Some questions to the "atheists/non-believers"

[inflatable jesus]

In that sense it is indeed used by many to control people and even "populations". Yet that is not the reason why religions where founded

You've never found it even a little bit suspicious that Mohammed came down from the mountain with a message saying that God wanted him to to tell everyone else what to do from then on?

Because if not, I think it's only fair to know that the Archangel Gabriel came round to my place last night and said you should send me fifty quid or he'll, uh, smite you, in the face.

 

[Santino]

This is why atheists get aggressive. Patronising twat.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That was not my question to begin with.
I asked to give the cause of such attitudes.
Different people shall give different answers since they have different "reasons" since veryone has a different background (to begin with). It comes across as very weird that you presume that I have no clue about that. (Yes, I'm an undercover alien, but you are not supposed to find out.)

salaam.

Believers have shunned and hated nonbelievers through the centuries. Why is turnaround not fair play?

 

[Maggot]

I believe in the Familiar Unseen Sisters, they're a bit like a cross between mermaids and nurses, but don't sing.

I don't think your God Ideas exist in familiar unseen sister land, but then again no one says much

They sound cool!

 

[Jonti]

Alde asks why rational people are sometimes hostile to religion. There are historical and cultural reasons for this. Christianity in particular has used violence and torture to suppress rationalists. The Catholic Church has only recently apologised for its treament of Galileo, one of the greatest scientists ever, ranking as he does with Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein. But the objection to religion is not only historical, it is also ethical and intellectual.

Here's what Thomas Huxley had to say:
"I further say that Agnosticism is not properly described as a 'negative' creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions. The justification of the Agnostic principle lies in the success which follows upon its application, whether in the field of natural, or in that of civil, history; and in the fact that, so far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity."
Thomas Huxley "Agnosticism and Christianity" 1889

And here's the same objection from thousands of years before Huxley:
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
Gautama Siddharta, 563-483 B.C.

 

[Jo/Joe]

I htink that is clear in my OP.



Why do you believe I do that?



When it comes to that group I understand (for the most part) where they are coming from with certain reactions or attitudes towards "non believers". I don't need to question what I already know.



1. I don't ask questions about "some" human traits. I ask questions about reactions of non-believers to/on believers.
2. Why do you (and some others) take this thread as something negative while there is no such thing implied?
Is that not a prime example of the defensiveness I described and hence an example of what made me ask where this comes from?

salaam.

Identify the individuals in question and perhaps refer to some examples of what you describe. My comments were perfectly reasonable, it's interesting how you have now decided to claim they are negative.

The main reason you get the reactions I think you are refering to is because the likes of you and phildwyer want the rules of science to be altered so that conclusions convenient to your faith may be reached.

 

[TeeJay]

I said nobody can know since nobody is God but God. I said that a human even can't know an other human because he is not that human.
What is so difficult in understanding this very basic very simple thing everyone knows (or should know)?

You keep using the word "God" so unless you are talking utter meaningless gibberish then you must logially have some kind of concept of what you are using the word to refer to.

What is so difficult in understanding this very basic very simple thing everyone knows (or should know)?

2. Again: I said that having a "concept" in mind (and I explained briefly what that entails for Islam) does not mean that you "know" God. I said it means that you describe your ideas about what God "could" be.

Fine - in which case instead of telling me what you "know" God to be, please tell me what this word God refers to - in whatever terms you see fit. For example why do you use the word "God" instead of using the word "Banana" or "Goldfish"? In other words - what are you talking about when you use the word "God"? What is this thing that 'could' or 'could not' be various things?

 

[tw1ggy5]

Yet that is not the reason why religions where founded or why people are religious. Maybe if you could make this distinction you would also come to a more correct judgement.

Founded generally around a basis of;

People being out in the sun too long without enough water
A misunderstanding of common psychoactive compounds and processes
A lone nut (see scientology)
Financial or political gain.

Generally tho its as an attempt to explain the world around them by people who were at that time not scientifically advanced enough to do it properly, combined with a healthy dose of superstition and someone who had something to gain from it.

People seem to become religious based on;

Being brought up into the Religion
Brainwashing (see various cults, eg christianity )
Some traumatic event that they are unable to come to terms with and so search for a supernatural answer instead of dealing with it.
A weakness they feel powerless or are made to feel powerless against (AA etc)
A lack of direction in life or need for there to be something more than there is.
Desperation, eg non-religious person praying out of desperation at coming death of spouse/child etc.

