My journey to Atheism

[aaqucnaona]

Hi, I am a recently joined member on this forum and like the majority here, I am an Atheist. I would first like to recount my journey and then explain how I straightened out my philosophy.

One can see the irony, but exactly 2 years ago I was a new ager, reading the secret, listening to lectures on Lynn Mctaggart's experiments and had given up my specs to heal my myopia through my will. When it didn't work out, I started reading the critics. I was introdued to Shermer through Ted on ytube and PnT's Bullshit soon followed. Randi, derren and other were next. I converted to being a scientific sceptic.

That by itself may have done much, but I also happened to be a avid reader of science and I absolutely loved modern physics and biology. So the next step was Attenbrough's epic Life series [all 9 of em]. Combined with a lecture series on existentialism, I was converted to a naturalistic, eclectic, absurdist, scietific sceptic. I was now a agnostic, leading towards spinoza's God as a crutch to hold up my theism.

It was only recently that I had the courage to read Dawkin's 'the God Delusion' and it completeled the journey for me. I am currently reading Harris, Sagan, Shermer, Randi and other prominet atheists.

Now the second part, my philosophy. When I was using spinoza as a crutch, I firmly establised the idea that the religious gods were a interpretation, and a poor one at that, of spinoza's god. Learning about logic, fallicies and biases and a lecture series on rhetoric moulded my philosophy to one compatible with naturistic, rational atheism.

My current view is as such:
I refer to god in three senses:

Ideological: This is the god of religion IN the minds of its followers. He is the ideological set of beilefs that drive and motivate deeply religious people. He exists in the sense that he can make a terrorist lay down his life without hesistation or convince a catholic that his protestant friend will burn in hell. Such gods exist only as long as the people who believe in them do. In this sense, Thor and Zeus are extinct Gods while Jesus and Allah are extant ones. The evangelical movement in America can be understood as a 'jesus conservation initiative', fighting the rational and scientific in a country where both are increasing at an alarming rate.

Experiential: This is the god we experience, though is largely misplaced by people into the third category. This god of experience is the name we give to the wonder one experiences marvelling at the beauty of an orchid, in reflecting how evolution shaped it as such, how simple insects and plants sustain a complex relationship like pollination. This is the god we feel looking at sunset, looking at the gradient in the sky, realising how the increased length of the light's path redshifts the scattered light in the atmosphere. This is the joy we feel looking at a hummingbird in slow motion, seeing its wings swivel in a figure 8. This is accentuated, not diminished, when we do xrays on the birds, test it in wind tunnels and determine the structural stresses the little wings bear. This god, of course exists in the sense discribed above, but no more than that. Indeed, my own conversion to atheism seems almost paved by a higher power. I know, of course, that this is explained by confirmation and personal bais, though that doesnt take away its wonder for me. I feel happier that I understand why it looks apparently paved for me.

Literal: This is a misplacement of a experiential god within a ideology resulting in belief that the ideological god is a real something, with misplaced examples of experiential god as proofs. This is the god of fundamentalist religions and he almost certainly doesn't exist.

A final word on morality: If we need a higher law to keep us in line, we need to rethink a few things. If we can do without a higher law, God isn't needed. Indeed, God was necessary when the religions were first created millennia ago. Now science has filled the space, explaining things and helping us understand the world; and logic and philosophy are well equiped to handle the moral and ethical espects once the domian of religion. In today's world, and more so in tomorrow's, religion is no longer needed and is just a harmful burden, to be rid of and rid of quickly unless people can have a non-fundamental, secular, rational point of view accepting their "holy books" as myths and continuing a culture or tradition but no more.


PS. About the poll:
From 0 to 9,
0 being undoubting belief that god exists
and 9 being undoubting belief that god does not exist,
What would u rate urself?

[KilljoyKlown]

Hi aaqucnaona

One of the good things about science forums is the atheists have the majority.

I guess you could say as a kid I was a closet atheist, I didn't really believe but I didn't want to be different from the other kids either. In the US back in the 50's & 60's atheist weren't very popular so they didn't advertize. I don't think I met my first atheist until I was in my 20's. At least one that was willing to admit to it and talk about it.

With me I really made an effort to believe in God, but after awhile I realized it just wasn't going to happen and I just accepted that I was an atheist. Having the opportunity to talk to other atheist on Science forums has really helped me solidify my thoughts on the subject.

[Aqueous Id]

9.



The evangelical movement in America can be understood as a 'jesus conservation initiative', fighting the rational and scientific in a country where both are increasing at an alarming rate.


Alarming to them, or to you?



This god of experience is the name we give to the wonder one experiences marvelling at the beauty [of nature]


I was reminded of "the laws of nature and nature's God" from the Declaration. A deist or theist bias exists, so lots of folks will tend to associate a god with a "religious experience". Otherwise, I would say that nature is the most profoundly influential agent for causing the experiences, and the most logical cause for societies to invent gods to explain the perceived spiritual experiences.

[Pincho Paxton]

Why do I end up on a book forum when I click the poll?

I just put 8. I allow 1 chance for an intelligent brain network in space that somehow, chaotically developed similar to humans. It wouldn't be a God from any religion on Earth however, it would be a new sort of brain made from matter that controls matter.

[KilljoyKlown]

Why do I end up on a book forum when I click the poll?

I just put 8. I allow 1 chance for an intelligent brain network in space that somehow, chaotically developed similar to humans. It wouldn't be a God from any religion on Earth however, it would be a new sort of brain made from matter that controls matter.

Only an 8, some room for doubt?:D

As to the book forum, yeah, what's with that?

[arauca]

Hi aaqucnaona

One of the good things about science forums is the atheists have the majority.

I guess you could say as a kid I was a closet atheist, I didn't really believe but I didn't want to be different from the other kids either. In the US back in the 50's & 60's atheist weren't very popular so they didn't advertize. I don't think I met my first atheist until I was in my 20's. At least one that was willing to admit to it and talk about it.

With me I really made an effort to believe in God, but after awhile I realized it just wasn't going to happen and I just accepted that I was an atheist. Having the opportunity to talk to other atheist on Science forums has really helped me solidify my thoughts on the subject.

I see a science forum is a church service for atheists . On the forum you can bash the believers and get support from other atheists , here you are the majority and you feel safe ...very interesting.

[KilljoyKlown]

I see a science forum is a church service for atheists . On the forum you can bash the believers and get support from other atheists , here you are the majority and you feel safe ...very interesting.

Your comments are not very accurate. But listening to what others had to say on the subject, helped me understand my own feelings. It's sometimes hard to grow up in a community ware admitting you don't believe in God makes you different from everybody else thus subject to ridicule and pressure, and after a life time you have an opportunity to finally talk to like minded people. It's nice not to feel alone in the world anymore.

[arauca]

Your comments are not very accurate. But listening to what others had to say on the subject, helped me understand my own feelings. It's sometimes hard to grow up in a community ware admitting you don't believe in God makes you different from everybody else thus subject to ridicule and pressure, and after a life time you have an opportunity to finally talk to like minded people. It's nice not to feel alone in the world anymore.

