Athiests and Agnostics, your decisive moment

[Sabour]

Once upon a time I had the opportunity to interview lots of atheists, and one distinct 'type' stood out. The intelligent, inquisitive, no-BS child who saw from an early age that God was like Santa -- a story told to him by parents and culture.

Usually these kids (as adults anyway) had very high IQs.

Other atheists were also highly intelligent but for some reason had to struggle through late teenagehood or early adulthood before they could break away from the system.

But I never knew an atheist who went back to theism. Maybe they exist, but I never met one.

That was your first comment on the thread right ?

I think I met someone on this forums that was atheist and went back to theism.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Considering I found no errors, this means I believe that Quraan is the word of God.

If we read a book and find no errors in it, we should suspect error in our reader.

 

[Sabour]

I suspect that you & I would use different tests.

If you are referring to the moon that I would agree, that is just a reminder for me.

If you are talking about the Quraan, I think you are underestimating that Book because it is like 600 pages and it touches on everything in life, it even has some scientific signs. All that revealed 1400 years ago.

If a person did wrote it, it would be obvious.

 

[Sabour]

I wonder what you mean by that. I'm no Quran expert, granted. But what I saw of it does not seem to even attempt to be testable.

One example of people who attempted to test it is Gary Miller.

Professor Gary Miller | ISLAM---World's Greatest Religion!

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That was your first comment on the thread right ?

I'm not sure what you mean.

I think I met someone on this forums that was atheist and went back to theism.

I don't believe in atheists, of course, no more than I believe in theists.

One can't actually become one and unbecome the other. They aren't real things.

What I will say is that once a person has thought deeply and rationally about God, and has decided that God is not real, that person is very unlikely to switch back to a belief in God. Not the God that he previously examined anyway.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If a person did wrote [the Quraan], it would be obvious.

That's what everyone says about their own scriptures. Listen to the Baha'is, for example, and their worshipful stance toward the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

The Christians, the Jews, the Mormons... they all have writings which obviouusly came straight from a Perfect Prophet of God.

 

[Sabour]

When I dream, I am still alive and my consciousness is still rooted in a physical body.

Have you ever seen dreams lasting more than expected.
Like seeing events lasting for several days, when actually you slept for like an hour.

Do you know how time it takes your longest dream ?

Yeah, that's still rationalization. Adding more words doesn't turn it into logic. Here's an example of logic.

One answer believes the Quran is true and the Bible is false.

Zoogirl believes the Bible is true and the Quran is false.

Therefore, one or both of them are certainly wrong.

And so on.

Let's not argue about the label.

At least what I said might be true whether it was logic or rational

As I say, I can not be convinced of anything except by empirical evidence. The Quraan is not empirical evidence, it's a book. Anyone can make false or mistaken claims in a book.

Well I guess there are ways for that.

Like dangerous experiences when you feel that there is God, who is able to save you.

Or asking God for something and receiving signs.


Maybe you will receive other signs I don't know.

But I think you are underestimating the evidence of Quraan. Because it was revealed 1400 years ago. I think it would be clear whether it is the word of God or words of a man who lived in the seventh century.

 

[Sabour]

As a lad I knew a kid who had an imaginary friend. I can't recall the names of either the kid or his friend, as this was over 30 years ago(I was but a wee lad). I found it strange and even a bit disturbing when he would talk to his friend and talk about his friend. Sometimes his mother would become quite cross with him when he blamed things on his imaginary friend.

This is really just pretext, lets fast forward a couple years, to the first time I encountered my great aunt(grammas sister) and with her, religion(I believe they were episcopalians). After a thorough dose of jesus this and holy that, my mind was racing. But what really stuck out was my friend from before..my Aunt had imaginary friends too!

Unfortunately I was a bit of a blunt kid lacking in tact..and I said as much, not to insult or anything negative, but because I thought it was cool. You can imagine the reaction, and my confusion. I think she chased me right out of the house that day.

Anyway my point here is that much of my fascination with religion probably stems from this incident, and to this day I still haven't found this particular grail:Why do some adults have imaginary friends?

I have read multiple versions of the christian bible back to front to back, studied history vis a vis abrahamic tradition, studied its source religions to the east and to the north, vedic tradition, Mithraism, asatru, the pantheons of the greeks and the romans, for thousands of hours. From this I have gained a ton of context and understanding into the human mind and psyche, into the foundation of politics and morality, and the human 'soul' as it were.

