Question about atheists

farati

Hi,

Just interested in you opinions, guys.

Why do you think atheists are so aggressive? They don't hold any truth. They don't believe in truth.
Why do they feel we need to prove God to them?
Why do they think God is illogical, considering it IS a deductive logic?
Why do they only consider facts that support their opinions?
Why do they deny anything theists say, even the correct ideas?
Why do they think science is exclusive to them?
Why to they refuse to acknowledge stories of prophets considering one would need epistemological data to take a look at it?

I honestly think they are leading towards some sort of religion. The entire argument of atheism seems like incredulity. It is a logical fallacy.

virginia

Salam peace

Maybe you will consider this a good answer from atheism

http//www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/CONTENTS.htm

farati

Salam peace

Maybe you will consider this a good answer from atheism

http//www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/CONTENTS.htm

This criticism is nothing new. It can be akl summarized in - atheism is argument from incredulity and argument from religious ignorance.

No matter how hard you try it is impossible to convince an atheist because it has a predisposition to set of dogmas.

For example. We have a theory that earth had two moons. If religion claimed something like this it would be laughed upon without objective look at the issue.

As I mentioned, you can't prove history (story of prophets) through scientific method. There is nothing to observe or experiment on. It is about tracking epistemology. It can't be proven.
Just because someone thinks something didn't happen because it is defying nature, is not a reason to disbelieve.

For example, Moses splitting the sea. It is something that is "illogical". But in reality quite possible. Just because the phenomenon is not happening right now doesn't mean it never happened or can't happen. That's the problem with history. The sea being split is no different than two moons. Consider this explanation - strong winds + moons gravitational pull. In theory quite possible.

The criticism of divine being is also non-based. If God created the universe, then all works according to his calculations and through laws of nature. It is like programming a videogame. There isn't anything illogical here. It is a deductive logic. Pink pony, unicorns, spaghetti monsters are false analogies because we are aware about the roots of the named beings and their creation. They simply match human experience. God doesn't.

Also, about the Quran. I think it is an old arguments. The Birmingham Quran shows that the original, Hejazi script was unchanged. The oldest Quran (Birmingham) belonged to Abu Bakr.

Jafar

I honestly think they are leading towards some sort of religion. The entire argument of atheism seems like incredulity. It is a logical fallacy.

Religion is a BELIEF SYSTEM that was / is authored, designed and being ENFORCED by an organization (State / Kingdom / Caliphate / Empire / Federation / Community) to be accepted, believed, adored WITHOUT QUESTION by it's member.

There is / was a BELIEF SYSTEM called ATHEISM designed and being ENFORCED by an organization to be accepted, believed, adored WITHOUT QUESTION by it's member.

A good example of this is (among others) is Soviet's Atheism / Leninism and Chinese Maoism...

And just like any other religion, the above religion once in power will start persecuting member of other / competing religion...

Having said that... not all who believe in 0 God/Deity are proponent of ATHEIST Religion... Those who believe in 0 God and doesn't enforce their belief / opinion upon others / persecute other who believe in more than 0 God is NOT a proponent of ATHEIST religion..

I have met many of those who believe in 0 God/Deity to be kind, loving, humble and logical person.. and they fully respect others of their rights to believe in more than 0 God/Deity, a truly different opinion than they are....

virginia

This criticism is nothing new. It can be akl summarized in - atheism is argument from incredulity and argument from religious ignorance.

No matter how hard you try it is impossible to convince an atheist because it has a predisposition to set of dogmas.

For example. We have a theory that earth had two moons. If religion claimed something like this it would be laughed upon without objective look at the issue.

As I mentioned, you can't prove history (story of prophets) through scientific method. There is nothing to observe or experiment on. It is about tracking epistemology. It can't be proven.
Just because someone thinks something didn't happen because it is defying nature, is not a reason to disbelieve.

For example, Moses splitting the sea. It is something that is "illogical". But in reality quite possible. Just because the phenomenon is not happening right now doesn't mean it never happened or can't happen. That's the problem with history. The sea being split is no different than two moons. Consider this explanation - strong winds + moons gravitational pull. In theory quite possible.

The criticism of divine being is also non-based. If God created the universe, then all works according to his calculations and through laws of nature. It is like programming a videogame. There isn't anything illogical here. It is a deductive logic. Pink pony, unicorns, spaghetti monsters are false analogies because we are aware about the roots of the named beings and their creation. They simply match human experience. God doesn't.

Also, about the Quran. I think it is an old arguments. The Birmingham Quran shows that the original, Hejazi script was unchanged. The oldest Quran (Birmingham) belonged to Abu Bakr.

I do not agree because it seems you are talking like if what is traditionally called "faith" is all that there is... And there is much more.

There are many atheists in this world who deserve God's reward much more than we do, we who call ourselves believers. Actually I don't think "believer" in the traditional sense of the word is an requirement for Paradise. Many atheists are believers and they don't even know it.