Not all of you I have a close friend atheist , he is bashing believers all the time we argue some time he comes to church with me is there is a dinner ( Wise guy),
But I see you guys are different breed . I believe you guy would be more reasonable by calling yourself agnostics , that is not as positive

[arauca]

[Q
It was only recently that I had the courage to read Dawkin's 'the God Delusion' and it completeled the journey for me. I am currently reading Harris, Sagan, Shermer, Randi and other prominet atheists.

[/QUOTE]

Now you will be an apostol of Dawkin's You should also subscribe to the atheist organization , they have a new flyer , the same way they will ask yiu for a contribution, just like in church, ( just a different name )

[aaqucnaona]

@arauca
Atheists are always against this find of lumping of people into herds - its like managing a congregation of cats. This is also why all atheists havent yet comeout. And I agree that rational discussions are the only way to critique religion, bashing it or ridiculing its followers means that u aren't ready yet to be an atheist. It takes more than just "I dont beilieve in god" to be an athiest. A love of science, logic, rhetoric, scepticism, even if u dont pursue them in study, are essential. Ur friend obviously hasnt completled the second step yet.

[aaqucnaona]

I dunno why it redirects to the book forum, It did that when I voted too.

[aaqucnaona]

Only an 8, some room for doubt?:D

The position of an atheist isn't a belief, its an inference, and it should be falsifiable to prevent it from becoming a faithbased idea. Anyway, even a 7 is technically an atheist.

[aaqucnaona]

Alarming to them, or to you?

Alarming to them of course. I think its about damn time science and rationality have greater importance than mythological beiliefs.

[chimpkin]

aaqucnaona:
but exactly 2 years ago I was a new ager, reading the secret, listening to lectures on Lynn Mctaggart's experiments and had given up my specs to heal my myopia through my will.

Um, yeah...I may be a Pagan and a mental patient...but those New-Age fluffy-white-lighter types...Man, those people will believe anything...:bugeye:

[aaqucnaona]

Um, yeah...I may be a Pagan and a mental patient...but those New-Age fluffy-white-lighter types...Man, those people will believe anything...:bugeye:

Indeed. I find it hard to believe I actually beilieved the new age stuff. Well, all well that ends well.

[Enmos]

Hmm.. the pollmaker allowed for multiple checkboxes to be checked. I accidentally voted for two options (0 and 9). I meant to vote 9.

I'm more certain no god exists than I am certain that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
I have no reason to believe in god and I have no reason to believe the sun will not rise tomorrow morning. However, neither of them are 100% certainties.

[kwhilborn]

I voted wrong, as I was presented with the question before the first post. I should have picked the lowest number instead of 9.

When asked "What would you rate your belief in god" on a scale of 1 to 9. I would think the higher number would be affirmative.

[KilljoyKlown]

I voted wrong, as I was presented with the question before the first post. I should have picked the lowest number instead of 9.

When asked "What would you rate your belief in god" on a scale of 1 to 9. I would think the higher number would be affirmative.

It's actually 0-9 and I almost voted for 0, But I remembered reading in the poll instructions to read the OP first. It actually does pay to read the instructions.:D

[Aqueous Id]

I'm am more certain no god exists than I am certain that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

This brought to mind the various cults of the sun from antiquity, who were maybe afraid the sun might not rise if they did not follow whatever rituals they followed.

If only they understood inertia, and a few more things, they could have come to the same conclusion as you.

[Aqueous Id]

Alarming to them of course. I think its about damn time science and rationality have greater importance than mythological beiliefs.

I thought that's what you meant.

Ditto to science and rationality over mythological beliefs, and all the denial which that imposes.

It seems to me that belief in God survives today because religion has evolved into a mind-tampering device. One inculcated, it's hard for the believer to back out, and it's hard to recognize atheism. The religion sets up a network of binds to prevent their sheep from wandering off.

To deny evolution, to demand intelligent design, and to cherry-pick from the laws, evidence and history that would oppose their myths, is the ultimate form of mind control.

Oddly enough, a lot of these folks end up working in science and technology. Apparently they like the structure.

[aaqucnaona]

recognize atheism

I like that phrase. Most people think of atheism as refusal to believe, but I think of it as a realization of a mistake, a misplacement of ideas.

[scifes]

amazing journey, i enjoyed every bit of it, except for the moral part, which you said philosophy and science can cope with but didn't explain how. can you elaborate on that part?

[Jan Ardena]

aaqucnaona...


...I think you were always truly atheist, as nothing you say convinces me you
were anything else. You just needed something to coax you out into the open, to stake your claim (character/personality). Like Dawkins has said on at least one occasion.. because of Charles Darwin, he (and others) can now become ''intellectually fulfilled atheists''.

It's all about belonging to a group, feeling a part of something, and finding ways to express that thing.

jan.

[Aqueous Id]

aaqucnaona...


...I think you were always truly atheist, as nothing you say convinces me you
were anything else. You just needed something to coax you out into the open, to stake your claim (character/personality). Like Dawkins has said on at least one occasion.. because of Charles Darwin, he (and others) can now become ''intellectually fulfilled atheists''.

It's all about belonging to a group, feeling a part of something, and finding ways to express that thing.

jan.

Huh?

Atheism is the absence of what you describe. No God, no God-group, no Godless-group, no strings attached whatsoever.

Where, among the steeples of your locale, have you found a single meeting place for atheists?

Where, among the private schools have you seen even one atheist academy?

Have you ever heard of an atheist bake sale? Or fundraiser of any kind?

How about a Young Women's Atheist Assoc. sports facility?

Any atheist broadcasters, news outlets, publishers, distributors or shops?

Societies? Foundations? Touring Clubs? Community Centers? Day Care? Unions?

Do atheist groups sponsor hayrides, picnics, cook-outs, camp-outs, canoe trips, ball games, marathons, retreats, dances, sing-alongs, trips, concerts, tent revivals, award ceremonies, meetings, parties, bingos, cakewalks, pot-lucks, luncheons, dinners, brunches, fairs...

I mean this list goes on and on.

Why do you say such things?

[Jan Ardena]

Huh?

Atheism is the absence of what you describe. No God, no God-group, no Godless-group, no strings attached whatsoever.

Where, among the steeples of your locale, have you found a single meeting place for atheists?

Where, among the private schools have you seen even one atheist academy?

Have you ever heard of an atheist bake sale? Or fundraiser of any kind?

How about a Young Women's Atheist Assoc. sports facility?

Any atheist broadcasters, news outlets, publishers, distributors or shops?

Societies? Foundations? Touring Clubs? Community Centers? Day Care? Unions?

Do atheist groups sponsor hayrides, picnics, cook-outs, camp-outs, canoe trips, ball games, marathons, retreats, dances, sing-alongs, trips, concerts, tent revivals, award ceremonies, meetings, parties, bingos, cakewalks, pot-lucks, luncheons, dinners, brunches, fairs...

I mean this list goes on and on.

Why do you say such things?


Dude! You're kidding right?

:roflmao:

http://atheists.meetup.com/

http://www.meetup.com/London-Atheists/

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistrecipebook/Atheist_Recipe_Book_Collection_of_Recipes_from_the _Atheist_Community.htm

http://atheistempire.com/reference/brain/index.php


I think you're in some serious denial regarding your REAL position
as opposed to the bullshit you keep telling yourselves. :D


jan.

[KilljoyKlown]

Dude! You're kidding right?

:roflmao:

http://atheists.meetup.com/

http://www.meetup.com/London-Atheists/

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistrecipebook/Atheist_Recipe_Book_Collection_of_Recipes_from_the _Atheist_Community.htm

http://atheistempire.com/reference/brain/index.php


I think you're in some serious denial regarding your REAL position
as opposed to the bullshit you keep telling yourselves. :D


jan.

Well we know the Internet has helped atheist start connecting with each other. That hasn't been very long in the scheme of things.

But the one thing we do know for sure is that atheist the world over are the same in their belief regardless of which religions predominate in the region.

I can't remember where I read it, but the Internet is doing more to promote atheism than anything ever has before.

[Jan Ardena]

KilljoyKlown,



But the one thing we do know for sure is that atheist the world over are the same in their belief regardless of which religions predominate in the region.

In the context of ...''atheist the world over''.., please explain what is meant by ''atheist''?


jan.

[KilljoyKlown]

KilljoyKlown,




In the context of ...''atheist the world over''.., please explain what is meant by ''atheist''?


jan.

I'm at a loss here, I thought 'atheist' is well defined. If you don't believe in a God or Gods, you are an atheist. However that doesn't mean you won't fake being a theist if you think revealing your true belief will be hazardous to your health or financial condition.

[Aqueous Id]

Dude! You're kidding right?
I think you're in some serious denial regarding your REAL position

My position is that there is no God, never was, it's an invention that was needed when there was no science to explain nature.

So: what I am I allegedly in denial of?



Dude! You're kidding right?
as opposed to the bullshit you keep telling yourselves. :D

There's just one of me. I got rid of my other self, it was always talking back. :argue:
Besides, if I were going to talk to myself, it wouldn't have anything to do with religion. That's the deal with an atheist. No summoning of the god or the Non-god. Just a non-summoning.

Be careful on the roads, I just heard your neighborhood is crawling with atheists. Besides being notoriously bad drivers, they don't give a damn if they die, since there's no punishment in it. Happy New Year.

[scifes]

My position is that there is no God, never was, it's an invention that was needed when there was no science to explain nature.

nature is so complex to have come by itself, that doesn't get solved when we know how it came about, in actuality, it becomes more complicated.
atheist scientists' fallacy, that once they know enough biology then the human body isn't any more awesome, or when you understand eclipses or forecast weather it loses its complexity.

God is "who", or "why". science offers "how". you among many others are mixing the two.

[Michael]

Gods are more complex, how did They come about.... oh, yeah, MAGIC :D

Science is a process of rational thought. Belief in Gods is just silly.

[scifes]

gods are too complex to apply that logic to, they're simply and literally on a different level of existence.
we're besides ourselves with awe at their creations, let alone their own origin or conception. that's simply beyond what we can even try to grasp.

science rationalizes and studies god's creations and methods, to care only about the "how" things happen all your life and not care once about the "why" they happen is what's truly silly.

[Jan Ardena]

Aqueous Id,


My position is that there is no God, never was, it's an invention that was needed when there was no science to explain nature.


Great! So now you're saying ''science'' came into being. :eek:



So: what I am I allegedly in denial of?


Everything outside of your cocoon.



There's just one of me. I got rid of my other self, it was always talking back. :argue:


Humour! The great diffuser. Not.



Besides, if I were going to talk to myself, it wouldn't have anything to do with religion. That's the deal with an atheist. No summoning of the god or the Non-god. Just a non-summoning.


I was refering to the other folk who have this blinkered view of God, religion, and, stuff.



Be careful on the roads, I just heard your neighborhood is crawling with atheists. Besides being notoriously bad drivers, they don't give a damn if they die, since there's no punishment in it. Happy New Year.


Happy New Year to you as well. :)

Are you assuming theists fear death because of punishment?
Care to share links?

jan.

[Crunchy Cat]

aaqucnaona,

I read your journey; however, it's not clear why you chose atheism over theism. Can you add some details on that?

[ZAV]

I really hate this sort of false argument. I mean, sure Dawkins and the other so-called new Atheists say God is too complex and also needs an explanation whilst Atheists say they don't proselytise or have groups, but we all know that Atheists do have clubs. Heck, the National Secular Society in the UK was founded in the 19th Century, and the Counsel For Secular Humanism, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Atheists, and other groups have existed for years and years now.

I don't think you became an Atheist because you now lack belief in a god, nor do I think Atheism is properly defined as "Lack of belief in a god"; it's actually impossible to talk about something you lack belief in. To truly lack belief you have to have no actual concept of the object. If you know what God is suppose to be, then you can choose to believe God exists or not, but you can no longer lack belief in God.

The whole of it is daft wordplay and that’s one of the biggest problems I have with the whole of the modern Atheist movement.

It gets even worse when they insist “We think for ourselves” then parrot idiot catch phrases or ridiculous pseudo-Arguments from others…


I am not saying its impossible to be an Atheist and think for yourself but al too often people think they think for themselves only because they are Atheists.

[KilljoyKlown]

I don't think you became an Atheist because you now lack belief in a god, nor do I think Atheism is properly defined as "Lack of belief in a god"; it's actually impossible to talk about something you lack belief in. To truly lack belief you have to have no actual concept of the object. If you know what God is suppose to be, then you can choose to believe God exists or not, but you can no longer lack belief in God.

When you grow up in a mixed theist society with very little or no contact with atheist or atheist ideas, how can you not have a very broad concept of what God is supposed to be. When I was growing up I put a lot of time into looking for a way to believe in God and a way to decide which religion might be the right one, until I realized it was a lost cause. No God ever asked me to believe in him and no human has ever shown me proof that a God of any kind has ever existed.

[Aqueous Id]

jan,



My position is that there is no God, never was, it's an invention that was needed when there was no science to explain nature.


Great! So now you're saying ''science'' came into being.


History tells us there was one ideology that split into Science and Religion. For example, we have Aristotle's work, leading to the division of Physics and Metaphysics. Regardless, your question is begging the question of divine intervention. But in science we discover that human reason is systematically rooted in all the other brain functions that we inherited through evolution. So this explanation renders (for us) that the question is moot.




So: what I am I allegedly in denial of?


Everything outside of your cocoon.

This cocoon is made of evidence from the most reliable sources in academia available to us. It's a cocoon of sanity. Who wants to walk in a world of myth, fable, superstition, phobia and (sometimes) violent and catastrophic ideation? Living outside the cocoon--wow, how is that not the precursor to insanity?


There's just one of me. I got rid of my other self, it was always talking back.

Humour! The great diffuser. Not.

Well you put me in the plural. I don't know anything about any atheist organizations so I fly solo. While there are some sites like you cleverly mentioned (giving credit where credit due), these seem to me to be folks who are showing up with frustration over the culture clash (esp. in the US) which has a lot of people excited (shooting out windows of political leaders for opposing fundamentalist platforms, for one). These bloggers are writing proofs against Noah or Adam, for example. And I suppose they are speaking out against the weird laws that are coming up for vote (pro-fundamentalist). It's far from the club mentality of America or Europe in its historic acculturation under Christianized societies that today still have extensive and elaborate networks that would better be characterized as clubs.



Besides, if I were going to talk to myself, it wouldn't have anything to do with religion. That's the deal with an atheist. No summoning of the god or the Non-god. Just a non-summoning.


I was refering to the other folk who have this blinkered view of God, religion, and, stuff.

If that's a sidewise compliment, thank you. I tend to get blinkered from the extremist position of your camp, which I now understand you youself do not espouse.



Are you assuming theists fear death because of punishment?
Care to share links?

Oh no I'll cede to your superlative link gathering expertise. No, not fear of punishment, fear of an afterlife, even though the fear on the surface is one of calm preparedness. Underlying that, in the subconscious, is where the terror lives.

[ZAV]

kILLJOY-



When you grow up in a mixed theist society with very little or no contact with atheist or atheist ideas, how can you not have a very broad concept of what God is supposed to be. When I was growing up I put a lot of time into looking for a way to believe in God and a way to decide which religion might be the right one, until I realized it was a lost cause. No God ever asked me to believe in him and no human has ever shown me proof that a God of any kind has ever existed.



That’s not really an address to what I’ve said though. Atheism is not defined as a lack of belief in a god or gods. The definition of Atheism is that one is without gods, and more specifically the epytomology, and the way it is used, actually is that one rejects belief in gods, or to put it another way, one does not believe gods exist.

I am not, before its stated, confusing Strong and Weak Atheism, I’m, rejecting the distinction all together. All Atheists believe that gods do not exist. The degree in which this is a conviction will vary, but it is still a belief, not a lack of belief.

You cannot lack belief in something you know about, and Atheism is not really understood Historically as mere lack of belief either.


Also, Religion is not Theism.

[KilljoyKlown]

kILLJOY-

That’s not really an address to what I’ve said though. Atheism is not defined as a lack of belief in a god or gods. The definition of Atheism is that one is without gods, and more specifically the entomology, and the way it is used, actually is that one rejects belief in gods, or to put it another way, one does not believe gods exist.

I am not, before its stated, confusing Strong and Weak Atheism, I’m, rejecting the distinction all together. All Atheists believe that gods do not exist. The degree in which this is a conviction will vary, but it is still a belief, not a lack of belief.

You cannot lack belief in something you know about, and Atheism is not really understood Historically as mere lack of belief either.

Also, Religion is not Theism.

As an atheist I can't disagree with what you just said. I made a choice not to believe, because the alternative made me feel like an ignorant primitive being seeing a God behind everything they don't understand and that's just plain unacceptable.

Can you have religion without theism?

[ZAV]

Yes, you can have Religion without Theism. In fact, many already exist which I think you would regard as Religions.

Many forms of Buddhism, for example, Raelianism, some forms of Christianity even. Of course where you will, at least for now disagree with me is when I say, you have a Religion, and not Theism.

I know you will say you are not Religious, and have no Religion at all, but part of why I came here is to tell why I say everyone has a Religion. I won'
t here if you don't mind, as I did an essay on it to present as a Thread in a couple of weeks.

Still, Religion is nothing more than our beliefs about our existence, and everyone has that.

I won't elaborate for now though.

[aaqucnaona]

aaqucnaona...


...I think you were always truly atheist, as nothing you say convinces me you
were anything else. You just needed something to coax you out into the open, to stake your claim (character/personality). Like Dawkins has said on at least one occasion.. because of Charles Darwin, he (and others) can now become ''intellectually fulfilled atheists''.

It's all about belonging to a group, feeling a part of something, and finding ways to express that thing.

jan.

I would strongly disagree. I was a very, very devout theist indeed - almost practically a weak fundamentalist.

[KilljoyKlown]

Yes, you can have Religion without Theism. In fact, many already exist which I think you would regard as Religions.

Many forms of Buddhism, for example, Raelianism, some forms of Christianity even. Of course where you will, at least for now disagree with me is when I say, you have a Religion, and not Theism.

I know you will say you are not Religious, and have no Religion at all, but part of why I came here is to tell why I say everyone has a Religion. I won'
t here if you don't mind, as I did an essay on it to present as a Thread in a couple of weeks.

Still, Religion is nothing more than our beliefs about our existence, and everyone has that.

I won't elaborate for now though.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as you are giving religion a broader definition than I do. To me a religion implies an organization to teach people how to believe and I don't belong to any of those.

[aaqucnaona]

amazing journey, i enjoyed every bit of it, except for the moral part, which you said philosophy and science can cope with but didn't explain how. can you elaborate on that part?

This is the basis for that assertion of mine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

Btw, the comments show how my discomfort this creates for theists - if science can answer morality, that one less thing for god to do, isn't it?

[aaqucnaona]

My position is that there is no God, never was, it's an invention that was needed when there was no science to explain nature.

My position exactly.

[aaqucnaona]

nature is so complex to have come by itself, that doesn't get solved when we know how it came about, in actuality, it becomes more complicated.
atheist scientists' fallacy, that once they know enough biology then the human body isn't any more awesome, or when you understand eclipses or forecast weather it loses its complexity.

God is "who", or "why". science offers "how". you among many others are mixing the two.

Nature need not be simple to be naturalistic. It only needs to have some processes by which simple laws cause the creation of complex systems from simple precursors. How these precursors came about [energy/matter in the big bang], we do not know. We know almost certainly that no god, even no intervention, was required after the big bang. This situtation must not be used, however, for a god of the gaps.

[aaqucnaona]

aaqucnaona,I read your journey; however, it's not clear why you chose atheism over theism. Can you add some details on that?

I chose it because its the only position sustainable with a mindset of scientism,scientific sceptism, absurdism, naturalism, empiricism, sophisticism and xenomorphism [the last two of which will be explained in a new thread soon].

This is a mindset that naturally follows from that journey and its a mindset which I consider to be worth having, its something I prefer over a mystical, wishful, supernatural, illogical, irrational, anthropocentric worldview which, if not necessarily comes with theism, atleast is the mental niche in which theism can exist. That is, even if a person belongs to the first worldview [which I mentioned in the first para], his theism can only exist under a veil of the second worldview.

So you see, it was not a simple choice of a belief - it was a choice between two massive paradigms.

Ps. This post has been made a new thread here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2883629#post2883629

PPS. My views on sophisticism and xenomorphism:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111813

[Crunchy Cat]

I chose it because its the only position sustainable with a mindset of scientism,scientific sceptism, absurdism, naturalism, empiricism, sophisticism and xenomorphism [the last two of which will be explained in a new thread soon].

Why does that sustainability matter to you?



This is a mindset that naturally follows from that journey and its a mindset which I consider to be worth having, its something I prefer over a mystical, wishful, supernatural, illogical, irrational, anthropocentric worldview which, if not necessarily comes with theism, atleast is the mental niche in which theism can exist. That is, even if a person belongs to the first worldview [which I mentioned in the first para], his theism can only exist under a veil of the second worldview.

What's driving that preference for you?

[aaqucnaona]

Why does that sustainability matter to you?


It does because in its absence, the main alternative is the second view I described, which I dont prefer.


What's driving that preference for you?

The practicality and utlitarianism of my prefered view is the primary reason.
Think about it [View 2 in [I]Italics, View 1 in Bold]:

Mystical - Its mysterious, not understood, often useless. On the other hand,
Scientism - Strange and hard to understand, maybe, but it can be understood and helps understand the world. It has real uses, it can get us to the moon, mystics can only tell us the moon doesn't exist when you aren't looking.

Wishful thinking - dangerous and harmful at worst, useless and wasteful most of the time at the least.
Scientific Scepticism - difficult, saddening at times, but extremely useful, prevents the harms of wishful thinking, provides a good filter for facts.

Supernatural - No reason to believe it except that it may help us if true. I sometimes combine it with wishful thinking.
Absurdism, Naturalism - Builds on Scientism and scepticism, paves the way for empiricism, forms the core of this paradigm.

Illogical, Irrational thinking - Pretty much in the same line as wishful thinking, but it may help as being soothing, comforting, etc. Its a helpful placebo and isnt entirely rejected.
Empiricism - Central insistence on reality is extremely helpful, though sometimes difficult. The Scientism of this view ensures it is constanly bombarded with [and survives] scepticism, which is a good indicator of its worth.

Anthropocentric worldview - Useful personally but totally inapproriate on a grand scale. Colors and baises a large amount of our decisions and causes a lot of mystical, wishful, illogical and irrational thinking. It is the larger cocoon in which the rest of the paradigm resides.
Sophisticism and Xenomorphism - Its a good alternative, forms the groundwork for the rest of its paradigm.

So you see, the preference is due to a consideration of its constituent ideologies, rejecting or accepting them on the basis of how much practical use they have.

[Crunchy Cat]

It does because in its absence, the main alternative is the second view I described, which I dont prefer.



The practicality and utlitarianism of my prefered view is the primary reason.
Think about it [View 2 in [I]Italics, View 1 in Bold]:

Mystical - Its mysterious, not understood, often useless. On the other hand,
Scientism - Strange and hard to understand, maybe, but it can be understood and helps understand the world. It has real uses, it can get us to the moon, mystics can only tell us the moon doesn't exist when you aren't looking.

Wishful thinking - dangerous and harmful at worst, useless and wasteful most of the time at the least.
Scientific Scepticism - difficult, saddening at times, but extremely useful, prevents the harms of wishful thinking, provides a good filter for facts.

Supernatural - No reason to believe it except that it may help us if true. I sometimes combine it with wishful thinking.
Absurdism, Naturalism - Builds on Scientism and scepticism, paves the way for empiricism, forms to core of this paradigm.

Illogical, Irrational thinking - Pretty much in the same line as wishful thinking, but it may help as being soothing, comforting, etc. Its a helpful placebo and isnt entirely rejected.
Empiricism - Central insistence on reality is extremely helpful, though sometimes difficult. The Scientism of this view ensures it is constanly bombarded with [and survives] scepticism, which is a good indicator of its worth.

Anthropocentric worldview - Useful personally but totally inapproriate on a grand scale. Colors and baises a large amount of our decisions and causes a lot of mystical, wishful, illogical and irrational thinking. It is the larger cocoon in which the rest of the paradigm resides.
Sophisticism and Xenomorphism - Its a good alternative, forms the groundwork for the rest of its paradigm.

So you see, the preference is due to a consideration of its constituent ideologies, rejecting or accepting them on the basis of how much practical use they have.

I see, so atheism for you is simply a side effect of your valuing practicality. Is there some reason why you choose to label yourself an atheist as opposed to not-a-theist?

[Jan Ardena]

I would strongly disagree. I was a very, very devout theist indeed - almost practically a weak fundamentalist.

Very interesting.
What did you regard as devotion to God?
And, why did you devote your life to God?

jan.

[aaqucnaona]

I see, so atheism for you is simply a side effect of your valuing practicality.

Do you mean side effect as in "an unintended or undesired and often harmful condition arising from something else"?
If so, I beg to differ.

I consider my atheism to be a part of my paradigm, and like the rest of my views, its a non-permanent, changable, reasoned and informed stance on an important belief. It has no inherent value judgements.


Is there some reason why you choose to label yourself an atheist as opposed to not-a-theist?

I actually label myself as a spinozist, a believer in Deus sive Natura, nature is all there is. This is where I part from the rest of the non-theists [with respect to a personal god] - pan/en theists, deists and non-deity faiths.
not a theist can mean any of those, especially panentheism and deism.

IMO, atheist is someone without god, someone who does not believe in the existence of a/many supernatural, religious, personal deity/es. Since I fit that definition, or more precisely, I fit the definition of a explict weak athiest, thats what I call myself.

Btw, what are your views on god, faith, religion, science and the supernatural? Are a a/thiest? What are your ideologies? And what is your opinion on mine?

[aaqucnaona]

Very interesting.
What did you regard as devotion to God?
And, why did you devote your life to God?

jan.

God was something I learned about when growing up - along with fables, basic studies and philosophical discussions with my parents. I never questioned it because it was a a central belief and had taboos against it.
However, the 2 year long journey recounted on this thread slowed wore away the taboos just as I was maturing, letting me question, understand and dismiss it.
But as I have said before, I want to believe, if only someone can convince me. Just like you dont maintain that there is no bigfoot [or a similiar rare great ape] I dont maintain that there is no God. If you can be shown a dead/live bigfoot, or a Hd video of it by the BBC, you would accept a belief in him. The same is true for me and God.

My devotion to god meant attending religious ceremonies, praying. [Btw, I still pray before going to sleep, only do it as a quick evaluation of the day. Similiarly, I still attend religious ceremonies and institutions as they are good and useful means of socialisation. I dont question or debate all/many theists I meet, I just nod my head. Why not? My atheism need not extent farther than my philosophy and my discussions, especially when doing so can avert harm and even yield some benefits. This is the eclectism I was refering to in our other discussion. Intellectually dishonest, withholding the truth, improper? No, its just practical and useful.]
I devoted my life to god because I believed in Him and I believed in him because I was raised that way. I dont anymore beacuse I have learned and understood and decided otherwise, for now and tentatively.

[ZAV]

Killjoy-


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as you are giving religion a broader definition than I do. To me a religion implies an organization to teach people how to believe and I don't belong to any of those.

We really didn't disagree did we? After all, implies does nto mean it must be.

Just ebcause Religion implies orginisation doesnt mean ti requires it. Plenty of peopel who even you woudl say are Religious do not belogn to specific Orginisations, and as I have noted, several "Non-Religious Philosophies" nonetheless possess Orginisational Structures. Secular Humanism has plenty of Orginisations that exist to preach its message and tell us hwo o think, for example. So does objectivism, the Philosophy fo Ayn Rand. They are typicallyt hoguth of as Philosophies rather than Relgiions, and as alternatives to Relgiion, but my question is, how do they differ from Religions, exactly?

In this case, we look only at orginisation. Both Rand's Objectivism and Secular Humanism are promoted by Institutions whose aim is to produce peopel who have the same thoughts. Why is that any different form, say, the Catholic Church or the Theravda Buddhist Temples?

[Crunchy Cat]

Do you mean side effect as in "an unintended or undesired and often harmful condition arising from something else"?
If so, I beg to differ.

I mean side effect as in unintended.



I consider my atheism to be a part of my paradigm, and like the rest of my views, its a non-permanent, changable, reasoned and informed stance on an important belief. It has no inherent value judgements.

Why do you find that belief important? Additionally, you stated that your atheistic position is not an unintended side effect of strongly valuing practicality, but rather an intentional part of your personal paradigm. What isn't clear to me is why you have intentionally chosen it? I do understand your preferences stemming from your placing high value on practicality, but what isn't clear yet is why you have put atheism into your paradigm.



I actually label myself as a spinozist, a believer in Deus sive Natura, nature is all there is. This is where I part from the rest of the non-theists [with respect to a personal god] - pan/en theists, deists and non-deity faiths.
not a theist can mean any of those, especially panentheism and deism.

Ok, so you identity with spinozism (a positive belief).



IMO, atheist is someone without god, someone who does not believe in the existence of a/many supernatural, religious, personal deity/es. Since I fit that definition, or more precisely, I fit the definition of a explict weak athiest, thats what I call myself.

I understand the accuracy of the description, but why identify with it? Atheism is not a positive belief. It's a non-belief in one particular assertion (i.e. God exists). I am pretty sure that you don't identity with a non-belief in the assertion "The invisible pink unicorn exists", so why identify with atheism?



Btw, what are your views on god, faith, religion, science and the supernatural? Are a a/thiest? What are your ideologies? And what is your opinion on mine?

My views on God:
- All human-claimed Gods don't objectively exist.
- I don't know enough about reality to determine if any life forms with God-like properties exist; however, to date I have seen no evidence that such life forms could exist.

My views on religion:
- It's generally a healthy social experience that fosters cooperation, interdependency, relationships, support networking, and psychological satiation. Like any social organization, it is not beyond corruption, manipulation, and destructiveness.

My views on faith:
- Unconditional belief limits your ability to understand and / or accept truth. It can also be extremely dangerous when applied to the variables that govern your survival and the survival of others. On the other hand, it can make you feel very confident, happy, and satisfied.
- Unconditional trust when applied to people can result in very strong and cooperative relationships. It can also lead you to getting burned badly if it is mis-applied to people in situation that is critical to you.

My views on science:
- It's the best formal process humans have ever made towards undstanding reality.
- It takes a strong education to be able to comprehend the knowledge gained from science and correctly practice science.

My views on the supernatural:
- All human claims of the supernatural don't exist.
- I don't know enough about reality to determine if any phenomenon exist that violate the "laws of nature"; however, I have seen no evidence that such phenomenon could exist.

I am an atheist. I don't intentionally subscribe to any particular set of ideologies so I am not sure where I would fall in the currently known ideology spectrum. My opinion on your ideology is that it is right for you; however, I am still unclear as to why atheism (as opposed to any other negative position) is intentionally included?

[arfa brane]

I see that some people think we should "do away" with mythological beliefs--i.e. religions--and accept that science has all the answers we need.

That just isn't true, we need myths as much as we need rational explanations. In fact, the belief that science and rationality can somehow replace mythology is mythical.

If you can rationally explain why the OP needs to include a paragraph about an "experiential" god, and how this could be replaced, that would be interesting. But I think it could only possibly amount to a rationalisation of experience, and then: so what?

[elte]

amazing journey, i enjoyed every bit of it, except for the moral part, which you said philosophy and science can cope with but didn't explain how. can you elaborate on that part?

I've come to the conclusion that our main ethical principle is that competing *against other people involves an attitude of preying on them, which is evil. Self-defense is not included.

Competing *with other people is different. Eg: Americans compete with the British against H1N1.

* for emphasis

[aaqucnaona]

I mean side effect as in unintended.

Then yes, it was an unintended side effect.


Why do you find that belief important? Additionally, you stated that your atheistic position is not an unintended side effect of strongly valuing practicality, but rather an intentional part of your personal paradigm. What isn't clear to me is why you have intentionally chosen it? I do understand your preferences stemming from your placing high value on practicality, but what isn't clear yet is why you have put atheism into your paradigm.

It was unintended as in it was the natural consiquence that would follow from the rest of my paradigm. It is an intentional part only in that I am now reflecting, reading and thinking about it. The choice to include it was a side effect.


Ok, so you identity with spinozism (a positive belief).

Its actually a very vague belief, hardly something one would positively assert. I include spinozism only in order to account for the experiencial god {in the OP}.


I understand the accuracy of the description, but why identify with it? Atheism is not a positive belief. It's a non-belief in one particular assertion (i.e. God exists). I am pretty sure that you don't identity with a non-belief in the assertion "The invisible pink unicorn exists", so why identify with atheism?

In a world without theists, atheists wouldn't be required [whether all or none would be atheists is a different philosophical question]. However, if the invisble pink unicorn had believers numbering in billions and they had to power to change or influence the political and educational system, you too would be an a-unicornist.


My views on God:
- All human-claimed Gods don't objectively exist.
- I don't know enough about reality to determine if any life forms with God-like properties exist; however, to date I have seen no evidence that such life forms could exist.

Ok. Btw, theists would not count any 'life-form', however god-like, to be god/s.


My views on religion:
- It's generally a healthy social experience that fosters cooperation, interdependency, relationships, support networking, and psychological satiation. Like any social organization, it is not beyond corruption, manipulation, and destructiveness.

Nice and objective. I now include this in my perspective on religion.


My views on faith:
- Unconditional belief limits your ability to understand and / or accept truth. It can also be extremely dangerous when applied to the variables that govern your survival and the survival of others. On the other hand, it can make you feel very confident, happy, and satisfied.
- Unconditional trust when applied to people can result in very strong and cooperative relationships. It can also lead you to getting burned badly if it is mis-applied to people in situation that is critical to you.

Agreed.


My views on science:
- It's the best formal process humans have ever made towards undstanding reality.
- It takes a strong education to be able to comprehend the knowledge gained from science and correctly practice science.

So you do share the high value all athiests place on scientism.


My views on the supernatural:
- All human claims of the supernatural don't exist.
- I don't know enough about reality to determine if any phenomenon exist that violate the "laws of nature"; however, I have seen no evidence that such phenomenon could exist.

Ergo, your views on the supernatural and the big foot are pretty my symmetrical. Its a good sign of a healthy, objective, disintrested mind.


I am an atheist. I don't intentionally subscribe to any particular set of ideologies so I am not sure where I would fall in the currently known ideology spectrum. My opinion on your ideology is that it is right for you; however, I am still unclear as to why atheism (as opposed to any other negative position) is intentionally included?

I see that you consider atheism to be holding a negative position. Why is this so? A man without god is the same as a man without big foot, but no one could claim the other to have a negative belief about big foot [that it doesn't exist], its simply that he doesn't buy the claim of big foots existence, for now.

Btw, what is the how and why of your atheism?

[scifes]

This is the basis for that assertion of mine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

closed the video after min 17, the speaker claims the taliban are clueless about human well being, which clearly shows his cluelessness about afganistan and taliban and i can bet anywhere outside his little town.
i'm an american who lives in the middle east, and i tell you sam harris is more clueless about morality than he is about physics. he is too closeminded to speak about the issue and that makes him and his opinions rather dangerous, his view is too pigeonholed i can't see how you even considered it.


Btw, the comments show how my discomfort this creates for theists - if science can answer morality, that one less thing for god to do, isn't it?
science says i'll disappear after i die.
if that's so, then why wouldn't i extort others if i can get away with it?
if i managed to get beyond compassion because others are feeling good, what stops me from evil?
if i was constantly rejected by my community, why wouldn't i grab a machine gun and shoot as many of them as possible then kill myself?

science is soooo far from answering the abc's of morality, as much as athiestic figureheads want it to.

[aaqucnaona]

.

I agree. I only posted to to show that the question of morality is being considered and may be answered without religion or theism. Harris is as far away from a science of morality as deepak chopra is from quantum mechanics. And yes, some people do overcome compassion and do bad things - whether they believe in god or not - of course, variations exist, a theistic extremist jihadist is much more likely to do so than is a devout mormon. So, the point is theism or religion is not the only or the best source of morality. Nothing more than that was intended to be established by that video. Right now, philosophy and religion is all we have, maybe in the future we shall have a science of morality, till then, theist or not, I see no reason why people should not follow the good teachings of world religions.

[elte]

But it is socially unstable and contradictory for world religions to say that they know God and what God says. That is an implicit condoning of dishonesty which is detrimental to good civilization that we need for our general happiness. So religion ultimately risks doing the very opposite of what it is supposed to do. That is a big reason why Russia has become such a crime haven (no disrespect intended to my Russian readers.), once the straw house of theological religion is torn down, there isn't decent notion of morality based on common sense around to keep society functioning efficiently.

[wynn]

I've come to the conclusion that our main ethical principle is that competing *against other people involves an attitude of preying on them, which is evil. Self-defense is not included.

Competing *with other people is different. Eg: Americans compete with the British against H1N1.

* for emphasis

So what exactly do you believe is our main ethical principle?

"It is evil to compete against other people" -?

[wynn]

But it is socially unstable and contradictory for world religions to say that they know God and what God says. That is an implicit condoning of dishonesty which is detrimental to good civilization that we need for our general happiness. So religion ultimately risks doing the very opposite of what it is supposed to do.

There is of course the issue of living in a society where many religious organizations exist, each providing a somewhat different account of what God supposedly wants for people.

I am sure that with a better understanding, it is possible to meaningfully contextualize religious pluralism as well.



But it is socially unstable and contradictory for world religions to say that they know God and what God says. That is an implicit condoning of dishonesty

Why?

I do not think it is impossible that individuals or groups of people receive revelation from God.
How obligatory those revelations are for other people, is another matter.

[aaqucnaona]

So what exactly do you believe is our main ethical principle?

"It is evil to compete against other people" -?

I think I would state the main ethical principle of secular moratily as this -

The central goal should be the betterment of humanity from basic amenities to the human endeavors and this is the what we should act towards - personally and socially, in our daily lives and in our cultures; in such a way that no one innocent is harmed or made prone to harm.

[gmilam]

science says i'll disappear after i die.
if that's so, then why wouldn't i extort others if i can get away with it?
if i managed to get beyond compassion because others are feeling good, what stops me from evil?
if i was constantly rejected by my community, why wouldn't i grab a machine gun and shoot as many of them as possible then kill myself?
Hopefully you believe in hell.

Personally, I don't. I think it was made up to keep people like you in line. C'est la vie.

[Trooper]

Hopefully you believe in hell.

Personally, I don't. I think it was made up to keep people like you in line. C'est la vie.

Did you vote? I can't remember your stance. Were you a tad bit wishy-washy? :shrug:

Refresh my memory, will ya? :D

[gmilam]

Did you vote? I can't remember your stance. Were you a tad bit wishy-washy? :shrug:

Refresh my memory, will ya? :D
I didn't vote.

It depends on one's definition of "god".

Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah - I see no evidence for, and would go as far as saying they do not exist.

The more ubiquitous "nature is god"... I'm a little more wishy washy on. Nature does exist (obviously). And there is (obviously) something interesting going on here.

I have quit referring to the universe as "god" as it just confuses people. And my "belief" in "Mother Nature & Father Time" does not carry any sort of moral code or ritual with it.

[Jan Ardena]

I didn't vote.

It depends on one's definition of "god".

Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah - I see no evidence for, and would go as far as saying they do not exist.

The more ubiquitous "nature is god"... I'm a little more wishy washy on. Nature does exist (obviously). And there is (obviously) something interesting going on here.

I have quit referring to the universe as "god" as it just confuses people. And my "belief" in "Mother Nature & Father Time" does not carry any sort of moral code or ritual with it.




"Mother Nature & Father Time"


Ahhh!!! How cute. :bawl:


jan.

[elte]

So what exactly do you believe is our main ethical principle?

"It is evil to compete against other people" -?

Indeed

[elte]

Why?

Because they have doubts about it but treat it as certain.


I do not think it is impossible that individuals or groups of people receive revelation from God.
How obligatory those revelations are for other people, is another matter.

I'm kinda with you there. I don't think revelations are impossible either, but I have never seen an example of a revelation that turned out to be real.

[Crunchy Cat]

Then yes, it was an unintended side effect.

It was unintended as in it was the natural consiquence that would follow from the rest of my paradigm. It is an intentional part only in that I am now reflecting, reading and thinking about it. The choice to include it was a side effect.

