hey guys what do you think of this?
-
Typical atheist reply.
They would say religious or theistic people irrational as usual.
213 And if they are told "Believe, as the people have believed," they say "Shall we believe like the foolish have believed?" No, they are the foolish but they do not know.
The gauntlet has been thrown down. I think you should take SoA up on his offer and "the truth shall prevail!"
-
No, it is not because I don't want reply to him/her but it takes so much time to reply to God rejectors.
I also never intended to refute or debate this God rejector. I just commented ;D
What is the purpose of atheists' lives by the way? I mean what do atheists think the purpose of their lives is?
Regards,
Yuliana -
Yes, the highly genius atheists (just like any educated genius people, since religious fanatics are far away from being intelligent) are not dangerous.
They may not be dangerous but anyone who doesn't believe in God is dumb. I find it truly fascinating that people can be atheists, it's absolutely unbelievable. Being a witness to all the magnificent laws of nature in the cosmos and the trillions of incredibly complex systems in our own body, and yet, assuming everything happened by chance. I'm not sure of course, but sometimes I suspect that atheists also believe in God, but that they just don't want to admit it out of arrogance. They are trying to delude themselves. They just don't wish there was a Creator because they hate the idea of being responsible. They wish they were God themselves.
-
I'm intrigued on how come this thread evolved to be a discussion about 'atheist'.
Atheist is a label, a tag which has different semantic / meanings to many people.
Example
- Christians used to label 'non-christian' as atheist.
- In many surveys, those who do not state a specific religion which he/she belongs to (a.k.a the non-religious) are automatically labeled as "Atheist".
- Soviet Russia claimed to have systematically eliminate "Religion" and promote "Atheism". In all reality the state is actually promoting a new religion called "Atheism". This is actually correlate with number 2.
- Those who has different view on 'how this entire cosmo works' are automatically being labeled as Atheist. (The buddhist might fell into this category as Siddhartha stayed silent on the topic of "Deity" or "a being called God", thus it's common to find people labeling Buddhist as Atheist)
The "Yahoo article" at the start of this post fell to the category number 2.
I don't believe that "Deity" or "Deities" exist, thus my "Theist or Atheist" really depends on my conversation partner's perception of "Theos".
Nonetheless I agree with Siddhartha
Atheist/Theist actually doesn't really matter, it's the DEED that actually matter the most.."Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it, you'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes a religion."
-- R. DawkinsSalam / Peace
-
Salaam,
It is too true that religion makes people stupid. As soon as it comes to religion no reason or logic apply anymore. Very few people understand this and remain believers without these elements although some people around here have.
What people fall on is behavior instead which seems to be the most important aspect of God's system. It is relatively easy to understand that this is what God's religion is truly about.
As I have repeated myself countless times; the only criteria to reach salvation is belief in the One God (without assigning partners to Him), eternal existence and being a good person. Yet people need lots of hocus pocus in their religion.
Lots of prohibitions themselves are only advised against because they are harmful to our behavior such as alcohol. God will not doom someone to Hell simply on this point.
God bless you
-
What people fall on is behavior instead which seems to be the most important aspect of God's system. It is relatively easy to understand that this is what God's religion is truly about.
As I have repeated myself countless times; the only criteria to reach salvation is belief in the One God (without assigning partners to Him), eternal existence and being a good person. Yet people need lots of hocus pocus in their religion.
Totally agreed.
Thank you for reminding us of that.
peace -
Off topic I think )
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it, you'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes a religion."
-- R. DawkinsI think I understand what Dawkins is saying... namely that religion is twisting the minds of people and making them do things they otherwise wouldn't do if they were "themselves". And this happens, and it seems to be just like this.
However, I also disagree with it, because Dawkins' mission is to destroy religion as a system of belief in God, therefor he ends up blaming religion itself for the stupidities of people. This is inaccurate. The stupidities of religion has come about BECAUSE OF PEOPLE, and religion is blindly and emotionally followed BECAUSE OF PEOPLE and their emotions and they way the brain and mind works. It starts with people, not religion. People invent religion. Religion is not a separate entity that has struck humanity.
But yes, we can blame religion for being a potent drug that compels us to do and say things, out of fear of excommunication from the herd, or divine punishment or guilt, or foremost and especially, loss of identity. In this way, religion is like a drug, however, it all STARTS with people themselves. Had there not been religion, then people would have expressed the stupidity in other ways. The stupidity doesn't origin in the specific painting (religion) but rather in the artist (people) who created and maintains the painting. Even tough it seems like religion has taken on a life of its own, and acts on people, religion is still something that came out of people's minds and this is where religion got it's stupidity from. Let's not mix this up.
