http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i61/WavyWonder/atheism.jpg

I came across this banner..I know it's not a funny issue, but i couldn't help but laugh!:shy:

Regarding Atheism:
I understand that it's an absence of belief in the existence of gods.

~ What's the difference between being an Atheist and being an Agnostic?

~ Why are some people Atheists? Or why do they become Atheists?

I also came across this website (http://www.iamanatheist.com/index.html) which is absolute rubbish ofcourse..

If I come across any more questions, I'll update.

Pineapple Thief started an interesting and informative thread about the difference between an Agnostic and An Atheist here (http://www.englishsabla.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26310)

I will reply later, I've to go.

Pineapple Thief started an interesting and informative thread about the difference between an Agnostic and An Atheist here (http://www.englishsabla.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26310)

Dang! I've done it again! Although I have searched for related threads! And I didnt find any! Thats why I went ahead and opened this thread!! :shy:

agnostic
Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, (some agnostics may go as far to say) irrelevant to life. The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion. The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (without) and gnosis (knowledge). Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.

Agnosticism is distinct from, but compatible with, atheism. It is also compatible with theism. This is because agnosticism is a view about knowledge concerning God, whereas theism and atheism are beliefs (or lack thereof) concerning God. For example, it is possible to believe in God but to believe that knowledge about God is not obtainable.

Agnostics may claim that it isn't possible to have absolute or certain spiritual knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no such knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism towards religious statements.

Some claim that there is nothing distinctive in being an agnostic because even theists do not claim to know God exists, only to believe it, and many even agree there is room for doubt; and atheists in the broader sense do not claim to know there is no God, only not to believe in one.

atheist
Atheism, in its broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This definition includes both those who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions, however, often only qualify those who assert there are no gods as atheists, labeling the others as agnostics or simply non-theists.

There is no single ideology that all atheists share, nor are there any institutionalized rituals or behaviors. There are certain individuals whose religious or spiritual beliefs some might describe as atheistic, though those holding such beliefs do not normally describe themselves as atheists.

Atheism includes, but is not equivalent to, the position of antitheism, the active opposition to theism.

...
In Islam, atheists are categorized as kafir (كافر), a term that is also used to describe polytheists, and that translates roughly as "denier" or "concealer". The noun kafir carries connotations of blasphemy and disconnection from the Islamic community. In Arabic, "atheism" is generally translated ilhad (إلحاد), although this also means "heresy". As the Sharia punishment for apostasy for a Muslim only is death and such apostasy is also widely socially disapproved of, atheists in Islamic countries and communities frequently conceal their non-belief. The surveys mentioned above that indicate 100% religious belief in certain Islamic countries should be interpreted in light of this fact.

why do ppl are atheist ?
because they dont believe in a god ... i mean some ppl cant believe in something they cant see

There's this website about atheism and it tries to show how religions ar false and are prophet's-made, they quoted alot of things from the bible that contradict each other and such, just to show that christianity is a false religion... I was frustraed when I read that because they took part of the quotes but not the whole thing, and made them seem to be incorrect and full of contradiction...

They Also tried to show that Islam is a false religion too, but they couldn't find any contradiction in the holy Quraan, what they did is to show the biography of Prophet Mohammed and ofcourse, it was full of lies, no real thing.... An example to that is that prophet Mohammed claim that they were Idols that shall be worshipped along with Allah, and that alone is enough to show that the website is full of nonsense!

~ Why are some people Atheists? Or why do they become Atheists?

Blind Melon, I suppose people are atheists simply because they absolutely do not believe in the existence of God. Unless a person has no religious background, I presume he/she doesn't become atheist later in life, but most probably share this belief from the start.

I honestly can't comprehend how a human being can be atheist, when he can daily view in himself one of the best creation. Is it possible for the human body to 'be' by mistake or by coincidence?

Is it possible for all the exemples of creations on this earth and above to have occured and taken such a complex shape from nothing? How can someone not wander about a super power behind all these designs?

Well, for those of you who knew Wanderer, he grew up with a mother who went through a series of conversions and inflicted her "new" beliefs (and behavioral restrictions) on her children each time - and of course the various religions contradicted each other. His father, perhaps wisely, kept silent ;)

But as you can imagine that is a situation almost guaranteed to foster considerable skepticism in religion in general :os He calls himself an athiest but at least is honestly open to evidence supporting a diety, should it ever appear :hmm:

I would not describe myself as either deist, agnostic, OR athiest - I have certain personal experiences which result in some personal beliefs, yet I understand that these are things which can never be "proved" to others in any meaningful way. They also don't conform to any of the popular religions, so I'm kinda on my own :blush: Yet, I'm inclined to put more "faith" in my personal experiences with God (and Goddess :) ) than in what some dried up old stick of a priest has to say about it.

:angel:

Now that ideology I really couldn't grasp...
The existence of SOME power that put the nucleus in the cell, the electron in the atom and the soul in a human is an idea that is basic. Now, why do atheists choose to believe the exact opposite? Before we get into it, yes, I am sure there are a million nice atheists around who are great people and everything but I'm talking about their spirtuality and ideology...It's gone, completely. No religion, no god = Nothing special, won't you agree?

Threads have been merged :)

Atheism is a very mysterious thing. And I say that as a person who once thought he was an atheist.

Atheists truly believe that they are being simple, but in fact I think they are being very complex. So complex, that they have lost a basic intuition that all men have had since the beginning of time and that is rooted in our nature: the reality of God. Part of it is that they usually have no idea what God IS. None of us have much of an idea, but the atheist has no idea at all.

It really is a question of blindness, I think, of sort of being trained by an artificial, cocooned view of the world into believing a strange kind of nonsense. A kind of slow, progressive auto-hypnosis. If you were a man who grew up from infancy in a cell and every day a feast appeared in front of you while you slept, you could say, "The food appears! No other explanation is needed! This is how the universe works, that's all." But in order to think that way, you would have to lose the fundamental intuition of mystery about that feast. Still, no one could prove you wrong.

The atheist looks at the world--that feast--and says, "There is no question, so there is no answer."

Usually, it takes something to shake you out of your mindset and make you see the world anew to get you to understand the spell you are under:

“What happens in a monastery,” Gröning said, “is that you realize that this sense of the absence of God in the world is a contradiction in itself, because the world — creation — is already an expression of a higher being. The closer you look at things, the more you realize that.”

For Gröning, this discovery was brought home with unexpected force by a potentially fatal accident: While shooting outdoors, Gröning slipped and fell off a cliff. “I fell five and a half or six meters [18–20 feet] down,” Gröning said. “I was lying on the ground, and I thought I was dead. I’d studied medicine, and I felt no pain, so I thought: Okay, five and a half or six meters vertically down onto a layer of stones, no pain anywhere — that means your neck’s broken. Forty-five seconds and then it’s done.”

From this privileged vantage point at the bottom of the cliff, the director had an eye-opening encounter with the evidentiary power of beauty. “I was lying there and I was looking up, and I was so amazed by the beauty of the trees above me. And I really thought: It’s such a fantastic thing to live. And that’s a moment when I thought: This is more than just the random moving about of atoms. In beauty there is something that exceeds chance.”

Gröning walked away from that cliff with a lasting impression of divine providence. “Realizing later on that nothing had actually happened to me, it was an experience of realizing that you don’t die at the wrong moment. There is a certain logic to when that gets you. And this is good, because since then I’ve had this feeling that I was so afraid of dying, but I know that when it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen at the right moment.”

By the director of the hit German movie, Into Great Silence.

http://decentfilms.com/sections/articles/groning.html

http://www.vegsource.com/mcdonald/feast.jpg
There is no QuestionThere is no QuestionThere is no QuestionThere is no QuestionThere is no QuestionThere is no QuestionThere is no QuestionThere is no QuestionThere is no QuestionThere is no QuestionThere is no QuestionThere is no QuestionThere is no QuestionThere is no QuestionThere is no QuestionThere is no QuestionThere is no Question

Atheism is a very mysterious thing.

On par with not believing in cookie-baking Keebler elves.



Atheists truly believe that they are being simple, but in fact I think they are being very complex.

That makes no sense. It is believers who want things simple - "the gods did it", "it is the will of god", "must 'a been god", "act of god", etc.

Atheists expect to find a natural cause, even if it takes time to figure it out. Germs causing disease rather than mean old demons for example.


Part of it is that they usually have no idea what God IS.

Athiests have a pretty good idea of what gods are. Made up. Folklore. Superstition. The lot of them.



The atheist looks at the world--that feast--and says, "There is no question, so there is no answer."

No, the atheist would simply not accept your answer that it magically appeared. The atheist would seek a cook. The atheist might suggest more garlic. Wine would be served.

I am watching this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6169720917221820689

On par with not believing in cookie-baking Keebler elves.