 

[tw1ggy5]

Additionally when you are being questioned about aspects of your post, you simply direct people to the very thing they are confused about in the first place. Despite your protestations the OP and following posts havent been completely clear about a wide variety of the content.

Simply stating it is does not make it so and doesn't reflect well on the rest of your thread when you are dismissive of people.

 

[tw1ggy5]

2. Why do you (and some others) take this thread as something negative while there is no such thing implied?

Because there have been many other threads along similar lines before where the OP had exactly that implied.

Is that not a prime example of the defensiveness I described and hence an example of what made me ask where this comes from?

No, its an example of someone having experienced something very similar before and being prepared in advance for the conclusion, based on your somewhat loaded question.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Also, your very own religion has a special word for nonbeliever: infidel.

Why shouldn't I get a little defensive when people start labelling me like that?

 

[s.norbury]

Also, your very own religion has a special word for nonbeliever: infidel.

Why shouldn't I get a little defensive when people start labelling me like that?

My religion has no words for such people

 

[frogwoman]

erm i think you'll find that it isn't just islam that labels people as "infidels" mate... and what about the delightful words the christians dreamt up like "heathens" ?

erm, in reply to the OP, i find this too ... but i think the thing is that you have to be respectful of peoples beliefs

i think a lot of them think religion is silly (and well lets face it my religion is weird as fuck if you don't actually practice and are from the outside looking in as it were, you're bound to see things that make you go "wtf lol!?!?!?!")

also, there are loads of religious nutters out there who have really dodgy views on an issue such as homosexuality, or the rights of women. i'm not saying for a moment that you're one of those people but they definitely do exist, and they are perhaps more vocal than someone who believes in g-d and is just "normal" since well to paraphrase one of the sayings in my prayer book the wicked man always wants to gain companions in wickedness since he's scared of the dark whereas the truly pious man doesn't give a shit who agrees with him because he is walking in the light ...

atheists who hold such views generally don't look to atheism to justify them because atheism is the absence of a belief, but they may look to something else for example "the family" or whatever, so perhaps their views aren't as obvious as those of a "religious" person, and they dont become linked to religion in quite the same way

but to be fair this is something i get annoyed with, a lot of people it seems deliberately misunderstand religion and there are some things on this website (and others), the things people say about g-d or whatever, that just make me go sometimes ! it's all a bit like the playground ... mock everyone who's different to you ...

a lot of it is simply ignorance, or as other people have said the fear that every religious person will be like some of the ones theyve encountered before

to be fair though i think that sometimes they have a point ... i mean there are some people who refuse to recognise that all aspects of their own religion and the people that follow it are anything less than perfect ... and are totally closed minded

and of course you're going to get that with atheists too, like "atheism hasn't caused any wars" ffs ...

our culture, capitalism, the media etc also encourages us to denigrate religion, it's one of the main prejudices which are socially acceptable these days ... because something that encourages you to care more about spiritual things, and helping others, rather than the latest car or mobile phone or whatever, isn't going to help people make a profit (well not that sort of profit anyway ) and the whole "do not kill" thing gets a bit tricky, too ... when all they seem to be doing these days is to try and psych people up for another war ...

i wouldn't worry about it though you're going to get chilled out people who don't believe in any kind of g-d and you're going to get people who are defensive and intolerant, it's just like in all walks of life ...

 

[phildwyer]

What - or who - is "God"?

God ıs that whıch makes experıence possıble. We can all agree that experıence exısts. If ıt exısts, then ıt must be *possıble* for ıt to exıst. If ıt ıs possıble for experıence to exıst, there must be certaın condıtıons whıch *make* ıt possıble. God ıs the sum of those condıtıons. Havıng agreed upon thıs, we can begın to argue about Hıs nature.

 

[phildwyer]

I looked at some of the exchanges between "atheists/non-believers" and people who believe in the existence of God (I made a few posts in such threads too).

A few things look very strange to me when reading such threads.
1. The "non-believers" seem to post in a very defensive mindset.
2. If not defensive this group often posts denigrating remarks about the "believers" (even up to the point of questioning their mental capacities or mental health).
3. If a "believer" declares to have no problem whatsoever with the results of scientific research, "non-believers" don't seem to have the ability to place this within the frame of their own ideas about "believers". They still proclaim the "believer" to be mentally incapable.