People also have the responsibility to use their minds and see the consequences of drugs, and religion, and then approach it and relate to it in proper ways that will not let them lose control and do harmful things to others and themselves. Just like we cannot blame rape on the ethanol in the booze, we should not blame oppression on religion. The one who willingly ingests alcohol and the commits a rape must be fully responsible. It doesn't matter that "they didn't know what they were doing". Everyone knows what alcohol does to the mind/body. It is however more difficult to show (or rather for people to accept) that religion often works like a drug too. Religion is like to most socially accepted drug of all times, and we don't even know it acts like a drug. So, atrocities should not be blamed on religion as the cause of it. A sane and stable person with a normal conscience, would not commit atrocities in the name of religion. "God said so" is not an excuse. So, to navigate on the wholesome path of God and life and prosperity, it is required that we are AWAKE, mindful and attentive. Alcohol and other drugs, and religion, makes us fall down into a highly suggestive and vulnerable half-unconscious mode. This can lead to no good. This kind of fall only brings misery. Just like there are stories of angels falling, we too fall, into blindness and darkness, when we willingly give up our control, whether it be through physical or mental/emotional drugs.
So although I may be wrong, but to me it seems that Dawkin's main objective is to refute the existence of God, mainly because he himself is unable to believe in such a Power, and only secondarily because of what religious people bring forth on Earth. I think it is better to focus on the factual and practical consequences of religion, the actual output, and not on whether or not we as judges of religion believe in God or not. We should be very clear and honest about our motives behind believing or not believing in God. Also, there are lots of religious people of all sorts of religions that do marvelous good work, like charities and other kinds of social aid work. Does Dawkins think they too represent and live an insult to the dignity of humanity? Where is the insult? Is it in the held belief or in the practical output.
Peace
-
Hi Everyone,
My guess is that this is suspect. They did a meta-analysis which is an analysis of analyses. While sometimes useful, these are difficult to interpret accurately since the conditions vary across each of the sub analyses. They looked at the % atheist in the population and the mean IQ score. If you look at the graph the distribution of IQ is the same for 10% atheist populations is it is for higher percentage populations. The main action in the data is near the 0% atheist populations. There is a shift in the distribution downward here. This leads one to question what are the characteristics of those populations? Are those populations homogeneous to the higher atheist populations?
The conclusions are broad and they try to make it about individuals. Which it isn't. It is about populations. Why would a population have a higher IQ than another? Access to education? Better nutrition? We should remember that there are lurking variables in this study that the authors choose not to deal with.
Just my crazy thoughts,
JewishDude
peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peace -
The conclusions are broad and they try to make it about individuals. Which it isn't. It is about populations. Why would a population have a higher IQ than another? Access to education? Better nutrition? We should remember that there are lurking variables in this study that the authors choose not to deal with.
IQ was a metric to measure the capability for "Pattern recognition and logical thinking". In generalized term it closely correlate to "Mathematical Ability".
Based on the data, countries / cultures which commonly uses "Complex Pictorial Script" (e.g. North and South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, China, Macau etc..) have higher average IQ score.
Take Chinese alphabet for example, the simplified version contains thousands of different pictorial characters.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_charactersYou need to have the ability to recognize, at the minimum, 3000 pictorial characters in order for you to conveniently read chinese newspaper.
Mind you that the "Simplified Version" is the "Mandarin Script" which is the "National Language", if you count the 'local language and script" in China then the total number might reach 300 - 400 thousands of characters.Thus it's no brainer since everyone on that region are able to 'instantly recognize' thousands of "Pictorial Pattern" as a symbol to audio sounds inside their brain, their IQ tend to be higher. Given "Geometric pattern recognition" is among the main capability being measured in the IQ test.
Coincidentally, majority of the people living in the north eastern Asia are "Buddhist" and/or "Taoist", and Buddhism / Taoism doesn't have any conception of Deity or God, at least the Deity/God as perceived in the West (Middle East included). If we use the "western perception of Deity/God", definitely Buddhist and Taoist are Atheist.
Salam / Peace
-
Greetings and Peace, all group
Actually, the original post/link reminds me of another study...one linking autism and atheism.
http//www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2039690/Atheism-autism-Controversial-new-study-points-link-two.html
However, so long as one accurately makes use of all available data--is this not part of the Deen?
1736 And do not uphold what you have no knowledge of. For the hearing, eyesight, and heart, all these you are responsible for.
People, let's be polite to each other. This is also a requirement of the Deen.
Further
3918 The ones who listen to what is being said, and then follow the best of it. These are the ones whom GOD has guided, and these are the ones who possess intelligence.
486 And if you are greeted with a greeting, then return an even better greeting or return the same. GOD is Reckoning over all things.
To say/write/convey unkind things is the exact opposite of inviting others to the Deen. Is there anybody who actually wishes to actively go counter to Qur'anic instructions; obstructing rather than inviting?
A common aphorism is "If you have nothing nice to say, then don't say anything at all."
Personally, it reminds me of AQ 7193.
7193 And if you invite them to the guidance they will not follow you. It is the same whether you invite them or simply keep quiet.
ALLAH knows best.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi