[VIDEOS] Religion or Atheism?

[cricketfanfirst]

As humans evolved gradually, they developed the concept of religion. This concept of religion during those times did help them to put all unexplained phenomenona at the time solely on God. As humans were evolving they unearthed their creativity and wound spectacular stories to support and stabilise the concept of religion. At the time this concept helped them to form cohesive units. That is the reason you see during earlier times religions/gods were local and specific to certain geography. This clearly shows the thought process of humans at the time. As different cultures and places did recognise to put unexplained on God/religion and also to use it to control /exert power and form cohesive units. That is the reason you find different stories on God/religion in different cultures. This to me a singular point which proves God/religion is a creation of human mind during his process of evolution.

 

[Pakpak]

Wow, you're changing your statements post by post. First you said that atheists act moral and good because, and I am quoting you:

''Mostly atheists start of reading religious books or understanding religion in general if not reading anything by keen observation of people who follow religion.''

When I pointed out to you that, indeed, many many atheists grow up WITHOUT, to quote you, ''reading religious books or by keen observation of religion'' and still end up moral, good humans; you change your entire statement to basically just because they have 'heard' of religion and God then that means religion is acting on their thoughts subconsciously. What nonsense? Here it is quoted:

Atheist have zero exposure to religion? If I ask an atheist in a completely atheistic society what is religion he would have no idea? He wouldnt know there is something called religion and some people follow it . That there is a god whom they pray to get wishes fulfilled or protect them or stop them from doing anything wrong.They don't freaking have any idea of god or religion? If your answer is they would know but not the details of different religions,rituals etc then congratulations religion has still already influenced there thoughts unconsciously.

I have heard of Scientology and Buddhism and Hinduism and Roman Paganism too, and congratulations ''unconsciously'' they do not influence ANY of my thoughts or actions any more than hearing about Sauron from Lord of the Rings did and here you're saying advance and justice-led atheist countries are there because they have ''heard'' of God. This is by far the most bizarre point anyone has ever made.

About last paragraph I haven't made any condescending remarks on either atheists in general or you.Instead illogical,absurd adjectives been used by you.I think you are assuming me to be intolerant religious person who looks down upon atheist.Rest assured I am just putting forward my opinions here and that's it.

You've basically said if there was no influence from God or religion then we'd all be criminal morons.

 

[Pollack]

Your later posts are equally devoid of a logical narrative.

If your point is that religion is essential to provide a counter-narrative, then you certainly haven't substantiated it. You also seem to be under the mistaken notion that morality and a sense of what is right and wrong is based on ones belief in God. Otherwise you wouldn't assume that all theists would think the same.

The flaw in your argument is that an Atheists point of view is up for discussion and can be challenged and hence less likely to be corrupted, whereas religious doctrine is absolute therefore sanctifies the corruption.

Both religious doctrines and atheists are up for discussion and allowed to be peacefully against each other challenging each other and it should remain that way is my view. A completely religious or a completely atheistic world is hazardous.Why a completely atheistic world is hazardous was what I was explaining for the most part here.

 

[miandadrules]

Both religious doctrines and atheists are up for discussion and allowed to be peacefully against each other challenging each other and it should remain that way is my view. A completely religious or a completely atheistic world is hazardous.Why a completely atheistic world is hazardous was what I was explaining for the most part here.

How are religious doctrines up for discussion? Even if you are disingenuous to say they are, there are no where near to the scale as which Atheist beliefs are, so once again you are making an unsubstantiated point.

How is a completely Atheistic world hazardous?

How do religious beliefs live peacefully, especially when ideas and scientific findings directly come in to conflict with it?

You are trying to suggest the two are equally weighted yet you haven't been able to even once explain how.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

Is this suppose to be proof?

Even with this example please give the scio-economic breakdown of the areas involved and the crimes committed. Average household income, single-parent families, level of education, population sizes and demographics etc....

Reported crimes in, isn't the same as crimes committed by residents in.


Also, provide a shred of evidence that it was faith which was the major determining factor.

If you haven't factored in these variables before reaching a conclusion, one must truly question your critical thinking.

Let's get national and international data too.

I have requested Mian Mohammad Nawaz Sharif sahib & Narendra Modi sahib aswell but there is No response. Probably they feel this will create a huge trouble and will create alot of disharmony and dissent amongst religious communities.


Meanwhile it's 2017 so if you have anytime do tune in to different International Conventions being held in developed countries including UK. IG-Police, Commissioners etc come as guests and express their opinion. I hope you don't see INDIVISUAL BIAS in their statements.


As i said your actions will speak up for what you are.

 

[miandadrules]

I have requested Mian Mohammad Nawaz Sharif sahib & Narendra Modi sahib aswell but there is No response. Probably they feel this will create a huge trouble and will create alot of disharmony and dissent amongst religious communities.


Meanwhile it's 2017 so if you have anytime do tune in to different International Conventions being held in developed countries including UK. IG-Police, Commissioners etc come as guests and express their opinion. I hope you don't see INDIVISUAL BIAS in their statements.


As i said your actions will speak up for what you are.