I have tried to believe, actively hanging around the salvation army church, inviting jehovahs to come in and have coffee, looked to the sky and asked for a sign..but I could not. It's never, not once, been plausible to me. I have never been able to separate the friend of that friend from my childhood from the friends of my Aunt, or the millions and billions like her.

After what I have read at the start, I didn't expect to see a "I have trued to believe" statement.

Why did you try to do that at it didn't make sense to me

 

[Sabour]

If we read a book and find no errors in it, we should suspect error in our reader.

I have some confidence in my self.

We read Quraan for ourselves and many memorize as a whole.

I'm not sure what you mean.

I meant I didn't see you posting a reply before this. I was just answering and paid little attention to who am I answering.

I don't believe in atheists, of course, no more than I believe in theists.

One can't actually become one and unbecome the other. They aren't real things.

What I will say is that once a person has thought deeply and rationally about God, and has decided that God is not real, that person is very unlikely to switch back to a belief in God. Not the God that he previously examined anyway.

Well actually I think it happens. In less rate but it does

 

[Sabour]

That's what everyone says about their own scriptures. Listen to the Baha'is, for example, and their worshipful stance toward the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

The Christians, the Jews, the Mormons... they all have writings which obviouusly came straight from a Perfect Prophet of God.

I pay less attention to claims and more attention to results.

I am familiar with Christians that is why I give examples about them a lot.

Never I had a conversation with a Christian and received direct answers.

And no one brought up to me the subject that there is no scientific errors. Even if they do, they will tell me it is an imperfect book and it is perfected through faith. Or religion isn't about proof it is about faith.

Quraan explicitly says and challenges people and says if it were from a person, you would have seen errors. That is the difference.

So I think Quraan position is a bit stronger in that aspect and that part is essential as a proof.

On this forums I didn't see a thread about errors in the bible, I saw a thread "errors in the Quraan". Look at the pages in that thread and compare the title to what is written in the OP.

I think conclusions can be drawn up from such a thread.

 

[Alceste]

Once upon a time I had the opportunity to interview lots of atheists, and one distinct 'type' stood out. The intelligent, inquisitive, no-BS child who saw from an early age that God was like Santa -- a story told to him by parents and culture.

Usually these kids (as adults anyway) had very high IQs.

Other atheists were also highly intelligent but for some reason had to struggle through late teenagehood or early adulthood before they could break away from the system.

But I never knew an atheist who went back to theism. Maybe they exist, but I never met one.

I've known apatheists and disinterested agnostics who became involved in theism, and their description of that transformation usually includes "I used to be an atheist, but then..."

IMO, they are usually basing that description on hindsight and a fairly inaccurate depiction of what an atheist is that they learned in church. They simply went through a period of searching for spiritual answers then finally became convinced they had found them. But they usually didn't go through a phase of concluding through the use of evidence and deductive reasoning that the claims made by religion in general are false.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have some confidence in my self.

Yes, of course. But there is only a fuzzy line between confidence and arrogance.

I've searched all my life for God; I'm extremely intelligent; I'm a wordsmith, a poet, a philosopher. And of course I'm as cute as all hell.

But any old Christian or Muslim can walk up to me and declare that he has great confidence in himself and has logically determined that (his) God really does exist and that his scriptures and prophet are without error.

Who is arrogant? To me, it seems that the arrogant one is the one who claims to know all about God.

We read Quraan for ourselves and many memorize as a whole.

OK. For myself, I consider that an ungodly thing to do. It's confusion. It thinks that God lives in actual human words. It worships words rather than worshipping God.

Bibliolatry.

 

[Sabour]

Yes, of course. But there is only a fuzzy line between confidence and arrogance.

Which one I was?

I've searched all my life for God; I'm extremely intelligent; I'm a wordsmith, a poet, a philosopher. And of course I'm as cute as all hell.

Let us talk about the last one

But any old Christian or Muslim can walk up to me and declare that he has great confidence in himself and has logically determined that (his) God really does exist and that his scriptures and prophet are without error.

Please, feel free to refute me. I know you do this with Christians.

Who is arrogant? To me, it seems that the arrogant one is the one who claims to know all about God.

Sorry that I see that my religion is perfect. But I believe it is because it is from God.

How can I say this in a non arrogant way? When I am writing it, and not saying face to face, it can take many shapes.

OK. For myself, I consider that an ungodly thing to do. It's confusion. It thinks that God lives in actual human words. It worships words rather than worshipping God.

Well the way I see it is that one should tangibly be given something that shows that Islam is true.