I would like to know/get an understanding of the causes behind this.

salaam.
Aldebaran.
non-retarded believer

Truly excellent questıons, whıch I have often raısed myself. I am tempted to answer wıth speculatıon about the fanatıcısm and ıgnorance of many (not all)atheısts, but I must also admıt that many relıgıous people do ındeed brıng relıgıon ınto dısrepute. I can readıly understand why someone who knows nothıng of relıgıon except Jımmy Swaggart and Osama bın Laden would jump to the facıle conclusıon that all belıevers are venal or mad. By showıng them that there are ıntellıgent and dısınterested people who belıeve ın God, you (and occasıonally I) are doıng vıtal work ın rectıfyıng theır error.

 

[The Groke]

God ıs that whıch makes experıence possıble. We can all agree that experıence exısts. If ıt exısts, then ıt must be *possıble* for ıt to exıst. If ıt ıs possıble for experıence to exıst, there must be certaın condıtıons whıch *make* ıt possıble. God ıs the sum of those condıtıons. Havıng agreed upon thıs, we can begın to argue about Hıs nature.

Who says that this is what "God" is.

Other than you just then of course.....



Surely "existance" or "life" is what makes experience possible?

Unless of course you are trying to argue that "god" = "life" in which case you are merely substituting one word or label for another in a totally meaningless fashion and in fact, saying abolsutely nothing.

 

[phildwyer]

Surely "existance" or "life" is what makes experience possible?

No. We do not know for sure that 'lıfe' exısts. For all we know ıt could be a gıgantıc ıllusıon. All we can know for sure ıs that we *experıence* lıfe as exıstıng.

 

[The Groke]

No. We do not know for sure that 'lıfe' exısts. For all we know ıt could be a gıgantıc ıllusıon. All we can know for sure ıs that we *experıence* lıfe as exıstıng.

But you are just arguing over semantics again.

"Life" is the term and word we use to represent the broad aspect of our "perceived" or "experienced" (if I must..) existance.

Whether or not the concept that the word "life" represents is "real" or "illusionary" or not is absolutely irrelevent - it does not change the word, its meaning or concept.

Anyway - you still didn't quite answer my question!

Why is "God" <> life/experience/whatever and who - other than you - says so?

 

[phildwyer]

But you are just arguing over semantics again.

"Life" is the term and word we use to represent the broad aspect of our "perceived" or "experienced" (if I must..) existance.

Whether or not the concept that the word "life" represents is "real" or "illusionary" or not is absolutely irrelevent - it does not change the word, its meaning or concept.

What I'm sayıng ıs that we don't and can't know whether all the stuff we exprıence (whıch I'm callıng 'lıfe') has any objectıve exıstence outsıde our heads. What we *do* know ıs that we experıence ıt. Its a very ımportant dıstınctıon.

 

[The Groke]

What I'm sayıng ıs that we don't and can't know whether all the stuff we exprıence (whıch I'm callıng 'lıfe') has any objectıve exıstence outsıde our heads. What we *do* know ıs that we experıence ıt. Its a very ımportant dıstınctıon.

Which also fails to answer my previous question.

Again

 

[Jonti]

What I'm sayıng ıs that we don't and can't know whether all the stuff we exprıence (whıch I'm callıng 'lıfe') has any objectıve exıstence outsıde our heads.

Hmmm.

How do you know you have a head?

Does it have any existence outside your head?

 

[Santino]

Well this digressed into navel-gazing bollocks quickly.

 

[The Groke]

Well this digressed into navel-gazing bollocks quickly.

Ahhhh but how do you know you really have a navel, or indeed bollocks with which to gaze at it?

huh? huh?

 

[Santino]

*checks navel*

Ooh, a peanut. Yum.

 

[maya]

- wasn't it benjamin franklin or someone who re-wrote the New Testament, omitting all the so-called "miracles", leaving a pretty down-to-earth account of Jesus' teachings?

IMO if Christianity had just embraced the teachings of Jesus (the New Testament) and never bothered to add the violent "eye for an eye" Old Testament, the whole religion would've been very different.

for instance, if you strip Jesus' teachings of all the dodgy "supernatural miracles" , it leaves a surprisingly humanist thought (love your neighbour as yourself, respect the poor/women/misguided, love and compassion, etc.)
in fact, the core beliefs of Jesus are suspiciously similar to the teachings of the Buddha...hmmm, now THAT is a conspiration theory and a half!

sadly, all monotheist (there is only one God) religions tend to be very scornful of the non-believers...where is the "respect" in that?

i think the thread-starter should think about how he phrases his (very rhetorical) "questions"- the basic premise of your questions are, you don't respect that people don't believe in God, and want to know why that is- NOT because you gen uinely want to know, but because you want to tell them that they're wrong... is THAT "tolerance"? no.

and BTW, i respect all religions- believe in what you want, Allah, JHVH, Brahman, Tezcoatlipotl, The Flying Spaghetti Monster-
just don't preach to me and try to get me converted. i believe what i want. we all respect each other and treat each other friendly. that's how it needs to be. no hate, no bad feelings.