Are you going to give the demographic breakdown or any substantive proof that was requested?

Please provide the statements from said officers. What have they said which supports your claims?

Or is this once again an example of you finding a narrative that suits your pre-conceived conclusions?

 

[Pollack]

Wow, you're changing your statements post by post. First you said that atheists act moral and good because, and I am quoting you:



When I pointed out to you that, indeed, many many atheists grow up WITHOUT, to quote you, ''reading religious books or by keen observation of religion'' and still end up moral, good humans; you change your entire statement to basically just because they have 'heard' of religion and God then that means religion is acting on their thoughts subconsciously. What nonsense? Here it is quoted
:

Lol this is not what I am saying. Leave it! OK may be one more chance I give myself. You know the difference between macro economics and micro economics right? Why not just study micro economics only?Almost all major changes are brought studying macro economics and not micro because macro affect micro anyway.Similar it doesn't matter whether some atheist aren't following religion.The general psychology(moral,immoral) of all mankind on earth is driven by religion (since majority follow religion).Atheist just copy those unaware saying its not religion its my common sense and ignore other aspects of religion they despise. At the end of the day its not your brain independently identifying right or wrong but this macro factor called religion driving the pshycology of entire mankind at particular time as a whole make you know moral conduct and you believe you always knew how it is being a human species and it comes naturally to humans.

I have heard of Scientology and Buddhism and Hinduism and Roman Paganism too, and congratulations ''unconsciously'' they do not influence ANY of my thoughts or actions any more than hearing about Sauron from Lord of the Rings did and here you're saying advance and justice-led atheist countries are there because they have ''heard'' of God. This is by far the most bizarre point anyone has ever made.

This really cracked me up!

You've basically said if there was no influence from God or religion then we'd all be criminal morons.

But that would include myself as well since I was talking of religion less world and if I am there I am as well!

 

[Pakpak]

At the end of the day its not your brain independently identifying right or wrong but this macro factor called religion driving the pshycology of entire mankind at particular time as a whole make you know moral conduct and you believe you always knew how it is being a human species and it comes naturally to humans.

...and of which you have absolutely no evidence. This 'theory' is up there with Hovind's childish ice-capsule-around-the-earth-theory.

As I said in my last post, plenty of atheists grow up with atheist parents and without reading any religious texts. Merely being 'aware' of religions isn't really any evidence for your ridiculous 'macro-religion theory'. Again, like I said above, I have heard of Buddhism, Hinduism, Scientology, Roman Paganism, Punic religion...the list is long but none of those religions ever affect my actions or thinking.

This really cracked me up!

As suspected, no response given. Sums up this entire debate.

But that would include myself as well since I was talking of religion less world and if I am there I am as well!

You've said if people weren't aware of religions they'd have no morals. I am an atheist. You're not. Hence how on earth would this include yourself when your logic basically means I'd have no morals if I wasn't aware of religion?

 

[Pollack]

..

As I said in my last post, plenty of atheists grow up with atheist parents and without reading any religious texts. Merely being 'aware' of religions isn't really any evidence for your ridiculous 'macro-religion theory'. Again, like I said above, I have heard of Buddhism, Hinduism, Scientology, Roman Paganism, Punic religion...the list is long but none of those religions ever affect my actions or thinking.

Are you born atheist? Is it a thing that gets attached once born? No, right? You become one when your parent raise so or if they are not atheist then you yourself after. Assuming your parent atheist what about their's and then their.. Someone must definitely be theist at some point. They are the one who passed basic conduct when they raised their child who eventually became atheist and copied from religion what he feels logical and discarded what he feels not but eventually says its my naturally acquired morals being a human being.All those completely atheistic states you talk off were not eternally atheist even in history.Their forefather might be theist.

 

[Pakpak]

Are you born atheist? Is it a thing that gets attached once born? No, right? You become one when your parent raise so or if they are not atheist then you yourself after. Assuming your parent atheist what about their's and then their.. Someone must definitely be theist at some point. They are the one who passed basic conduct when they raised their child who eventually became atheist and copied from religion what he feels logical and discarded what he feels not but eventually says its my naturally acquired morals being a human being.All those completely atheistic states you talk off were not eternally atheist even in history.Their forefather might be theist.

What's your evidence for such a theory? Have you compared the moral conduct of atheist-unaware of religion-people vs religious people? If so where is this study? Because otherwise this is hilarious. So religious knowledge gets passed down, even if generations of parents are not religious?Well then, we can make a case for educational stuff and knowledge being passed down as well, this will save my children and their children and their children a lot of education and college fees. I didn't know I had doctors and lawyers before they were even born!

What about animals? Who know not to eat their families or have sex with their mothers and sisters and who know taking care of their young and nourishing them and making social bonds is the key to the survival of their species so I must ask...which religious etiquettes were being passed down their off-spring?
[MENTION=1080]miandadrules[/MENTION], thought you'd enjoy this.

 

[speed]

With atheism all morals are subjective, it's a slippery slope..

