.(at least that's how I understand the term monotheism/polytheism.) The word God is really a symbol of Reality here. I suggest you read the book Understanding Islam by Fritjhof Schuon to get a better understanding of Islam. Here is a summary:

Islam fundamentally consists of two statements: "There is no divinity (or reality or absolute) save the sole Divinity (or Reality or Absolute)" and "Muhammad is the Messenger (the spokesman, the intermediary, the manifestation, the symbol) of the Divinity." There are two assertions here: the first is regarding the Principle or the Absolute. Realizing it means to become fully conscious that the Principle alone is real and the world (though has an existence) is not really real. The second assertion is not as much concerning the individual personality of the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) but rather regarding the world (for in his character as a human being Muhammad(pbuh) symbolizes the world; he is often referred to as a universal man or the perfect man (insaan-e-kamil) for that reason, indeed all worldly qualities are latent inside human beings). The world is a manifestation of the Reality, and hence to a certain degree it has a reality contingent upon the Absolute Reality. Realizing this assertion means seeing the Absolute Reality everywhere and everything in Him.

If Islam merely sought to teach that there is only one God and not two or more it would not have such a persuasive force which enabled it to last for centuries. The persuasive force it has comes from the fact that at its root Islam is all about the reality of the Absolute and the dependence of all things on the Absolute. Indeed, Islam is the religion of the Absolute.

Secondly dividing people into various -theisms etc is really only the exoteric part of all religions. As one explores them further at an esoteric level one will find that they will start losing meaning all-together. It is a thesis of mine that these divisions emerged from a later compactification in various faiths primarily due to identity politics.

But I digress. I will really appreciate it if you make a separate thread if you want to discuss Islam further.

 

[A-ManESL]

This undercuts the missionary message. If we're "babies" in matters of faith, then the proselytizer is in no better position than the proselytizee to discern truth.

I didn't say "we" are babies. I said "I" am a baby.

And here's my issue with this: we know full well that techniques similar to those described in that verse can be effective at instilling false beliefs. In light of this, I don't see how we can take indoctrination (and that is what this passage describes) as a reliable method to get to truth.

That's your opinion that "techniques similar to those described in that verse can be effective at instilling false beliefs"; have you tried the technique described in the verse? If not, without practicing how can you judge them and say they are similar? If you have, can you please share your experiences.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's your opinion that "techniques similar to those described in that verse can be effective at instilling false beliefs"; have you tried the technique described in the verse? If not, without practicing how can you judge them and say they are similar? If you have, can you please share your experiences.

Yes, I have.

BTW - by "techniques similar to those described in that verse", I meant surrender to the group and submission to a period of indoctrination.

I tried it personally (without realizing it myself at first) when I was taken to a "personal growth" seminar that ended up being something close to a cult. I'm not sure what to say about the experience beyond what I said earlier: it was not a reliable method to arrive at truth.

However, if you think that your method is a reliable method to arrive at truth, I'm sure you can provide some justification for this belief.

 

[A-ManESL]

That's not my question. My question was "have you tried the technique described in the verse", i.e. the following of the way of Islam (basically translating to five prayers daily, roughly 2.5% annual charity, 30 days fasting)? If you haven't how can you judge and say that the two (the second one being a technique to instill false beliefs) are similar?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not my question. My question was "have you tried the technique described in the verse", i.e. the following of the way of Islam (basically translating to five prayers daily, roughly 2.5% annual charity, 30 days fasting)? If you haven't how can you judge and say that the two (the second one being a technique to instill false beliefs) are similar?

That isn't what I meant when I said "similar". And I think that they are similar in the respects I mentioned. IMO, the important thing is the indoctrination aspect, not the specifics.

Why would any of the things you listed lead to truth?

 

[A-ManESL]

And I think that they are similar in the respects I mentioned.

But what I don't understand is on what are you basing your thought if you haven't tried out both the things? You have only tried one(personal-growth seminar), and not the Islamic path. Right?

Why would any of the things you listed lead to truth?

Initially the answer to this question is not told, but as time goes on it becomes self-evident that the discipline and the softening of heart plays a role for one to become receptive for the truth. You may find more information here.

I guess the situation here is similar to the square's questions to the sphere in the book Flatland: A romance of many dimensions. If you have a few hours to spare I would suggest that you read this small and entertaining book. The square is a resident of the world of two dimensions and all efforts of the sphere (who has descended in his world as a circle) to explain to him the concept of three dimensions are in vain. The sphere shows him the residents of the world of one dimension and of zero dimension too in the hope that when their ignorance is made evident to the square he will accept his own. But to no avail! Finally the sphere raises the circle to the third dimension so that it finally becomes clear to him what he was not understanding. (It's another matter that that on the square's questioning that there must be worlds of four and five dimensions the sphere becomes angry) In the same way, the truth is unclear to us because we are not in the appropriate frame of heart to understand it, (hence such questions too cannot be answered satisfactorily because we are unclear about the general framework of the truth). If we could raise ourselves to higher dimensions (or somehow got raised) and the general framework be understood by us then the answers of questions related to the truth will start making sense to us.

 

[Koldo]

But what I don't understand is on what are you basing your thought if you haven't tried out both the things? You have only tried one(personal-growth seminar), and not the Islamic path. Right?

Initially the answer to this question is not told, but as time goes on it becomes self-evident that the discipline and the softening of heart plays a role for one to become receptive for the truth. You may find more information here.

If one fails to find the evidence by following the islamic path, what conclusion would you draw from this event?

 

[A-ManESL]

If one fails to find the evidence by following the islamic path, what conclusion would you draw from this event?

That depends. However it would make sense to listen to such a person's experience at least. What I cannot understand is how can a person who hasn't tried out a particular thing compare it with something else. The only justification that comes to mind is that an extensive theoretical understanding of that particular thing has been achieved before making a comparison. However in case that thing is a way of life and is inherently associated with the practical, a mere theoretical understanding may not suffice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That depends. However it would make sense to listen to such a person's experience at least. What I cannot understand is how can a person who hasn't tried out a particular thing compare it with something else.

If I told you that I had come up with the Cheeseburger Diet, where you could lose 5 pounds of fat and gain 5 pounds of muscle a week with a diet consisting of 5 cheeseburgers for every meal and no exercise at all, would you have to try the diet for a few weeks before you can say "that doesn't seem to be something that would work"?

 

[A-ManESL]

If I told you that I had come up with the Cheeseburger Diet, where you could lose 5 pounds of fat and gain 5 pounds of muscle a week with a diet consisting of 5 cheeseburgers for every meal and no exercise at all, would you have to try the diet for a few weeks before you can say "that doesn't seem to be something that would work"?

Firstly, I have never eaten a cheeseburger in my life and have no idea how it will affect me. Since I have virtually no fat I don't think I can lose any fat any way . I am too skinny so maybe if I gain fat it would be a good thing.

Secondly, if I had eaten sufficient cheeseburgers I would have had an idea of their general effects. In your case you haven't tried out the other path at all (this is my assumption).

 

[helpmeplease]

I would like to add while im an atheist about your god im agnostic about a god.

What a great line. Cheers

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Firstly, I have never eaten a cheeseburger in my life and have no idea how it will affect me. Since I have virtually no fat I don't think I can lose any fat any way . I am too skinny so maybe if I gain fat it would be a good thing.

Secondly, if I had eaten sufficient cheeseburgers I would have had an idea of their general effects. In your case you haven't tried out the other path at all (this is my assumption).

But that's what I'm getting at: I have experience with aspects of it. Immersing someone in a belief system can bring about a change in a person's beliefs. Performing actions as if you believe in a thing can cause a similar change. Lowering a person's blood sugar and (potentially) introducing mild malnutrition can make a person more pliant and suggestible. These are all elements of the "path" you described. Can it change a person's beliefs? I'm sure it can for many people. Is it a way to truth? I see no reason to assume so, and more importantly for this discussion, I don't think that actually trying it myself is tbe best way to answer that question.

