If We All Became Atheists?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You need to look in a better dictionary. Or one at all.

If you want this conversation to continue, you'll take a more respectful tone.

 

[paarsurrey]

If We All Became Atheists?

So the Ahmadi's concept of peace is to convert everyone to Islam and unite the Islamic world.

Only to accept, if one is convinced heart and soul, that is why we Ahmadiyya believe in peaceful dialogue with reasonable arguments, Atheism (et al) are no exception, right, please?

This process will get accomplished in three hundred years from the advent of Second Coming 1835-1908, please, right?

"God Almighty gave the following glad tidings to the Promised Messiah (as). Allah said: "I shall give you a large party of Islam"
As a result of this revelation the Promised Messiah (as) made the grand statement. He said: “If someone were to die and return in two or three Centuries, they would find that the world is filled with Ahmadis like the sea is filled with drops of water.’ (Tasheezul-Azhan Qadian January 1913 page 39)"

https://www.alislam.org/library/articles/Promises-of-Divine-Help-Made-to-the-Promised-Messiah.pdf

Right?

Regards

 

[Secret Chief]

If you want this conversation to continue, you'll take a more respectful tone.

I think some heat is fine, personally. The assertion was asinine.

"Vegetarianism is a popular diet choice, whether temporary or lifelong. But what exactly does it mean to be a vegetarian? In the most basic sense, vegetarians do not eat meat. There are different classifications of vegetarianism, including lacto-ovo-vegetarians and even vegans, but all vegetarians do not eat meat, seafood, or poultry products of any kind.
What Is a Vegetarian Diet?
Vegetarian diets are commonly defined by what they exclude rather than what they include. All vegetarians exclude meat products, including beef, chicken, pork, and seafood. Beyond that, further food restrictions are up to the eater."

- What Does It Mean to be Vegetarian, and What Can You Eat?

 

[Secret Chief]

Technically no. Their nutrition comes from what ever mom eats while pregnant and while breast feeding. If mom eats meat she passes that on to her baby.

I hope my mum ate cake.

 

[We Never Know]

Who said that? You should ask the atheist to provide evidence for that claim. Don't be as bias as your effort could afford. That's an atheists claim and they made it here, including you. You should provide evidence to that claim rather than shifting the burden of proof which is a burden of proof fallacy. Logically fallacious.

My claim is simply new born's don't believe in gods. They have no concept of gods.
They cry, poop and eat.

 

[Nakosis]

Atheism (et al) have no basis, so they "sit pretty' doing nothing, right, please?

Regards

Certainly nothing to fight over, well less to fight over.

 

[GoodAttention]

I would spend existence denying my own eternity.

 

[Secret Chief]

You're so close to getting it.

If you want that conversation to continue, you should take a more respectful tone.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No one knows when we humans became capable of perceiving/conceiving (experiencing) the divine within nature. But the evidence of our having these experiences goes back as far as the evidence of human existence. It was already happening when we chose to bury our dead. And to bury them with the tools they would need to survive in an "afterlife".

The burying and reverence for the dead doesn't necessarily imply anything spiritual. The truest belief, and demonstrable, were the Sun worshippers, and where we do actually rely on such for our existence. All the various other aspects of religious belief has mostly been an evolution as to such, with a reasonably logical conclusion as to one 'something' possibly being the cause of existence. All the rest - many tales, some truth, and a lot of woo - which has happened equally in the history of science and much else..

 

[1213]

All humans are "animal level," because all humans are animals.

I disagree with that. People are not just moving images that are made to do something. But, doesn't that also show that in atheism people are animal level?

 

[1213]

Why would you say this? Do you atheists would start beheading theists as ISIS does? Or force women into wearing clothes that fully cover them? Or lie about science as evangelicals do?
What animal behavior do you see atheists doing?
Explain what "raise spirit " means, and how it is a singularly advantageous thing that only those who use it can succeed.

Atheists seem to think humans are just animals, doing what they are determined to do. Do you think humans are animals?