Also with religion there is the final Justice that is promised, atheist can not promise this and there best efforts are still not enough with all the injustice that happens in the world, and people get away with evil after all, I mean if you believe athiest we die and that's it.

 

[Pakpak]

With atheism all morals are subjective, it's a slippery slope..

Also with religion there is the final Justice that is promised, atheist can not promise this and there best efforts are still not enough with all the injustice that happens in the world, and people get away with evil after all, I mean if you believe athiest we die and that's it.

How is it a slippery slope? Especially when the countries today which guarantee equality, justice, accountability are all non-religious states?

And atheists don't 'believe' we die and that's it. Noone knows what happens after death. We could all go to another dimension or are reborn as teletubbies. There is no evidence, least of all religious books, to substantiate any claims, as of yet.

As for injustice in the world, its just the way it is. Life is never fair. Perhaps religious people could beg their God(s) a bit harder so he can make the world a better place. But considering how much trouble there is in the world, he is either not listening or he doesn't exist. The latter is more likely.

 

[Pollack]

What's your evidence for such a theory? Have you compared the moral conduct of atheist-unaware of religion-people vs religious people? If so where is this study? Because otherwise this is hilarious. So religious knowledge gets passed down, even if generations of parents are not religious?

Did not said religious' knowledge' is passed, did I? One of theist parent might have religion influence his thoughts and he would upbring his child based on that influence. Religious knowledge is not limited to morality,thoughts etc only . Religion does not spell out code of conduct atleast not in all religions but it deeply influence it.Religious knowledge as a whole may or may not be taught by parent. You seem to start assuming things now.

Well then, we can make a case for educational stuff and knowledge being passed down as well, this will save my children and their children and their children a lot of education and college fees. I didn't know I had doctors and lawyers before they were even born!

Yet another assumption. Did I say its passed biologically. Yes parent can homeschool their children and save some bucks. Also this is nonsense comparison.

What about animals? Who know not to eat their families or have sex with their mothers and sisters and who know taking care of their young and nourishing them and making social bonds is the key to the survival of their species so I must ask...which religious etiquettes were being passed down their off-spring?
[MENTION=1080]miandadrules[/MENTION], thought you'd enjoy this.

There are animals that eat their own family members and also inbreed .But seriously how animals get in here .I thought we were talking about humans. Why stop at animals include nonliving things as well?

 

[Pollack]

Also murder and other select few serious crime may not be natural to human beings and religion may or may not have any role in it.But what about other crimes and conduct .As above poster said its all subjective in atheist world.

 

[speed]

How is it a slippery slope? Especially when the countries today which guarantee equality, justice, accountability are all non-religious states?

And atheists don't 'believe' we die and that's it. Noone knows what happens after death. We could all go to another dimension or are reborn as teletubbies. There is no evidence, least of all religious books, to substantiate any claims, as of yet.

As for injustice in the world, its just the way it is. Life is never fair. Perhaps religious people could beg their God(s) a bit harder so he can make the world a better place. But considering how much trouble there is in the world, he is either not listening or he doesn't exist. The latter is more likely.

30-40 years ago homosexuality was seen as morally wrong by these same states, today it is fine, tomorrow who knows what is to come.

Allah promises all injustice will be settled on judgment day, that is a reassurance for the believer, atheism can never substitute for this.

 

[Pakpak]

Did not said religious' knowledge' is passed, did I?

You said that generations of atheists will still have ''influences'' due to having theist ancestors. How are they ending up with the influences, if they're not passed on? Please explain. Here is your exact quote:

''Someone must definitely be theist at some point. They are the one who passed basic conduct when they raised their child who eventually became atheist and copied from religion what he feels logical and discarded what he feels not but eventually says its my naturally acquired morals being a human being.All those completely atheistic states you talk off were not eternally atheist even in history.Their forefather might be theist.

I have even highlighted you using the word ''passed''.

You're going around in circles. First you say: i) Atheists before becoming atheists start off by reading religious books and observing religious people ii) then when I point out that you have generations of atheists who have not touched a single religious book you come up with theory #2 that you don't actually have to READ books as long as you're 'aware' of religions. iii) I point out to you that I am aware of a lot of religions yet my actions are not determined by them. iv) You then say but all of atheists had a theist ancestor who 'passed' on the religious influences. I asked you how is this possible? Otherwise we can pass off medical knowledge or accountancy knowledge as well. And I ask for proof, to which you say ''it cracks you up in laughter'' You then lie and say you never actually said religious views are passed on, when that is exactly what you said. So please, explain to me. How are generations of atheists still receiving religious knowledge from their theist ancestors? You said its passed on so tell me how, where are those genes? We have discovered most genes, so where is this religion one?

There also humans who inbreed and eat other humans, but like animals its a rarity. The general pattern is that animals will care, nourish, love and form social bonds with each bonds because it guarantees their survival as a race. My point was, just like them we and every living thing has those ingrained values which are needed for us to escape extinction. Or are you saying animals love, care, not inbreed because they have religious-animal ancestors who gave them these basic moralistic behaviors?

 

[Pakpak]

30-40 years ago homosexuality was seen as morally wrong by these same states, today it is fine, tomorrow who knows what is to come.