About the link, it is obvious that it does not match my thinking, I was just providing a good (I think) link about religion / god 's refutation.

Who is Abu Bakr? hmm

Salam and have a nice day

peace

Man_of_Faith

I do not agree because it seems you are talking like if what is traditionally called "faith" is all that there is... And there is much more.

There are many atheists in this world who deserve God's reward much more than we do, we who call ourselves believers. Actually I don't think "believer" in the traditional sense of the word is an requirement for Paradise. Many atheists are believers and they don't even know it.

About the link, it is obvious that it does not match my thinking, I was just providing a good (I think) link about religion / god 's refutation.

Who is Abu Bakr? hmm

Salam and have a nice day

peace

The Arabic/Semitic word Amen is more about a person's confidence, much like their self-confidence and the primary definition is 'secure' and when we speak of a Mumeniin it is these people's inner security. You do not need to be a believer in God for that. However being secure with the will (decree) of God is obviously advantageous.

Be well
Amenuel

virginia

The Arabic/Semitic word Amen is more about a person's confidence, much like their self-confidence and the primary definition is 'secure' and when we speak of a Mumeniin it is these people's inner security. You do not need to be a believer in God for that. However being secure with the will (decree) of God is obviously advantageous.

Be well
Amenuel

I am not even sure that the "conciousness" of God is an advantage or not, there are many ways, and faith is just one of them

farati

I do not agree because it seems you are talking like if what is traditionally called "faith" is all that there is... And there is much more.

There are many atheists in this world who deserve God's reward much more than we do, we who call ourselves believers. Actually I don't think "believer" in the traditional sense of the word is an requirement for Paradise. Many atheists are believers and they don't even know it.

About the link, it is obvious that it does not match my thinking, I was just providing a good (I think) link about religion / god 's refutation.

Who is Abu Bakr? hmm

Salam and have a nice day

peace

I was talking about article. Not you. But you just confirmed what I said. Atheists usually ignore all theists say and account everything we say to faith, which is not the case.

Abu bakr was Muhammad's companion and yes believer is a broder sense. One of the verses implies that devil is a disbeliever. Obviously he knows god exists. Then why is he a disbeliever? He just was disobedient of commands.

Peace to you too.

virginia

I was talking about article. Not you. But you just confirmed what I said. Atheists usually ignore all theists say and account everything we say to faith, which is not the case.

yes, they are as closed minds about faith as many religious people is about atheism

Abu bakr was Muhammad's companion and yes believer is a broder sense. One of the verses implies that devil is a disbeliever. Obviously he knows god exists. Then why is he a disbeliever? He just was disobedient of commands.

exactly, because "believe" is not the only aception of "iman" and "kufar" has very little to do with believe or not, imo.

Anyway I always liked that article since it presents very organized and analitycally the rejection of god's idea. But it lacks maaany things, as it presents Islam, Quran and its compilation according to hadiths, which is really easy to refute, imo. I don't know if it would change according to hadith rejection and God Alone theology...

In any case, have a very nice stay in the jungle, I mean free-minds ;D (I hadn't welcomed you in your introduction post)

peace

Jafar

Atheists usually ignore all theists say and account everything we say to faith, which is not the case.

Refuting other people / party's opinion JUST BECAUSE it is coming from other people / party is a common characteristics shown by atheists, mono-theist and multi-theist..
In short it's a common human behavior.. regardless of group and / or social identity.. including yourselves..

I have posted something about this, here's the explanation on WHY it is so

Why Human Get Tense Over Differing Opinions
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9608636.0

farati

yes, they are as closed minds about faith as many religious people is about atheism

exactly, because "believe" is not the only aception of "iman" and "kufar" has very little to do with believe or not, imo.

Anyway I always liked that article since it presents very organized and analitycally the rejection of god's idea. But it lacks maaany things, as it presents Islam, Quran and its compilation according to hadiths, which is really easy to refute, imo. I don't know if it would change according to hadith rejection and God Alone theology...

In any case, have a very nice stay in the jungle, I mean free-minds ;D (I hadn't welcomed you in your introduction post)

peace

Thank you Peace to you too!

Rekkd

The Arabic/Semitic word Amen is more about a person's confidence, much like their self-confidence and the primary definition is 'secure' and when we speak of a Mumeniin it is these people's inner security. You do not need to be a believer in God for that. However being secure with the will (decree) of God is obviously advantageous.

Be well
Amenuel

How can you not be a believer in God and be given the privilege to be by his side or become part of him as you claim. How is that even fair, an atheist doesn't deserve salvation for denying God

reel

Why do you think atheists are so aggressive? They don't hold any truth. They don't believe in truth

I believe in their lives they do hold truth. That?s part of what humans are. But if you are asking about atheism, look into sectarian Muslims. I took time to study atheism because it is pretty silly to criticize something without knowledge. But it did help me understand sectarian Islam and other personality cults. I came to conclusion that this is true

Religion is a BELIEF SYSTEM that was / is authored, designed and being ENFORCED by an organization (State / Kingdom / Caliphate / Empire / Federation / Community) to be accepted, believed, adored WITHOUT QUESTION by it's member.