That makes no sense. It is believers who want things simple - "the gods did it", "it is the will of god", "must 'a been god", "act of god", etc.

Atheists expect to find a natural cause, even if it takes time to figure it out. Germs causing disease rather than mean old demons for example.




Athiests have a pretty good idea of what gods are. Made up. Folklore. Superstition. The lot of them.




No, the atheist would simply not accept your answer that it magically appeared. The atheist would seek a cook. The atheist might suggest more garlic. Wine would be served.


Bear in mind, please, that I know all these arguments inside out and used to make them myself. I was a great devotee of Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand.

Your confusion is that we are not looking for a cause "inside the system" as it were. We're a looking for a cause FOR the system. A cause of a different order.

That is a different kind of cause.

You look at the natural world and think: Well, there it is! So what? If it's there, it's there!

We look at the natural world--the entire universe including ourselves--and think: This defies explanation, but there must be an explanation for it because it doesn't explain itself.

We are talking about an explanation from "Outside". You are acting like we are talking about another cause in a chain of events.

It's like looking and looking at fingerprints and specks of dirt on glass, but being unwilling to refocus your eyes and look through the glass to what is beyond.

Laughing at mystery is fine, but it's superficial and jejune. An no one lives like a materialist. Everyone lives and raises their children as if they were significant and others are significant, though of course, if materialism is true, they are not and the only rule in life is "Grab what you can get."

So materialism is a philosophy--and atheism is a religion--that pretends to believe that all the really significant things in life have only an illusory reality: like Keebler's elves. But its practitioners act as if the elves are real anyway, because they cannot really live otherwise.

Theists have childish and silly notions about divinity and the supernatural and act like kids sometimes--and no wonder! A pretty bad show.

But A-Theists are far worse. They avoid a difficult problem by pretending there is no problem and flatten life out into a pancake. The silliest most superstitious peasant who thinks the gods throw thunder from the clouds and the demons cause earthquakes is infinitely closer to the truth--though he has distorted the truth--than the gravest most scholarly and self-satisfied Materialist, who has schooled himself so well that he cannot understand the difference between How? and Why?

Reese Am answering to your Q in this thread or they will kick me out with socks from the other cause they say am always off topic :weep:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3p51MBKMLk

This needs to be watched completely cause seems interesting but started already to get on my nerves when speaks of believers as people who dnt have reason
I think indeed there are people who need to believe in a superior power and am one of them but am tired to be labelled as brainwashed for that
And not true that is so simple anyway : to have faith requires a great strength
Questions are allowed, you need to be a person of reason to be a believer
Yes there are things which go accepted without explanation or at least without a logical one but once you agree on the biggest principles of a religion then it comes natural to accept also a dogma
Honestly I do not understand atheists : with due respect they give me the idea of spiritual aridity

Point taken!

Ouch I forgot to answer your other Q
am Muslim even though I do not sound like one as am rude and bad but never say never
one day I might become a better person

Bear in mind, please, that I know all these arguments inside out and used to make them myself. I was a great devotee of Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand.

Aren't you special then. Perhaps you would have been better served studying hard sciences rather than the mastrabatory philosophy. I have never read either of the authors you mention. It clearly isn't any loss.


Your confusion is that we are not looking for a cause "inside the system" as it were. We're a looking for a cause FOR the system. A cause of a different order.

That is a different kind of cause.

Yes, a LOST cause.

If something is OUTSIDE our system, we can't see it or detect it. Which means that you, being INSIDE the system as well, don't know anything about it either. And all that is assuming that the system we are in isn't everything anyway.



You look at the natural world and think: Well, there it is! So what? If it's there, it's there!

Which, you must admit, is a far better approach than thinking that it's there even when it isn't. The fact is, people why properly view the natural world are busy seeking to determine how things work and how they came to be. It's jumping the gun a bit to ascribe it all to scary MONSTERS.


We look at the natural world--the entire universe including ourselves--and think: This defies explanation, but there must be an explanation for it because it doesn't explain itself.

Defying explanation is often just a timing issue. Solar Eclipses, a natural phenomenon, once defied explanation. Now some bright soul came up with it being caused by heavenly dragons eating the Sun, but sadly, that was all make believe. Now you are cliaming gods did what we don't understand. It the same thing as saying a dragon ate the Sun. Since you don't know or understand a phenomenon, you explain it away with the supernatural.


We are talking about an explanation from "Outside". You are acting like we are talking about another cause in a chain of events.

It's like looking and looking at fingerprints and specks of dirt on glass, but being unwilling to refocus your eyes and look through the glass to what is beyond.

Where is this OUTSIDE and what do you objectively and empirically know about it ?



Everyone lives and raises their children as if they were significant and others are significant, though of course, if materialism is true, they are not and the only rule in life is "Grab what you can get."

I'm atheist and I have children I care for as they are significant to me and I care for others and I didn't kill anyone yet today and eat their lunch, so me thinks you are defining/redefining things so that you might attack this "materialism" with what little you can muster. Let me try making some stuff up like you did:

If there are gods, then living things are not very significant. Wow, that was easy.

Superstitious people are frightened by things they don't understand. They prefer the WRONG answer to having NO answer. Since it is easier to make things up than to get to the truth, superstitious people are basically mentally lazy and self-deluding.



So materialism is a philosophy--and atheism is a religion--that pretends to believe that all the really significant things in life have only an illusory reality: like Keebler's elves. But its practitioners act as if the elves are real anyway, because they cannot really live otherwise.

Interesting doublespeak, but being atheist means one doesn't seek supernatural explanations for phenomena. No supernatural = NOT a religion. So your assertion that not worrying about gods as a cause for my slow downloads on Saturday is a religion is nonsense.


But A-Theists are far worse. They avoid a difficult problem by pretending there is no problem and flatten life out into a pancake. The silliest most superstitious peasant who thinks the gods throw thunder from the clouds and the demons cause earthquakes is infinitely closer to the truth--though he has distorted the truth--than the gravest most scholarly and self-satisfied Materialist, who has schooled himself so well that he cannot understand the difference between How? and Why?

Science answers How: Your mother is dying of cancer.
Religion answers Why: She got cancer because you touch yourself at night.


Materialist this and materialist that, honestly, you are trying so hard that you don't see that what you despise in athiests is that they do just fine in life without all the mumbo jumbo you put yourself through. They make you look silly and a bit "Cuckoo for CoCo Puffs", worse the shame of knowing that if you don't stick to your guns, you'll have to admit you were just as superstitious as those poor uneducated peasents you mentioned.

Questions are allowed, you need to be a person of reason to be a believer
Yes there are things which go accepted without explanation or at least without a logical one but once you agree on the biggest principles of a religion then it comes natural to accept also a dogma
Honestly I do not understand atheists : with due respect they give me the idea of spiritual aridity


Once you are willing to accept things without a logical explanation, you have suspended reason and are brainwashed.

Athiests can be very "spiritual". it's all about emotion.

Aren't you special then. Perhaps you would have been better served studying hard sciences rather than the mastrabatory philosophy. I have never read either of the authors you mention. It clearly isn't any loss.



Yes, a LOST cause.

If something is OUTSIDE our system, we can't see it or detect it. Which means that you, being INSIDE the system as well, don't know anything about it either. And all that is assuming that the system we are in isn't everything anyway.




Which, you must admit, is a far better approach than thinking that it's there even when it isn't. The fact is, people why properly view the natural world are busy seeking to determine how things work and how they came to be. It's jumping the gun a bit to ascribe it all to scary MONSTERS.



Defying explanation is often just a timing issue. Solar Eclipses, a natural phenomenon, once defied explanation. Now some bright soul came up with it being caused by heavenly dragons eating the Sun, but sadly, that was all make believe. Now you are cliaming gods did what we don't understand. It the same thing as saying a dragon ate the Sun. Since you don't know or understand a phenomenon, you explain it away with the supernatural.



Where is this OUTSIDE and what do you objectively and empirically know about it ?




I'm atheist and I have children I care for as they are significant to me and I care for others and I didn't kill anyone yet today and eat their lunch, so me thinks you are defining/redefining things so that you might attack this "materialism" with what little you can muster. Let me try making some stuff up like you did:

If there are gods, then living things are not very significant. Wow, that was easy.

Superstitious people are frightened by things they don't understand. They prefer the WRONG answer to having NO answer. Since it is easier to make things up than to get to the truth, superstitious people are basically mentally lazy and self-deluding.




Interesting doublespeak, but being atheist means one doesn't seek supernatural explanations for phenomena. No supernatural = NOT a religion. So your assertion that not worrying about gods as a cause for my slow downloads on Saturday is a religion is nonsense.



Science answers How: Your mother is dying of cancer.
Religion answers Why: She got cancer because you touch yourself at night.