 

[bluestreak]

I looked at some of the exchanges between "atheists/non-believers" and people who believe in the existence of God (I made a few posts in such threads too).

A few things look very strange to me when reading such threads.
1. The "non-believers" seem to post in a very defensive mindset.
2. If not defensive this group often posts denigrating remarks about the "believers" (even up to the point of questioning their mental capacities or mental health).
3. If a "believer" declares to have no problem whatsoever with the results of scientific research, "non-believers" don't seem to have the ability to place this within the frame of their own ideas about "believers". They still proclaim the "believer" to be mentally incapable.

I would like to know/get an understanding of the causes behind this.

salaam.
Aldebaran.
non-retarded believer

because to the rational mind faith is inherantly unrational. it relies on untestable and unprovable factors. to the rational mind someone who can beleive in something without evidence or the possibility of testing is mentally deficient. it's not nice, but it's honest.

 

[The Groke]

because to the rational mind faith is inherantly unrational. it relies on untestable and unprovable factors. to the rational mind someone who can beleive in something without evidence or the possibility of testing is mentally deficient. it's not nice, but it's honest.

Word.



bunch of mentalists innit...

 

[Santino]

for instance, if you strip Jesus' teachings of all the dodgy "supernatural miracles" , it leaves a surprisingly humanist thought (love your neighbour as yourself, respect the poor/women/misguided, love and compassion, etc.)
in fact, the core beliefs of Jesus are suspiciously similar to the teachings of the Buddha...hmmm, now THAT is a conspiration theory and a half!

There was something on the telly about that the other day. The theory is that Jesus was sought out by Buddhists (wise men from the East) who thought he was a reincarnated Lama, and took him to India to learn Buddhism. Then he came back home, spouted his mouth off about it, got crucified but survived (perhaps because he fell into a coma and looked dead) and then went back to India, where he is buried. There is even a tomb of Jesus in Srinagar in Kashmir (where he is called Issa). I don't know whether there is any truth in any of it, but it was cool. Would have improved The Da Vinci Code no end.

 

[Structaural]

I looked at some of the exchanges between "atheists/non-believers" and people who believe in the existence of God (I made a few posts in such threads too).

A few things look very strange to me when reading such threads.
1. The "non-believers" seem to post in a very defensive mindset. [/QUOTE]

this is not a question, only a subjective observation.

2. If not defensive this group often posts denigrating remarks about the "believers" (even up to the point of questioning their mental capacities or mental health).

this is not a question.

3. If a "believer" declares to have no problem whatsoever with the results of scientific research, "non-believers" don't seem to have the ability to place this within the frame of their own ideas about "believers". They still proclaim the "believer" to be mentally incapable.

this is not a question.

I would like to know/get an understanding of the causes behind this.

bit vague that. But I think it boils down to the fact that you choose to follow the dictates of a book written by strangers thousands of years ago... That you believe in it without evidence and that you spend a good part of your life worshipping this god that may or may not exist.
That's why people throw things like delusional around... I personally doubt that many atheists are pyschologically trained to make that diagnosis but it works well in an argument - especially on an essentially rational place like a message board...
...and belief is silly. A better saying would be 'suspension of dis-belief'.

salaam.
Aldebaran.
non-retarded believer

cool. I thought you had some questions?

 

[maya]

There was something on the telly about that the other day. The theory is that Jesus was sought out by Buddhists (wise men from the East) who thought he was a reincarnated Lama, and took him to India to learn Buddhism. Then he came back home, spouted his mouth off about it, got crucified but survived (perhaps because he fell into a coma and looked dead) and then went back to India, where he is buried. There is even a tomb of Jesus in Srinagar in Kashmir (where he is called Issa). I don't know whether there is any truth in any of it, but it was cool. Would have improved The Da Vinci Code no end.

in the version i heard, buddhists wanted to spread knowledge of the Buddha's teahings to other areas, but when they arrived in the Middle East, people's mindsets were so caught up in supernatural beliefs and god-religions that just getting them to understand the abstract, philosophical thought of Buddhism proved an impossible task-
so they invented the story of Jesus, spiced it up with some supernatural miracles and God-voices etc. (plus re-made some odd names into the local equivalents), but remembered to keep the message of compassion and love in between all the mumbo-jumbo...