It was seen morally wrong because of religious and especially Christian influences in the West. Once such voices died down the views have changed. As for tomorrow, well, every Western nation is widening the gap in terms of justice, law, order, health care, education, you name it while Muslims squabble over if co-education is moral or not.

Allah promises all injustice will be settled on judgment day, that is a reassurance for the believer, atheism can never substitute for this.

Every religion says the same. Without any proof. If you believe a book, good for you I guess?

 

[Pollack]

You said that generations of atheists will still have ''influences'' due to having theist ancestors. How are they ending up with the influences, if they're not passed on? Please explain. Here is your exact quote:



I have even highlighted you using the word ''passed''.

You're going around in circles. First you say: i) Atheists before becoming atheists start off by reading religious books and observing religious people ii) then when I point out that you have generations of atheists who have not touched a single religious book you come up with theory #2 that you don't actually have to READ books as long as you're 'aware' of religions. iii) I point out to you that I am aware of a lot of religions yet my actions are not determined by them. iv) You then say but all of atheists had a theist ancestor who 'passed' on the religious influences. I asked you how is this possible? Otherwise we can pass off medical knowledge or accountancy knowledge as well. And I ask for proof, to which you say ''it cracks you up in laughter'' You then lie and say you never actually said religious views are passed on, when that is exactly what you said. So please, explain to me. How are generations of atheists still receiving religious knowledge from their theist ancestors? You said its passed on so tell me how, where are those genes? We have discovered most genes, so where is this religion one?

There also humans who inbreed and eat other humans, but like animals its a rarity. The general pattern is that animals will care, nourish, love and form social bonds with each bonds because it guarantees their survival as a race. My point was, just like them we and every living thing has those ingrained values which are needed for us to escape extinction. Or are you saying animals love, care, not inbreed because they have religious-animal ancestors who gave them these basic moralistic behaviors?

I made honest attempt to explain everything.But I guess its clearly not working out for us. I believe i wasnt clear initially but not later.I end discussion here and glad you tried to have fruitful conversation.
GB

 

[miandadrules]

With atheism all morals are subjective, it's a slippery slope..

Also with religion there is the final Justice that is promised, atheist can not promise this and there best efforts are still not enough with all the injustice that happens in the world, and people get away with evil after all, I mean if you believe athiest we die and that's it.

And what subjective morality are you concerned about?

Slavery? Paedophilia? Murder?

Where on the slope are these?

 

[Black Zero]

30-40 years ago homosexuality was seen as morally wrong by these same states, today it is fine, tomorrow who knows what is to come.

Allah promises all injustice will be settled on judgment day, that is a reassurance for the believer, atheism can never substitute for this.

That's true however laws are passed by politicians. And religion still has huge influnce on the politics of most countries. Plus, very powerful institutions are based in religion (roman church and islamic charities)

apart from few countries, religion is still the force behind these laws. And there are only few countries, where legislation is not much influenced by religion.and this is a very recent change.

So for the persecution of home sexual, "credit" goes to religion.

Another point, topic of morality deals different questions than the topic of atheism. So linking of these topics does not make much sense.

For thousand of years, humans are trying to find an objective framework for morality.
And, imo, Erick Fromm has presented it effectively in his landmark work "man for himself"

But this field is still very much work in progress, as we have answer to simple questions (like beating wife is objectively immoral) but still have no objective answer to more complex questions (i. e. abortion).

 

[enkidu_]

When religion doesn't rhyme with justice, it's not a balance, but a weight ; atheism is a weight to which no one could really do justice ; those "atheists" have just lost "God" as equation in the modern life, where capitalism-liberalism just doesn't let space for Him (it's about securing a job, a wife and a house), so it's not that they don't believe in Him, but don't know that they could actually believe.

Objectively speaking, both are destinations with no roads, and humble a-gnosticism is the only intellectually viable option, while practical gnosis is the only viable life.

 

[Black Zero]

When religion doesn't rhyme with justice, it's not a balance, but a weight ; atheism is a weight to which no one could really do justice ; those "atheists" have just lost "God" as equation in the modern life, where capitalism-liberalism just doesn't let space for Him (it's about securing a job, a wife and a house), so it's not that they don't believe in Him, but don't know that they could actually believe.

Objectively speaking, both are destinations with no roads, and humble a-gnosticism is the only intellectually viable option, while practical gnosis is the only viable life.

Atheism is about not believing in God/gods.
And that's all
..

It's not about:
Everything else (including road or justice )

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

My personal take on the religion or atheism boils down to this:

Religion = appreciation of the world we live in

Atheism = indifference

 

[cricketfanfirst]

My personal take on the religion or atheism boils down to this:

Religion = appreciation of the world we live in

Atheism = indifference

Not sure, but I think, may be you have misinterpreted. Atheism, simply rejects a supernatural being, but does that doesn't mean beauty in nature is not appreciated. Beauty in nature, arts, are qualities which are appreciated by everyone. Example, to appreciate poetry, you don't need to be religious or atheist, it simply ticks you because of its intrinsic quality.
Not sure, in which exact context, you mean indifference.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Not sure, but I think, may be you have misinterpreted. Atheism, simply rejects a supernatural being, but does that doesn't mean beauty in nature is not appreciated. Beauty in nature, arts, are qualities which are appreciated by everyone. Example, to appreciate poetry, you don't need to be religious or atheist, it simply ticks you because of its intrinsic quality.
Not sure, in which exact context, you mean indifference.