I didn't see any Muslim worshiping words, because when a muslim takes time to open the Quraan it touches him deep and the message is clear.

However, I've seen many muslims worshiping money and positions.

What is common between these muslims is that they don't care about Islam, nor they take the time to read the Quraan or learn about their religion.

Of course I am not talking about all of them.

 

[Gordian Knot]

But I never knew an atheist who went back to theism. Maybe they exist, but I never met one.

Would you settle for a former atheist that became agnostic?

Formative years, no real interest in Gods. Life went on quite well, or not, as it went.

During high school & college, I started to take a look at what facts where available. My take on those facts led me to believe that there are no Gods, no afterlife. That decade or two was my atheist years.

In the last two decades or so (all timescales rough estimates at best), life experience combined with continues studies of both theology, philosophy and science, and gathering what wisdom I had managed to collect along the way brought me to a bizarre and unusual place.

Humility.

I realized that neither science nor theology could answer the really fundamental questions. How can a universe be never ending? And yet how could it have had a beginning, which postulates a 'nothing' before it.

I realized that science could not answer these questions any better, or worse, than theology can. If both are equally possible, or impossible, and if I am to be honest with myself I have to admit that the possibility of Gods was no more far fetched than the contradictions of the reality of the universe itself.

Summation - Gods are just as reasonable/unreasonable as science. As such I cannot justify an absolute statement that there are no Gods.

Agnostic.
_______________________________________________________________________

And always in the background were the suspicions, later confirmed for me, that there is so much more to this thing we call reality that we are unaware of. Not only that but even more so, much of what we perceive as real is illusion. Our biological senses are pathetically limiting. Advancements in science have given us a much wider view of what reality could be. Might be.

Thus I became a Deist. Post Modern version. That there are no Gods, but there might very well be a force to the universe. Not conscious. Not aware. There never the less. Maybe.

"Luke. Use the force!"

So in my life there is now an uneasy truce between theology and science. The former more of the senses, of feelings. The latter more of the intellect. I perceive science as the only method for our species to learn more than we know. The scientific method guarantees proofs, or dethrones them if new information contradicts what we knew before.

Science is the foundation upon all that I perceive is built. Theology is for speculation. For answering those questions science cannot. Why are we here? What is the purpose to it all? These suppositions can never be more than speculation, and not flawed for all that. Continued growth in both knowledge and wisdom require these two fields of study, side by side. Always though with the necessity of keeping them separate, for science and theology are very separate disciplines.

Thoughts? Comments? Snarky remarks? All are welcome. There is not a one of us living the same reality. I have come to realize the import of sharing our separate stories.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thoughts? Comments? Snarky remarks? All are welcome. There is not a one of us living the same reality. I have come to realize the import of sharing our separate stories.

Can you not find meaning in life, or an answer to the question of origins, without theology? A belief in a deity is not required for a belief in some form of meaning.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And no one brought up to me the subject that there is no scientific errors. Even if they do, they will tell me it is an imperfect book and it is perfected through faith. Or religion isn't about proof it is about faith.

Quraan explicitly says and challenges people and says if it were from a person, you would have seen errors. That is the difference.

The Quraan is full of scientific errors. And religion isn't about proof.

So I think Quraan position is a bit stronger in that aspect and that part is essential as a proof.

Yes, I realize that you think so. But you are biased. How could you not be?

On this forums I didn't see a thread about errors in the bible, I saw a thread "errors in the Quraan". Look at the pages in that thread and compare the title to what is written in the OP.

I think conclusions can be drawn up from such a thread.

I'm not sure what you mean. I know that Muslims sometimes come here with astounding scientific knowledge which is embedded in the Quraan. But these things only look astounding to the Muslims. Those of us outside of Islam see nothing exceptional about it. It's just the same wild claims as are made by all Book-followers about their own Books.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I've known apatheists and disinterested agnostics who became involved in theism, and their description of that transformation usually includes "I used to be an atheist, but then..."

IMO, they are usually basing that description on hindsight and a fairly inaccurate depiction of what an atheist is that they learned in church. They simply went through a period of searching for spiritual answers then finally became convinced they had found them. But they usually didn't go through a phase of concluding through the use of evidence and deductive reasoning that the claims made by religion in general are false.

Yeah, that's my experience, too. And sometimes religionists will proclaim their earlier atheism just as a selling point. They love to stand up and witness about how they were once evil atheists who....

 

[LuisDantas]

I am classifying inspiration as something written by someone.

I mean in my case, I am a Muslim, we believe that Quraan is the word of God.

Is it really the true word of God or just and inspiration written by someone?

You seem to find it important to know that it is the first rather than the second. Is that right?

If I had to choose between the two, I would doubtless choose inspiration over the first.

Of course, I flat out doubt the first to even exist, so it is not even a decision at all...

Considering I found no errors, this means I believe that Quraan is the word of God.

And don't underestimate that because Quraan is of like 600 pages and about 6600 verses discussing many many things.

It is also usually offered as evidence for things it does not even attempt to address, so I'm afraid that statement carries no weight whatsoever far as I am concerned.

One should notice that while translations of the Quran are freely and widely available, its text tends to be comparatively unimpressive to those who are not already Muslims. It actually offers very little information outside specifically traditional or religious fields, and is strongly alegorical to the point of being difficult to negotiate.

Well agree on that sometimes I lack a way But I have no bad intentions or questioning about anything. As a matter of fact I appreciate those who have their own thinking and are not blindly following.

And I know you are interested in discussion. It is good for both of us. I do feel the necessity of having a healthy discussion.

Your good will is noted and appreciated.

Well I disagree on the second.

But I think that doesn't have a meaning at the moment unless we take a look at the religion at hand.

That is one thing I never quite understood in Islamic doctrine.

Sure, the Quran insists in the need to believe in God (although it also claims, countering it albeit not explicitly, that "there is no compulsion in religion").

But really, how clear can it be, or must it be, that belief in God is in and of itself meaningless? That it says nothing about how the specific person deals with it? Some people lose their way very badly indeed because they insist in believing to have God by their sides.

Also, and this may be difficult for a Muslim to accept perhaps out of simple cultural conditioning, atheism is not at all to be avoided. It carries no bad consequences whatsoever, and avoids a few dangerous traps of theism.

Either science is not all knowing or science is pushing this away.I think theories will keep coming.

Theories will doubtless keep coming, but I think you are seeing a bias where none exists. To be fair, where none could even make a difference in the first place...

Well okay, let us add to that, which we previously mentioned, that all what we are perceiving is limited and finite.

And we know that everything "finite" or "limited" has a lifetime. Everything that has a lifetime need to be created. But at some point we have to reach the point that something was there by definition because if we kept on asking who created that, we will have endless questions, which is basically the same question.

This approach my not be convincing to you. This depends on what is the degree by which you take on logical thinking. And if you share the same thought of course.

I guess I just don't have a problem with admitting no connection to answers about the meaning of infinity.

It is unanswerable.

It does not mean that I have to propose or believe that there is a name and a purpose for those lack of answers. Existence as a whole may well be truly and completely accidental, for all anyone really knows.

It does not mean that I have to be troubled by that, either.

Prophets are important in religions in which God reveals to them his message and tells them to share it with people. People has history in doing right and wrong, killing, murdering, and transgress one another. For that reason there was a message and a way of life to be shared.

That may have been the case, but it is not at all evident. "False" prophets arise far too easily and are way too difficult to tell from the genuine article for the existence of "true" prophets to be a given.

Through prophets this message can be shared. But If anyone comes to me and tells me I am a prophet, I would tell him prove it. How he would prove it, by a miracle.

As we sit here and speak, you find it not very important. But at that time, it was for these miracles that verified true prophets from false ones. So they were important so that people would follow the teaching and the prophets.

Is that so? I would like to hope people were a bit more critical of what they were told.

Well in Islam, you don't blindly follow. It is not just about faith.

It is about faith and reasoning. So you have to be convinced.

Even me as a Muslim when I hear something from a Sheikh that you must do this and this according to the Islam. It is part of my duty to go and check if what he is saying is right or not.

From this outsider's perspective that sounds like quite a challenge.

Is this essential right now in our discussion, can we drop if for a while?

If yes I wish you would give me the right to bring it up again when it is necessary. At that point I don't think it is.

Afterlives? Sure, let's leave them for some other moment.

What I meant is that I often see some becoming atheists because "christianity" or "hinduism" didn't make sense for them.

My argument is if it wrong, this doesn't mean there isn't God. Maybe you were in the wrong place.

Hmm, that would help explain those people who become ex-atheists.

Nope. According to Islam, it is mentioned that for every age there is a prophet. The list of prophets I gave are those who are mentioned by name in the Quraan. There is a hadith saying that there are around 124 000 stepped foot on earth.

The Bahais make similar statements. I personally think that there is something of a misunderstanding there. Prophecy, in the sense of caring for the quality of faith, is in fact much wider and much less related to belief in God.