Materialist this and materialist that, honestly, you are trying so hard that you don't see that what you despise in athiests is that they do just fine in life without all the mumbo jumbo you put yourself through. They make you look silly and a bit "Cuckoo for CoCo Puffs", worse the shame of knowing that if you don't stick to your guns, you'll have to admit you were just as superstitious as those poor uneducated peasents you mentioned.


Well, I think your posts mainly prove that I know what you are talking about, but you haven't a clue what I'm talking about. Mainly because you're just looking for balls clacking into each other and refuse to ask questions like, "What's a pool game?" Scientists are usually very good at science, but they can be asses at, say, knowing how to keep a relationship together. Or religion.

High strung defensiveness and sneering terms like "masturbatory philosophy" don't prove anything except that you're mighty satisfied with your own 'attitude.'

And of course, your only answer to the questions about signification and ethics are "we atheists get along fine!" You only get along fine because you live in a society grounded in theism and you base your life in fact on its assumptions.

It's NOT a class act. But if you want to look at clacking balls and pretend that questions about pool games are nonsense, don't let me stop you! :)

Once you are willing to accept things without a logical explanation, you have suspended reason and are brainwashed.

Athiests can be very "spiritual". it's all about emotion.
For me a person who needs to find a logical explanation for everything is spiritually dead
Depends on points of view ...

Athiests have a pretty good idea of what gods are. Made up. Folklore. Superstition. The lot of them.
Also this is a quick and simple way to put it
Dnt understand why you think to be better than a believer

But our atheist member here did not answer my question...
He didn't tell me what is soul, for example? Can an atheist explain something as complex as that without religion. Even the greatest of scientists, came to the idea of a diety. I think it would be someone with absoloutely no knowledge of science who thinks that there is no God.

For me a person who needs to find a logical explanation for everything is spiritually dead
Depends on points of view ...

One can both understand what is happening at sunset (the observation point on Earth is rotating away from the Sun) and enjoy the beauty of the event.

One can enjoy smelling a perfume like Obsession or Safari without needing to know why or the ingredients of the scent.

Well, I think your posts mainly prove that I know what you are talking about, but you haven't a clue what I'm talking about.

No, I think I know what you're talking about. I just think it's nonsense.

You are looking for external meaning, meaning that exists outside of you. You apparently adopted someone else's philosophy for finding meaning rather than making your own up - it saves time, I'm sure. But it's a mental tarpit.

So again, Where is this OUTSIDE and what do you objectively and empirically know about it ?



Scientists are usually very good at science, but they can be asses at, say, knowing how to keep a relationship together. Or religion.

You, of course, can bring to bear some evidence that Scientists as a group have greater difficulty in maintaining relationships ? Or did you just make that up ? I worry that people who live comfortably with make believe world views are very comfortable in just making things up.

As for religion, many scientists themselves are religious. But the scientific method is a process for determining how things work - without calling on supernatural explanations. It operates without religion and it's doing a fine job of creating knowledge. Religion creates rituals and stories and also seeks to reinforce morals. But without evidence of your OUTSIDE, those morals are obviously man made.



And of course, your only answer to the questions about signification and ethics are "we atheists get along fine!" You only get along fine because you live in a society grounded in theism and you base your life in fact on its assumptions.

What silly nonsense. How do you KNOW that theism is necessary ? You are the little kid who refuses to remove his bicycle training wheels, but bemoan that fact that others have and they keep on riding. In fact, they can do more than you and ride better than you since they are less encumbered. That grates on you so you make things up about how reckless, how arrogant 2-wheelers are to just cast off their training wheels and zoom off.



It's NOT a class act. But if you want to look at clacking balls and pretend that questions about pool games are nonsense, don't let me stop you! :)

I'm sure you enjoy thinking about your clacking balls. I would simply put on something a bit more comfortable.

I am all for wondering about the meaning of life. I am all for wondering what the right viewpoint is, what the right approach is, what the right thing to do is. I just choose to do it without mythology, fable, and fear. My world is simpler than yours - remember I only have the one world, a natural world. You had to create a second, imaginary, supernatural world, your OUTSIDE world, to make sense of things, to give yourself purpose.

By all means, don't stop there. Make up a third, a fourth, and fifth world - each OUTSIDE the previous. Why not ? Because once you're comfortable with making things up to explain this world, you should be able to apply that methodology to explain the others.

Right ?