You can appreciate beauty in nature, arts or whatever or you don't need to. It's all a collection of random stuff at the end of the day, hence indifference would be a logical attitude towards it all.

 

[miandadrules]

My personal take on the religion or atheism boils down to this:

Religion = appreciation of the world we live in

Atheism = indifference

Based on what?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Based on what?

See above.

 

[miandadrules]

See above.

I did.

It didn't explain anything.

What is your assumption based on and why is it logical?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I should add - and again this is my personal take - I believe there is design in the world and for me that leads to appreciation. Others might find their own reasons or logic to appreciate random stuff happening without design but that hasn't resonated with me.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I did.

It didn't explain anything.

What is your assumption based on and why is it logical?

It's a personal take according to my personal logic. I'm sure others have their own version of logic.

 

[miandadrules]

It's a personal take according to my personal logic. I'm sure others have their own version of logic.

That was never in dispute.

I merely asked for you to share that logic.

 

[miandadrules]

I should add - and again this is my personal take - I believe there is design in the world and for me that leads to appreciation. Others might find their own reasons or logic to appreciate random stuff happening without design but that hasn't resonated with me.

So realising that you will only have a brief time of consciousness ever leads to indifference?

Yet, considering this life as a transient state on the way to immortality, whilst being subjugated by supernatural being thus ultimately being helpless to change the course of events leads to appreciation?

 

[Pakpak]

You can appreciate beauty in nature, arts or whatever or you don't need to. It's all a collection of random stuff at the end of the day, hence indifference would be a logical attitude towards it all.

Sorry Capt, you're an excellent poster but have to disagree here. I can appreciate the beauty of our world the same as the next guy, I just don't believe there is someone in the sky pulling the strings. Infact I believe we might not have another life and hence only this one to appreciate the beauty. I could argue religious people are waiting for the next one and hence are indifferent.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Sorry Capt, you're an excellent poster but have to disagree here. I can appreciate the beauty of our world the same as the next guy, I just don't believe there is someone in the sky pulling the strings. Infact I believe we might not have another life and hence only this one to appreciate the beauty. I could argue religious people are waiting for the next one and hence are indifferent.

Hard to put an analogy on it, but if you think of the universe like a painting, if you think it's by design you would appreciate the artist. If you think there is no design, then what is there to appreciate?

 

[Pakpak]

Hard to put an analogy on it, but if you think of the universe like a painting, if you think it's by design you would appreciate the artist. If you think there is no design, then what is there to appreciate?

That it is still beautiful and amazing. Everytime I see pictures from the Hubble telescope I am taken aback. Me not believing it had an artist doesn't have anything to do with appreciating its beauty. I believe the artist is nature, driven by a series of events that we are still trying to understand. You believe its God. That's all the difference is.

 

[miandadrules]

Hard to put an analogy on it, but if you think of the universe like a painting, if you think it's by design you would appreciate the artist. If you think there is no design, then what is there to appreciate?

Then you are appreciating the artist not the art. In that analogy you are not appreciating the world but the creator.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

That it is still beautiful and amazing. Everytime I see pictures from the Hubble telescope I am taken aback. Me not believing it had an artist doesn't have anything to do with appreciating its beauty. I believe the artist is nature, driven by a series of events that we are still trying to understand. You believe its God. That's all the difference is.

Pictures from the Hubble telescope could be appreciated as amazing or beautiful, or it could be looked on as an inevitable splodge of colours arrived at by random same as what we might describe as a beautiful painting. I might think it's beautiful, a chimpanzee might think it's pointless.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Then you are appreciating the artist not the art. In that analogy you are not appreciating the world but the creator.

It's both in reality though isn't it? Why would you even need to look at the painting otherwise?

 

[Pakpak]

Pictures from the Hubble telescope could be appreciated as amazing or beautiful, or it could be looked on as an inevitable splodge of colours arrived at by random same as what we might describe as a beautiful painting. I might think it's beautiful, a chimpanzee might think it's pointless.

And your point being...?

 

[Pakpak]

Pictures from the Hubble telescope could be appreciated as amazing or beautiful, or it could be looked on as an inevitable splodge of colours arrived at by random same as what we might describe as a beautiful painting. I might think it's beautiful, a chimpanzee might think it's pointless.

How it came into being is of no concern to me, I just think its beautiful. Not sure why you're so intent on saying otherwise, when I as an atheist am telling you I find nature stunning without particularly worrying about its origin.

I could use your analogy and say that religious people believe in the afterlife and hence they find this world indifferent but atheists know this is our only chance. Hence being indifferent would be the last thing we'd feel.

 

[miandadrules]

It's both in reality though isn't it? Why would you even need to look at the painting otherwise?