And raise spirit means, to be above animal behavior, imagine and make things, and develop mentally. By what I see, for atheists only material realm exists and everything is just a chemical reaction. If everyone would see things that way, I believe it would lead to animal level, because no reason for anything else, and as they say they are animals. Are atheists wrong, when they call humans animals?

And how do you explain how many atheists accomplish great things, are more rational than their religious peers, and are often more compassionate than their religious peers?

Why should I believe your claims about atheists?

If some atheists go above that line, I believe it is because for example Christians show different way and for to not look worse, also they have to do something better. If everyone would be atheists, they would not have reason to do so.

 

[1213]

That doesn't follow at all. Hillary didn't climb Everest because he was looking for God, nor were Byrd and Amundsen seeking spirituality when they reached the north and south poles. Jenner and Salk weren't looking for religion -- they were looking for ways to prevent people from becoming sick and/or dying of smallpox and polio.

Do you know the reason why they did those things? Is it because they believed to achieve something that is not yet visible?

Einstein and Hawking weren't seeking God either -- they were trying to understand our universe without reference to fables about creation.

Would they have done that, if no need to revoke Bible and God? I believe, if all would be atheists, they would have been the same as any caveman, believing in the mother nature (=evolution) and living like animals.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I disagree with that. People are not just moving images that are made to do something.

Neither are non-human animals.

But, doesn't that also show that in atheism people are animal level?

Doesn't what show that in atheism people are animal level?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheism was effectively the state religion of the USSR

A more accurate way to say this would be that in the USSR, religion was forbidden.
Atheism is not a religion.

If the USSR had any "state religion", it was communism with the Great Leader as the central figure to submit to and worship.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Clearly I disagree on this. They have not considered the issue and then arrived at an opinion.

They don't have to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are not convinced of something, but you may be wrong.

Which is not relevant to the point, as the point is about what you believe. Not if you are correct or incorrect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An atheist is an atheist because they don't answer "yes" to the question "do you believe god(s) are / is real?".

Exactly. Let me know what answer you get when you ask a baby.

I guarantee that the answer won't be "yes".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To lack belief in gods, one must be aware of the idea of gods.

I disagree. I'ld say the exact opposite is true.

One needs to be aware of the idea of gods to HAVE belief in gods.
You don't need such awareness to not believe it.

I don't get why people make such a big deal out of this.
The word atheist is completely meaningless by itself. It merely notes an absence of something. It's a word which means "not a theist".
So not being a theist, for whatever reason (not knowing about gods is a good a reason as any), means to be atheist by default.


I don't get why people are so allergic to this word and why they insist on attaching all that baggage to it which is neither here nor there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Technically it does. Ask anyone who once was a christian and chose to become an atheist.

There is no "choice" involved.
Did you "choose" at some point to stop believing that santa exists (assuming you once believed otherwise)?

To use this word "choose" implies that it was some arbitrary decision. It wasn't.
What actually happens is that at some point, for actual reasons, you are no long convinced that santa exists.
That results in disbelief. It's not a choice. It's a compulsion.

Could you "choose" to believe in Santa again? And sincerely believe it?
Off course not. Not a choice. A compulsion based on what you think to understand / know about santa, the world, etc.

Don't know how you think that. Everyone is a civilian until they choose otherwise.

This in fact involves a choice, yes.
The choice to join the military.
Unless there is forced enlistment, off course. Then there no longer is a choice as force / compulsion is involved.

Beliefs however, are not a matter of "choice". They are a matter of being convinced or not, based on actual reasons (rational or otherwise - doesn't matter).
Beliefs are a matter of compulsion.

I can't "choose" to believe X anymore then I can "choose" not NOT believe X.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

IMO until one hears about something they lack concept and have no opinion either way. They don't lack belief or have belief because they have never heard of that something, they have no concept.

You are not making any sense here.

To "lack belief" literally means to "not have a belief".
When it comes to things you never heard about, you definitely don't have a belief in those things, right?
How is that then not a "lack of belief" in those things?

I don't know about you, but I definitely don't hold beliefs in things I don't even know about...