No, Planet, you still don't get it. And the sneering, aggressive tone makes it seem like you have something to prove to yourself and others!

If you can even WONDER about the "meaning" of life--which is good--then you understand that what you see in front of your face in terms of scientific observation lacks something...otherwise "wondering" about "meaning" would be just noise.

In order to DO SCIENCE, you have to make certain assumptions about the "natural world". You have to assume, for example, that it is what it appears to be. It could be, of course, that all the phenomena you observe are dreams or illusions sent to you by some other being. Or they could be significant of things beyond themselves.

If you live life as if the material universe is all there is, then of course, as you point out, you end up with things like "man-made morals." But if morals are manmade, most people won't follow them! And if you think that, you are likely to follow them only when you won't get punished for breaking them. But that makes it hard to teach your children or to resist temptation. The whole system breaks down.

No, we persist in right and wrong because the notion that they are objective things that come from beyond us is built into us. Just as the notion that there are unseen forces and personality and intelligence behind the externalities of the "natural world" is universal and ineradicable, despite the distorted and childlike forms that it takes at times.

You can decide that these perceptions are illusory if you like. But that's no more rational than deciding that the natural world is "illusory." And to the extent that scientific knowledge erodes the things that it is based on--such as irreduceable beings that can "understand" the universe--it makes itself implausible and unworkable. Much more sensible to conclude that the basic things are as they appear: the material world, the moral universe, the world of the spirit and of "meaning." All these things are observable and undeniable on a basic level. But there is no sense in choosing just one of them.

I didn't "adopt someone else's philosophy." I merely made the rational assumption that there is such a thing as the common wisdom of mankind. That tells me that people and societies that try to operate as if there were no extra material significance in life come to grief. And they come to grief precisely because their universe consists in the end only of two things: ME and STUFF.

So, believers visit cruelties on people, certainly, in the name of belief. But Unbelievers like Stalin and Hitler and Mao and Pol Pot visit barbaric cruelties on mankind that make the others pale into insignificance. And they destroy the souls of their people--nothing in religion is as pathetic and dreary as "Soviet Man."

Scientists aren't necessarily bad at relationships and I didn't say they were. I said that they aren't necessarily good at them either. I said that because scientists are sometimes materialists and reductionists like yourself and they figure that the Scientific Method fits everything in life. When they try to cram the round pegs into the square holes they make a royal mess of things. And scientists frequently try to be "scientific" about non-scientific things and invent lovely things like communism and behaviorism in their benign arrogance and foolishness.

And the rest of us materialists--those of us in the West--simply lose the will to live. We devote ourselves to aquiring things and atomize our families and guess what? We don't reproduce anymore! In a universe of ME and STUFF, what's the point of having annoying kids? I wont' be around to see "the next generation" and all the talk in the world won't make the next "generation" of the dancing clouds of atoms we call ourselves significant. And so, we commit slow suicide--or fast suicide as our plummetting negative birthrates show.

We wither without God like plants without water. And even dumbos who can't do an algebra problem and believe everything they read in the Weekly World News can see that, while Brilliant Materialists renounce Wisdom because it isn't Science and can't see the most basic facts about human life.

So, I guess you're saying that you "wonder" about the "meaning" of life, even though those words are empty, like "friggling" about "dosserdraws". And you deny any and all answers that people provide precisely because they are answers to those kinds of questions--precisely because they fit those kinds of questions and therefore are "mythological." Doesn't sound very rational to me. But Atheism is the least rational of all religions.

"you must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jeff again"
Your effort is appreciated Jeff. May God bless you

^^

Same back atcha, Brother Braiki! We are "Servants of God" together. :)

But it's not hard. Atheism is like a magic trick...once you see how the rabbit is pulled out of the hat, it's not so impressive as it seems at first.

The great lesson of Atheism is: No matter how stupid the mistakes people can make, there are always even stupider mistakes available!

But Atheism is the least rational of all religions.

Ah, yet another false definition. Atheism is, by definition, not any kind of religion, it is simply lack of belief - in their gods, in your gods, in any gods. It is a state.

So again, Where is this OUTSIDE and what do you objectively and empirically know about it ?



But if morals are manmade, most people won't follow them!"

All things considered, that statement works more in my favor than yours.

"you must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jeff again"


What does that mean ?

^^
See the square at the bottom left corner of your post? Half green and half red? If you click that, you can "rep" the person who posted. You get "rep points." See under your avatar, it says, "Rep Power: 22"? That means that you got repped for that many points.