There is / was a BELIEF SYSTEM called ATHEISM designed and being ENFORCED by an organization to be accepted, believed, adored WITHOUT QUESTION by it's member.

Sectarian Islam shares a huge amount of similarity with atheism. Perhaps, that is why, Allah says that those who don?t judge by the book are disbeliever? Moral relativism is the biggest ideology trait shared by both atheism and sectarian Islam. Unfortunately, it is usually an inconvenient way to lead life. That?s why, most often atheists and sectarian Muslims (mainly the orthodox) need to use aggressiveness to keep their religions alive. It is quite weird that the sayings of the atheist scholars are too similar to what we find in hadiths. It left me so surprised that I decided to put them together to make an atheist hadith book using the same technique we find in sectarian hadith books.

Why do they feel we need to prove God to them?

So that they can refute it? So that they can make others doubt their religions with the refutation? On free-minds, some Quran only Muslim turned atheists admitted to starting threads about it with that objective.

Why do they think God is illogical, considering it IS a deductive logic?

One recent study showed that most atheists confessed to losing belief in God for emotional reasons. The people (of my age) I know usually told me they weren't just thinking about God. They weren't religious. Then there is another group which says we are too modern to believe in God now. Whether God is illogical comes in a debate only when a debate starts or when someone has to form an excuse.

Why do they only consider facts that support their opinions?

Moral relativism. But I see this to be common among most humans. Think about the fans of Trump.

Why do they deny anything theists say, even the correct ideas?

Because God guides us all. It really is up to the individual to make an effort.

Why do they think science is exclusive to them?

Same reason why sectarian Muslims think Quran is exclusive to them. It is considered a holybook, but rarely they want to take time to understand its teachings. Interestingly, majority of the atheists don't understand the fundamental aspects of the science. Some people like Dawkins believe we can understand everything using it. Now that is an embarrassing fairytale. Science is still in its beginning stage.

Why to they refuse to acknowledge stories of prophets considering one would need epistemological data to take a look at it?

Because of the way the stories are presented. The contradicting factor is that even atheists need to rely on awkward fairy tales to run their religion.

Jafar

Interestingly, majority of the atheists don't understand the fundamental aspects of the science. Some people like Dawkins believe we can understand everything using it. Now that is an embarrassing fairytale. Science is still in its beginning stage.
Because of the way the stories are presented. The contradicting factor is that even atheists need to rely on awkward fairy tales to run their religion.

Many people (Theist and Atheist alike) don't understand the fundamental aspect of Science..

The full name Scientific Method
As the name implied it's a methodology...
It's NOT a belief system, religion a set of idea and opinion set in stone or written in some holy books..

https//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg/900px-The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg.png

The methodology however is at odd with DOGMATIC approach adopted by organized religion.
Where QUESTIONING is FORBIDDEN and came up with HYPOTHESIS which go against or different than the dogma / idea which was proposed by 'religious authority' (can be human, dead human or holy book) is considered as a crime and punishable..

If a 'claimed scientist' said "Your proposed idea is not inline with Science".. then such 'scientist' is actually a 'religious' person.. and do not fully grasped the fundamental principle of Scientific Method.

Instead he should have said "Your proposed idea is not inline with my observation and also some other people observation"...

Take a case of "Flat Earth" hypothesis which once proposed on this forum...

Those who proposed or believer in "Flat Earth" hypothesis might actually be applying the "Scientific Method".. yet their conclusion is different than the "Round Earther" because they are using a different set of 'data' to back their hypothesis.. the flat earther uses holy book and reject the data coming from NASA, Indian space agency, Chinese space agency and other space agency while the round earther is the other way around.

Yet both opinion are valid to their own perspective and scope... and it's not punishable and / or a crime...
The bad thing about 'religion' / 'dogmatic approach' is they tend to DEMONIZE everyone who disagree with their hypothesis as 'EVIL', 'COMING FROM THE DEVIL', 'ENEMY OF THE BELIEVER' etc.. which then justify harm and persecution towards them...

By 'religion' here I don't mean only the usual suspect, I've seen somebody being beaten by a crowd on the street just because he has the opinion of "Mao Zedong was a tyrant". I then labeled the beating crowd as "Religious Maoist" although they might claimed themselves to be either "Atheist" or "Non Idol Worshipper".. I say they are a theist and their deity and idol is Mao Zedong...

The same case for Hillary supporter who beating up Trump supporter... they're religious of Hillary.... kind of Hillaryous isn't it?

Man_of_Faith