Don't mind me about the "e" and "a" mistakes as I always do it.

No problem, I just thought I should be upfront about what I understood.

Religion is about all the people. I totally understand that some atheists have higher values than some people. But like in the 7th century, when people lived in the desert and the survival was for the fittest. Was that the case? I don't think

I speculate that back at the time "atheism' had a very different meaning than it does now.

I have a strong hunch that this strong reliance on belief in God over actual deeds and moral values is a very recent phenomenom.

I understand that. But I am enjoying the discussion and your approach.

I haven't had such a discussion for a while. I am trying to be as clear as possible

Thanks, I appreaciate the consideration

One example of people who attempted to test it is Gary Miller.

Professor Gary Miller | ISLAM---World's Greatest Religion!

The article seems to be presenting some interesting insights into social psychology as applied by the Quran. I wish the presentation were a bit clearer, though.

 

[Truthisnotyourenemy]

Well let us talk about that

1- You said "Errors", I found one

2- You wrote like 10 lines about something you can say in 5-6 words.

3- If you took the time to read the verse from another translation, you would have seen the word whale.

4- You didn't even verify the word in Arabic.

5- I think nobody bought it in the first place. Why should I defend something that is so shallow and obvious.

Whale or fish the implications are the same.
One of the hadiths I used in my opening post said whale.
As usual you seem to miss the point.

Do you know what is the difference between you and me?
I don't say anything unless I really mean it. When I said I hope Allah guides you, I truly do. When you say have a nice day, I doubt you meant it.

Regarding what you said about "figment of ones imagination", I am up for discussing that if you are interested.

You can make assumptions all you like as you seem to be doing on this thread.
If I have the time and inclination I will show you how your imagination is getting the better of you on your '20 signs thread'.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Would you settle for a former atheist that became agnostic?

Actually most every atheist I've known has claimed to be both atheist and agnostic.

In the last two decades or so (all timescales rough estimates at best), life experience combined with continues studies of both theology, philosophy and science, and gathering what wisdom I had managed to collect along the way brought me to a bizarre and unusual place.

Humility.

That's interesting. As I say, most atheists of my acquaintance don’t assert that there is no God. Most of them say that there's insufficient evidence to compel them to belief... or something like that. But I don't find them to be intellectually arrogant. Just the opposite really. It’s the God-embracers who seem arrogant to me. They think themselves smart enough and holy enough to understand God.

I realized that neither science nor theology could answer the really fundamental questions.

I think theology can answer any question it wants. All it has to do is assert an answer. (Or have its prophet assert the answer.)

I realized that science could not answer these questions any better, or worse, than theology can.

In my view, science is much weaker at giving definitive answers than is theology.

If both are equally possible, or impossible, and if I am to be honest with myself I have to admit that the possibility of Gods was no more far fetched than the contradictions of the reality of the universe itself.

You're one up on me. I don't even know what a God might be.

Summation - Gods are just as reasonable/unreasonable as science.

I can't see myself using language like that. Science isn't a thing, in my conception. It's a process, a method of investigation. God, on the other hand, seems to be an actual object, as least as most people speak of God. So it doesn't please my ear to hear that 'God is as reasonable as science.' It's as if you've said, 'Bigfoot is as reasonable as geometry.'

It feels clanky to me, such a statement.

As such I cannot justify an absolute statement that there are no Gods.

I'm glad to hear it. It's the way of wisdom.

And always in the background were the suspicions, later confirmed for me, that there is so much more to this thing we call reality that we are unaware of. Not only that but even more so, much of what we perceive as real is illusion. Our biological senses are pathetically limiting. Advancements in science have given us a much wider view of what reality could be. Might be.

Sounds reasonable to me.

So in my life there is now an uneasy truce between theology and science. The former more of the senses, of feelings. The latter more of the intellect.

Again, I wouldn't use that language myself. For me, theology and science are completely at ease with one another. I'm not even sure they're different things, actually.

I perceive science as the only method for our species to learn more than we know. The scientific method guarantees proofs, or dethrones them if new information contradicts what we knew before.

I might use 'rational investigation' in place of 'science'... but it's a quibble.

Always though with the necessity of keeping them separate, for science and theology are very separate disciplines.

As I say, not for me. But we all use words differently.

There is not a one of us living the same reality. I have come to realize the import of sharing our separate stories.

Wise words. Many of us assume that everyone else shares our reality, but that’s just a comforting illusion, I think.