Braiki tried to "rep" me for my answer and he got that message: "you must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jeff again". You can't rep people too often; the system won't let you.

So, he posted to say he'd liked what I'd written, had tried to rep me for it, but wasn't allowed. We are big fans of each other, Braiki and I! :p

Atheism is the belief that there is no God and no divine. It's not just a statement that, "I don't understand what you are saying." It's a positive belief in an absence of recognizeable meaning in the universe...a belief that a belief in meaning is meaningless and therefore should be rejected...because meaninglessness is bad even though there is no such thing as meaning...uh....and because bad things are not really bad but just man-made rules...but still...uh...well...never mind. :p

It has its own irrational devotions, like going on websites and trying to prove to people that there is no God. Which is silly because if there is no God and we are all just material clouds of atoms, then none of it matters, including whether there is no God! It's not "silly" to believe in God, because after all the atoms are just whirling that way inside us! And it's not "reasonable" to disbelieve in God, because the atoms are just whirling that way for you. But they whirl you into being a missionary for materialism. Which is kinda funny! (If there were such a thing as "funny" but I don't believe there is. Whatever that means.)

Where is the OUTSIDE in a non-material sense? Space and time are what exactly? Can you tell me that? Tell me what space is and I'll answer your question in terms of your definition...

Atheism is the belief that there is no God and no divine. It's not just a statement that, "I don't understand what you are saying." It's a positive belief in an absence of recognizeable meaning in the universe...a belief that a belief in meaning is meaningless and therefore should be rejected...because meaninglessness is bad even though there is no such thing as meaning...uh....and because bad things are not really bad but just man-made rules...but still...uh...well...never mind. :p

Good heavens, your brain "asploded"

I'm not sure why you think Atheists have a belief that there IS no God, when in actuality Atheists simply lack belief in gods, as any rational person would also lack belief in Faries, Werewolves, and hopefully by a certain age, Santa Claus, and since they lack belief in these things, they don't use them to explain phenomenon.

Shepherd: "another sheep is dead"
Superstitious: "Werewolves !!, ieeeee, kill a virgin "
Muslim: "It was the will of Allah - it died a martyr fighting Zionist wolves"
Jeff: "Why did it have to die ? Surely it is in Sheep heaven with angel shepherds who have small soft staffs to guide him"
PlanEt: "How did it die ?"


Again, there is a difference in having a belief and a lack of belief. I do not have a belief that there are no <insert endless imaginary and mythical creatures here>. Show me one and I'll know, show me evidence of one and I'll consider the possibility, but telling me that the thought of one gives you meaning in life, and I reasonably conclude that you are dipping a toe in a pool of delusion.


It has its own irrational devotions, like going on websites and trying to prove to people that there is no God. Which is silly because if there is no God and we are all just material clouds of atoms, then none of it matters, including whether there is no God!

I don't need to prove that there are no gods - and after all, we appear to be quibbling over only one anyway, eh? But you need to prove that they exist.

Perhaps life becomes meaningless to you when you can't have gods. That is a weakness on your part, not mine. I'm doing fine without gods. That's one of my points.



It's not "silly" to believe in God, because after all the atoms are just whirling that way inside us! And it's not "reasonable" to disbelieve in God, because the atoms are just whirling that way for you.

What is reasonable is to withold belief until presented with credible evidence. Otherwise we start believeing in all sorts of nonsense; Boogymen, Vampires in formal wear, Unicorns, flying carpets, gods demanding burnt offerings. It's just a man behind a curtain.


Where is the OUTSIDE in a non-material sense? Space and time are what exactly? Can you tell me that? Tell me what space is and I'll answer your question in terms of your definition...

Not necessary, let's just go with your implications from your statements:

"Your confusion is that we are not looking for a cause "inside the system" as it were. We're a looking for a cause FOR the system. A cause of a different order. ... We are talking about an explanation from "Outside"

What and where is "Inside" and what and where is "Outside", and again, what do you objectively and empirically know about it ?

Well, the classical definition of atheism is the belief that there IS no God, whether that is asserted to be on the basis of lack of evidence or any other reason. You on the other hand say you merely "lack belief", which used to be called indifferentism or agnosticism. Nevertheless, your assertions about fairies and werewolves belie your pretence that you just haven't happened to see any evidence for God's existence. You mock belief in God and make it quite clear that you not only haven't seen any evidence, but that on the basis of the claimed evidence that you HAVE seen you conclude that belief in God is mad, childish, absurd, etc. So, your protestations notwithstanding, I think it's quite clear that you are a member of the tribe of Religious Atheists, those who believe that there is no God and I reassert that that religion is the most irrational one going. After all, you and I don't just say we have seen no evidence of Santa Claus, but that we believe and assert that there is no Santa Claus (in the literal sense.)