Not at all.

I would look at the painting because of it's intrinsic beauty. I don't need to manufacture a fairytale narrative to give it substance.

What you are saying is akin to one who says that you can only appreciate the world under the influence of a narcotic. Both would mean an altered perception of the world that is detached from reality.

You only appreciate something that has a source? Yet you creator has no source, then how are you going to appreciate his beauty?

Are you saying that atheists don't appreciate the beauty of love they receive because they don't believe in a creator?

 

[hadi123]

Some people saying they believe in God only because Atheists do bad stuff. I have to disagree with this, you don't have to be religious to be a good person and being religious doesn't make you a good person either. I don't believe in Allah even though I was bought up in a Muslim family but I feel people believe what they want to believe. Some people feel their life is better if there really is a God and hence they simply ignore all of the flaws of a concept of God etc and carry on praying etc despite evolution

 

[speed]

You said that generations of atheists will still have ''influences'' due to having theist ancestors. How are they ending up with the influences, if they're not passed on? Please explain. Here is your exact quote:



I have even highlighted you using the word ''passed''.

You're going around in circles. First you say: i) Atheists before becoming atheists start off by reading religious books and observing religious people ii) then when I point out that you have generations of atheists who have not touched a single religious book you come up with theory #2 that you don't actually have to READ books as long as you're 'aware' of religions. iii) I point out to you that I am aware of a lot of religions yet my actions are not determined by them. iv) You then say but all of atheists had a theist ancestor who 'passed' on the religious influences. I asked you how is this possible? Otherwise we can pass off medical knowledge or accountancy knowledge as well. And I ask for proof, to which you say ''it cracks you up in laughter'' You then lie and say you never actually said religious views are passed on, when that is exactly what you said. So please, explain to me. How are generations of atheists still receiving religious knowledge from their theist ancestors? You said its passed on so tell me how, where are those genes? We have discovered most genes, so where is this religion one?

There also humans who inbreed and eat other humans, but like animals its a rarity. The general pattern is that animals will care, nourish, love and form social bonds with each bonds because it guarantees their survival as a race. My point was, just like them we and every living thing has those ingrained values which are needed for us to escape extinction. Or are you saying animals love, care, not inbreed because they have religious-animal ancestors who gave them these basic moralistic behaviors?

Using your example of majority of animals and ingrained values, so would you say majority should define moral values?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

How it came into being is of no concern to me, I just think its beautiful. Not sure why you're so intent on saying otherwise, when I as an atheist am telling you I find nature stunning without particularly worrying about its origin.

I could use your analogy and say that religious people believe in the afterlife and hence they find this world indifferent but atheists know this is our only chance. Hence being indifferent would be the last thing we'd feel.

Those are just your feelings though, in the wider sense of random events and chance, nothing matters, it just is.

 

[Pakpak]

Using your example of majority of animals and ingrained values, so would you say majority should define moral values?

There are two areas of morality, one that is ingrained which is caring for our young, not eating our parents or inbreeding. The second are a wider set of rights that every human should have and which have only come about after our society began thinking progressively. Such as freedom to practice one's beliefs, equality regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, justice and accountability. The second set of these rights only came about when the majority defined them after getting rid of religious interference in state and personal matters. And as a result human rights showed progression at levels not seen before. And even had these rights not come about you still would have had a sizeable population protesting to ensure these rights became guaranteed. Which would never have had happened in a religious society that worked on morality based on religion. And its easy to verify my point: if I speak about certain religious laws and morals, defined by religion, in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India or Israel I am guaranteed imprisonment at the least and death at the worst.

 

[dhump]

I have. Do you find him rational ? Convincing ?

Like everyone else in the world he is convincing at time and not convincing or little contradicting at others. If you talk about religion the bases are not based on rationality but your belief in existence of God in any form you believe in.

When we start mixing rationality with belief or try to proof belief based on scientific facts we forget the fact that science is always open to further research and open for correction or further research or understanding so nothing is final what is written in book of science. I mean it is a totally different subject and can talk about it for hours, but sticking to subject Dawkins is a good man of science and firm believer of his own belief and I respect him.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Dawkins logic and reasoning skills are excellent although he has come across as quite angry in the past which has probably not done him any favours.

 

[Pakpak]

Dawkins logic and reasoning skills are excellent although he has come across as quite angry in the past which has probably not done him any favours.

Dawkins, Hitchens lost it in the end. Atheist views are fine, but some of the modern new age atheists border closely on racism and xenophobia.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Dawkins, Hitchens lost it in the end. Atheist views are fine, but some of the modern new age atheists border closely on racism and xenophobia.

You can see why it would be easy to get frustrated when you are up against thought processes from the 18th century at times, but you have to rise above it and stay objective if you are a scientist. There again, they have probably made a good living publishing their works so the controversy might have had it's uses.

 

[dhump]

Dawkins, Hitchens lost it in the end. Atheist views are fine, but some of the modern new age atheists border closely on racism and xenophobia.

We have this brand of little extremist atheist whom are more anti religion than atheist and by that mostly are aggressively anti Islam which is understandable since Islamic terrorism is massive in today's world.

 

[Pakpak]

We have this brand of little extremist atheist whom are more anti religion than atheist and by that mostly are aggressively anti Islam which is understandable since Islamic terrorism is massive in today's world.

I agree, I am not surprised. However I also mean the little things. Eg the cartoon controversy. I don't really know why everyone overreacted and got offended but I would never deliberately draw something or do something that would hurt anyone's sentiments especially when I knew how the issue is so sensitive. Yet a lot of prominent atheists on social media not only recreated the cartoons but did so more graphically. This nasty bit of mockery and going the extra mile just to deliberately offend people is a bit odd and in my opinion borders xenophobia and has nothing to do with not believing there is no God.

 

[Hari Sombar]

My take: Religion has been made to help guide people down a correct path ny instilling fear (of death and judgement) or of reward. Its purely a figment of ones imagination and IMO is not needed. A person can be a good person and do good things in life with no religion.

 

[miandadrules]

If you like.

I thought as much.

So, it's more a case of finding a rationale that fits with your beliefs than a logical one.

Is that fair to say?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I thought as much.

So, it's more a case of finding a rationale that fits with your beliefs than a logical one.

Is that fair to say?

I like to think I'm open minded so I don't think so. Being able to appreciate intrinsic beauty is very subjective. Even having the ability to appreciate it could be considered a blessing. As I said earlier, you might have it, a chimpanzee won't. How do you prove something is intrinsic?

 

[The_KING]

It's common to doubt your your religion if you are a Muslim living in the west. I was in the same boat as the OP a few years ago but alhumdulillah I'm now a stronger believer in Allah. I'm not a perfect Muslim by any chance but I do believe

 

[miandadrules]

I like to think I'm open minded so I don't think so. Being able to appreciate intrinsic beauty is very subjective. Even having the ability to appreciate it could be considered a blessing. As I said earlier, you might have it, a chimpanzee won't. How do you prove something is intrinsic?

I am struggling to understand your thinking.

Appreciation in itself is subjective. Are you saying that religious people all appreciate the same things?

If you require an "artist" to appreciate the art than how do you appreciate your "creator"? He has no designer.

 

[Black Zero]

It's common to doubt your your religion if you are a Muslim living in the west. I was in the same boat as the OP a few years ago but alhumdulillah I'm now a stronger believer in Allah. I'm not a perfect Muslim by any chance but I do believe

Wonderi g , what made you stronger believer?
Research or some spiritual experience?

 

[yasir]

We have this brand of little extremist atheist whom are more anti religion than atheist and by that mostly are aggressively anti Islam which is understandable since Islamic terrorism is massive in today's world.

Its not just that, policies and culture in most muslim countries is anti free speech and Science in general. Its hard to win war of hearts and mind if laws and policies are so much against reason. Literature taught in conservative schools is full of bias and hate, Pakistan itself has lot of ill-tolerance developed because of madassaras and Tablagies running so many institutions...Now we are at the stage that nobody wants to come to Pakistan, there is not even a single Direct flight into Pakistan from any western country...

You cannot even discuss the life of Prophet, his dark side is never mentioned or taught in details...Like, child marriages, brutal killings(BQ tribe), 70+ wars in 10 years, really merciless punishments etc....These are not fiction tales but some of the facts that very few scholars dispute, but nobody can teach them in any detail, because laws of land and protectionism...

That is not the case with Jesus in Western culture, liberals and secular, go after them all the time without been threaten for life... Tolerance level goes up when people have access to more than one point of view, which is clearly missing in Muslim world, that is not making them more intelligent but rather less...

 

[yasir]

Pictures from the Hubble telescope could be appreciated as amazing or beautiful, or it could be looked on as an inevitable splodge of colours arrived at by random same as what we might describe as a beautiful painting. I might think it's beautiful, a chimpanzee might think it's pointless.

Beauty always lies in the eye of beholder...But that's not the main aim of Science, its main purpose is to discover the reality or truth as neutral as possible, we only rely of factual evidence...Weather reality is pointless or random, that's a separate discussion, but how to discover it? - Religion or Faith is not best tool for that, Science seems to be lot more reliable... If you have a better tool than Science to discover reality, bring it on, I am open to it... This spiritual mambo jumbo and supernatural Voodoo is not cutting it for me...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I am struggling to understand your thinking.

Appreciation in itself is subjective. Are you saying that religious people all appreciate the same things?

If you require an "artist" to appreciate the art than how do you appreciate your "creator"? He has no designer.

I think we are going off in different tangents here. I am saying I see a design in the universe rather than a series of random events. That is it. Obviously others don't and that's their prerogative. We all see things through our own lens and not everyone will agree.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Beauty always lies in the eye of beholder...But that's not the main aim of Science, its main purpose is to discover the reality or truth as neutral as possible, we only rely of factual evidence...Weather reality is pointless or random, that's a separate discussion, but how to discover it? - Religion or Faith is not best tool for that, Science seems to be lot more reliable... If you have a better tool than Science to discover reality, bring it on, I am open to it... This spiritual mambo jumbo and supernatural Voodoo is not cutting it for me...

Why would I want to bring any other tool than science to discover reality? I already said I am a big fan of science in this thread. By all means bring it on.

 

[kabbirann]

Sikhism being a sufi and a Punjabi religion works for me and I can always discard the bits that don't make sense. I do have trouble with the concept of God.I 'd rather worship nature.

 

[yasir]

Why would I want to bring any other tool than science to discover reality? I already said I am a big fan of science in this thread. By all means bring it on.

Then What exactly is purpose of religion? - So Religion is partial truth??

 

[The_KING]

Wonderi g , what made you stronger believer?
Research or some spiritual experience?

Just research and watching more Islamic videos on youtube.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Then What exactly is purpose of religion? - So Religion is partial truth??

Who can say? Maybe to provide vexing topics to discuss on message boards in an endless loop forever?

 

[big_gamer007]

I'm not really a complete atheist or completely religious guy.. I think on my own what is right and what is wrong and live my life the way I want without depending on something.

I don't have any problems with anyone following religion or not but what sickens me are the people who are extra religious or pretend to be and try and impose their views on others and hide behind the mask of religion to do stupid things..

 

[Black Zero]

I'm not really a complete atheist or completely religious guy.. I think on my own what is right and what is wrong and live my life the way I want without depending on something.

I don't have any problems with anyone following religion or not but what sickens me are the people who are extra religious or pretend to be and try and impose their views on others and hide behind the mask of religion to do stupid things..

When your self interest is involved, you are vulnerable.
Your thought process is not so dissimilar to believers.

 

[Yossarian]

Evolution: The Rise and Fall of Mankind

 

[Yossarian]

However.....

 

[ataullah]

Photos: Day or night, Makkah's Grand Mosque shines from space - https://m.khaleejtimes.com/region/s...night-makkahs-grand-mosque-shines-from-space-

 

[ataullah]

"When you die you know you are dead: Major study shows mind still works after the body shows no signs of life" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...iousness-sam-parnia-nyu-langone-a8007101.html

 

[Black Zero]

Photos: Day or night, Makkah's Grand Mosque shines from space - https://m.khaleejtimes.com/region/s...night-makkahs-grand-mosque-shines-from-space-

And millions of people pray for Palestine there for decades...sadly sound waves do not travel through space...

 

[Black Zero]

"When you die you know you are dead: Major study shows mind still works after the body shows no signs of life" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...iousness-sam-parnia-nyu-langone-a8007101.html

Last time I checked, brain was part of body. ..but then science is changing things so fast. ..it's hard to keep track of things.

 

[JaDed]

Religion isn't equivalent to GOD.

A person not believing in fairy tales can still believe in GOD a creator,create another option.

 

[Black Zero]

Religion isn't equivalent to GOD.

A person not believing in fairy tales can still believe in GOD a creator,create another option.

If someone believes in God/god/gods then I'd tell him that this is just a fairy tale.

 

[JaDed]

If someone believes in God/god/gods then I'd tell him that this is just a fairy tale.

Yes ,but atleast they are not forming stories about it and killing people based on the same.

 

[Robert]

My personal take on the religion or atheism boils down to this:

Religion = appreciation of the world we live in

Atheism = indifference

I know atheists who are deeply spiritual, protective and appreciative of nature. They just don’t believe in a creator of it all.

 

[James]

As long as people treat each other peacefully and with respect, then their individual spiritual beliefs or lack thereof are entirely their business. We will either meet the maker of us one day, or we won’t. A person can still have religious belief / belief in God and also be a “human-ist” in the sense that they are a good human being.

 

[PakFan2011]

Islam teaches us to pray to the ONE true god. it spreads the message you all humanity to fear god and prepare for judgement day.

but how comes god sent one single guy in arabia? there were many more densely population areas so far from arabia, however they didnt get the luxury of having the prophet.

if god can do anything, surely it would be more efficient to send loads of prophets at the same time, or have someone invent the internet way back then??

instead we have one prophet in arabia and then his followers took how many years to "pass the message".

seems like such a long shot to me

 

[troodon]

Islam teaches us to pray to the ONE true god. it spreads the message you all humanity to fear god and prepare for judgement day.

but how comes god sent one single guy in arabia? there were many more densely population areas so far from arabia, however they didnt get the luxury of having the prophet.

if god can do anything, surely it would be more efficient to send loads of prophets at the same time, or have someone invent the internet way back then??

instead we have one prophet in arabia and then his followers took how many years to "pass the message".

seems like such a long shot to me

Fro mthis forum I came to know that God sent thousands of Prophets before to all parts of the world.

Since God had to sent the last messenger to Arabia, it is clear that all those thousands of prophets sent before the Prophet Mohammed failed miserably in their task and bring peace and prosperity to the world..

Who needs internet when you have thousands of foot soldiers to carry the message to the non-believer lands anyway. It may take some time. But it is more effective. Trolls would have ruined the original message sent by God. Not to forget the troll posts insulting the teachings of God. How can God tolerate all of that.