Ahh, that makes sense now.



Its actually a very vague belief, hardly something one would positively assert. I include spinozism only in order to account for the experiencial god {in the OP}.


I see.



In a world without theists, atheists wouldn't be required [whether all or none would be atheists is a different philosophical question]. However, if the invisble pink unicorn had believers numbering in billions and they had to power to change or influence the political and educational system, you too would be an a-unicornist.

Your identity to atheism is a position of resistence against negative theist influence affecting the public. That is a very good reason.



Ok. Btw, theists would not count any 'life-form', however god-like, to be god/s.

At least the ones with named Gods.



So you do share the high value all athiests place on scientism.

I certainly value science.



I see that you consider atheism to be holding a negative position. Why is this so? A man without god is the same as a man without big foot, but no one could claim the other to have a negative belief about big foot [that it doesn't exist], its simply that he doesn't buy the claim of big foots existence, for now.

This is why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism



Btw, what is the how and why of your atheism?

The How:
- I value truth very highly and atheism is a natural side effect of it.

The Why:
- Same as you.

[aaqucnaona]

The How:
- I value truth very highly and atheism is a natural side effect of it.

The Why:
- Same as you.

I see you took how to mean the details and why to mean the reasons.
Anyway, I wanted to know how you became an atheist.

[Crunchy Cat]

I see you took how to mean the details and why to mean the reasons.

Almost. By "how" I took it as cause. By "why" I took it as intent.



Anyway, I wanted to know how you became an atheist.

It didn't make me feel good being lied to, so I took up the position of atheist.

[aaqucnaona]

It didn't make me feel good being lied to, so I took up the position of atheist.

That reminded me of a atheist saying -

One day, you will learn everything about Santa. That day, remember everything you were told about Jesus.

Btw, I just had this message on youtube, probably from a spammer -


I want you to read the following and be honest with your self at the end and decide in a moment of truth with oneself.......... Allah (The Creator of the Heaven and the earth) the one to be worshiped with perfect love and perfect submission created us for a great purpose and that is to worship Him alone, to turn to Him alone, to pray to Him alone...He sent Messengers from Adam to Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Jacob, etc ....till the final Messenger Muhammad Peace be upon all of them. They all came with the same message and that is " No one is worthy of worship except Allah" .....all the creation of Allah submitted itself to the Creator willingly or unwillingly as Allah The Most High says in the Quran " Do they seek other than the religion of Allah (the true Islamic
Monotheism worshiping none but Allah Alone), while to Him submitted all creatures in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly. And to Him shall they all be returned" ( 3:83)

We were born without being asked, when we were in the womb of our mothers, who took care of us there? when we came out to this earth who took care of us then? who is the one that put the love in the hearts of every mother to take care of her child? who is the one that provides for us food, water, etc. we breath the air that He created for us.....for what reason? He is the Most WIse and the Most Merciful........all of that is to worship Him alone and not to set rivals with Him. A Muslim believes in all the Messengers and honor
them they are the best of all the humanbeings, what was the message of Abraham? did he worship Jesus (Peace be upon him)? what was the Religion of Abraham? was it Christianity or Judaism? it didn't exist then....it was ISLAM......submitting to Allah the Most High......" Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a true Muslim
(meaning in the state of submission to Allah) Hanifa (someone that would stay away from associating partners with Allah) and he was not of Al-Mushrikun (Polytheists)" (3: 67)
If you believe in the Creator of the heavens and the earth, that He is the creator, sustainer etc.....if you believe that He is the only one worthy of worship not any of His creation not a Prophet from Adam till Muhammed Peace be unto all of them and including Jesus Peace be upon him.....if you believe in that say now with your tongue
"I BEAR WITNESS THAT THERE IS NO ONE WORTHY OF WORSHIP EXCEPT ALLAH.....AND I BEAR WITNESS THAT PROPHET MUHAMMED IS THE FINAL MESSENGER OF ALLAH"

This is the Shahada but you have to say it in Arabic also, so read out
loud the following translation......"ASH HADU ALLA ILLAHA ILLA ALLAH.....WA ASH HADU ANNA MUHAMMADAN RASOOL UL ALLAH"

That's it as simple as that...and then take the time to learn step by step the beauty of this religion, you don't need to learn everything first to say the shahada because if you beleive in what is written
above just say it and then take the time to learn.....

May Allah The Most High guide us all to the truth.



To which I replied -


No thanks. I was not made as a slave and religions dont agree on their gods. No one took care of me in my mother's womb, except my mother. The world is the way it is because of natural processes. There is no salvation to be had, I wont exist once I die.

I respect your enthusiasm to spread what you consider to be the word of god, but I would respectfully say No.

[Crunchy Cat]

That reminded me of a atheist saying -

Hahahahah, nice one!



Btw, I just had this message on youtube, probably from a spammer -

To which I replied -

You were being nice I see.

[aaqucnaona]

Hahahahah, nice one!

Here you go -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIYf14Jcq-o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZuknsnphEU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSmsV6rFa-s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kejkrSvesg


You were being nice I see.

Why not? Just because he believes in a sky fairy doesn't exclude him from civil conversation, does it now? Anyway, Islam being a very peaceful religion [as we all know - Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings], why not take care not to tread on their memes.

[Jan Ardena]

Here you go -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIYf14Jcq-o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZuknsnphEU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSmsV6rFa-s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kejkrSvesg



Why not? Just because he believes in a sky fairy doesn't exclude him from civil conversation, does it now? Anyway, Islam being a very peaceful religion [as we all know - Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings], why not take care not to tread on their memes.


Oh! So now it's ''sky fairy'', and ''flying planes into buildings'', marinated with
sarcasm, eh? :)

True colours.

jan.

[aaqucnaona]

Oh! So now it's ''sky fairy'', and ''flying planes into buildings'', marinated with
sarcasm, eh? :)

True colours.

jan.

Its not true colors jan, its the tatical difference in [me] talking with an atheist [cat] and a theist [you].

I have to be respectful, not disparaging when talking with a theist. I have to remain professional, stick to objective logic in a debate with you or Sam. With Cat, I can loosen up a little and the spammer is indeed worthy of the ridicule, he was preaching, but you and other theists on Sciforums dont do so, so dont take offense. Besides, preachers, non-thinking theists and extremists [none of which describes you] indeed do "fly planes into buildings". I agree that my words were sharp, but my intention was well placed. :peace:

[wynn]

"It is evil to compete against other people" -? Indeed

Substantiate.
Why is it evil to compete against other people?

(I have my reasons to believe it is, but for the sake of discussion, I want to hear yours.)



Because they have doubts about it but treat it as certain.

Not everyone has such doubts.



I'm kinda with you there. I don't think revelations are impossible either, but I have never seen an example of a revelation that turned out to be real.

If it was of a personal/private nature (as they are often said to be), then it wasn't within your scope to validate anyway, so you can't say whether it was real or not.