 

[A-ManESL]

But that's what I'm getting at: I have experience with aspects of it. Immersing someone in a belief system can bring about a change in a person's beliefs. Performing actions as if you believe in a thing can cause a similar change. Lowering a person's blood sugar and (potentially) introducing mild malnutrition can make a person more pliant and suggestible. These are all elements of the "path" you described. Can it change a person's beliefs? I'm sure it can for many people. Is it a way to truth? I see no reason to assume so, and more importantly for this discussion, I don't think that actually trying it myself is tbe best way to answer that question.

You have experienced what aspect of Islam? Would you care to share? Or do you mean you have experienced that immersing oneself in a belief system can change a person's belief in that seminar and you assume that the Islamic path (or other religious paths) are similar?

Personally I don't think what you say happens by following the Islamic path. The goal of true belief/knowledge is not some kind of indoctrination. I guess, however that's just my opinion. I haven't achieved that goal myself nor do I feel indoctrinated by anything. If anything my views on religion, God etc have become more inclusive (which isn't what many modern Muslims believe) of other faiths over the years, so much so that it may surprise you to know the full extent of them. (I believe a few posts back you did express surprise on that monotheism/polytheism.) If I was being indoctrinated I think I would have stuck to the exclusive viewpoint of the vocal majority.

 

[waitasec]

That depends. However it would make sense to listen to such a person's experience at least. What I cannot understand is how can a person who hasn't tried out a particular thing compare it with something else. The only justification that comes to mind is that an extensive theoretical understanding of that particular thing has been achieved before making a comparison. However in case that thing is a way of life and is inherently associated with the practical, a mere theoretical understanding may not suffice.

if i used to believe in the christian god through faith, would it also require faith to believe in allah?

 

[Koldo]

That depends.

Could your conclusion ever be that there is no evidence to be found about God's existence in the islamic path? If yes, then what would you require at very least to reach this conclusion? If not, then why not?

 

[Alceste]

okay. Anyway, atheists who reject the claim that 'God exists' arguing that this claim is unsupported is fine. What I still don't understand is the position of the atheists who go on to make the claim that God doesn't exist and who moreover don't fall in any of the following categories:
1. They have personal reasons due to which they don't feel that God doesn't exist.
2. They feel that they are knowledgeable enough so that if there was a God they would have known about it.

I think the natural position for those who haven't got any extra knowledge which the rest are unaware of, or who are not guided by gut-feelings etc should be agnosticism; that is leaving open the possibility of God and not saying that God doesn't exist for sure.

Speaking only for myself, I don't base my opinions on factual matters on "feelings". In fact, I do my utmost to avoid it. I recognize that we are all subject to some degree of unavoidable cognitive bias, and that this is a serious impediment to discerning the truth.

Because I am aware of the inherent limitations in human psychology, I am extremely skeptical of every factual claim. IOW, I most likely won't believe anything I am told until I can satisfy myself that a focused effort has been made to determine the truth in an atmosphere that limits the influence of cognitive bias. The only tool we have that is capable of limiting cognitive bias is empirical investigation (IOW, real science).

My mind has always worked that way, ever since I was a child. So I never had to "decide" not to believe in God. I went to church every Sunday and listened to a lot of factual claims. I don't remember ever being offered sufficient empirical evidence to believe any of them. Since then, my horizons have broadened and I've heard more claims. I still have not been offered sufficient empirical evidence to believe any of them.

Furthermore, I have a very coherent hypothesis as to why no two religious people believe in the same "truth": I am quite certain that religious belief is a purely psychological phenomenon (and I have seen enough empirical evidence to be confident in this assessment). The probability of one of the billions of religious people on earth actually being right is pretty remote.

Arguments for the existence of god fall into three general categories: appeal to popularity (how can billions of believers all be wrong?), appeal to authority (this or that book was written by God so it must be true), and appeal to emotion (believe in all this ballyhoo and you will live forever.) I am not easily influenced by logical fallacies.

Arguments against the existence of god rest on foundations I can relate to: Logic, science and reason. I find any argument based on sound reason and empirical evidence very persuasive.

To sum up, I believe atheists and religious believers generally use different methods of discerning fact from fiction. For an atheist, the default position is non-belief until evidence is presented. For a believer, the default position is belief, regardless of a lack of evidence (and often in spite of counter-evidence).

Different strokes for different folks!