When such an unprovable belief is the one around which one builds one's life, it is a religious belief. You sir are a True Believer in Atheism and a very devoted one! :p Otherwise you would not be doing the rounds at websites proselytizing the cause of your Faith.

So, I will treat you as a member of the Grand Brotherhood of Religious Believers because that is what you are!

It could of course in logic be true that I believe in God out of some irrational desire for purpose and assistance in my life. It could also in logic be true that you believe that there is no God because of an inflated attachment to your own ego and the notion that you are a fine fellow who is a lot smarter than other people and sees through their pitiful imaginations. In fact, calling yourself "Planet" does seem to provide evidence of cosmos-sized delusions of grandeur, but I'll let that pass.

I remind you again that I have preached the same message of salvation that you are preaching and was oh, so convinced that "there was no evidence", etc, etc, and all believers were superstitious numbskulls. But...I grew up and got more mature and deliberated on the question more deeply and concluded that I had been mistaken and that of course there was a great deal of convincing evidence for the existence of God of a variety of kinds, but that I had refused to look at it, ruling it out of court for specious and shallow reasons. There was no feeling of a need for purpose, just the conviction in reason that I had been foolishly wrong and now knew better.

What is "evidence"? Well, I think you mean something like "material evidence", don't you? But what is "material evidence"? You first have to come to some conclusions--at least provisional ones--about yourself and other people and all that stuff out there before you can decide what is and what is not evidence.

Now your conclusion about all that stuff out there--the universe of observable and measurable phenomena--is that it is all that there is. That must be the case because if that were not so, if there were something ELSE of a radically different kind that existed, "evidence" for it could not be simply more observable and measurable material phenomena could it? It couldn't be "objectively and empirically known" because it is the whole question of the "objectively and empirically known" that is at issue.

No, you first have to decide what you make of your existence and that of all these other things you see? What is your evidence that they have an objective and empirical existence? What is your evidence that are not your dreams? What is your evidence that they are not epiphenomena of some deeper reality? I think you have to admit that you have no evidence one way or the other.

You have evidence--at least if your consciousness and memory are not deceiving you :p -- that many of them have followed predictable patterns before and thus given you "objective and empirical" measurements. But you have no evidence at all that they won't suddenly stop behaving that way tomorrow. You have faith that what you have regarded as real is in fact real and that it will always appear that way to you. But you do not know that.

On the other hand, you do also have evidence of an irreduceable and simply self...your own self. And you have evidence of the power of that self perceive things and know them. You have no evidence that this self is a material thing...in fact you do not experience it that way at all. To reason that it is material only on the basis of your observations to deny the very reality of the thing your observations are founded on. To say that your Self is just a bunch of whirling atoms is as irrational as to say that a dog is a pile of sand. You start getting into circular nonsensical talk about how material things "experience" things or else you cut out the irreduceable evidence of an Experiencer. You wind up with meaningless jargon. Philosphical materialism is the most self-contradictory of all philosophies and far less plausible than Santa Claus or the silliest superstition.

No, in order to talk about evidence for God, you have to first face up to the fact that the material universe is not and cannot be all that there is. There is a spiritual and a moral reality that is "other" than the material and quantifiable universe. "Outside" means "other".

But the existence of a Knowing Self, the non-self explanatory nature of the universe of empirical phenomenon, the reality of a moral order independent of ourselves and the impossibility even of holding a coherent conversation without acknowledging these basic things prove that we know things that are neither material nor empirical in the sense you mean. We know these things and we must discuss them in order to discuss whether God exists.

To try to discuss anything about life--even the things you want to discuss--without acknowledging that is gobbledegook. The kind of gobbledegook that is implicit in your self-contradictory assertions. If there is no supernatural dimension, then talk about "wondering what meaning the universe has" is without content, though you admit you engage in it. The universe of course can have no "meaning" since meaning is non-material. You should reject it. But then, really, on your terms there is no reason to reject it, since meaninglessness doesn't matter in a material universe. Nor does irrationality. So the whole point of your exercise here on Sabla becomes pointless. As does every other conversation with another human being. Your consciousness is just an epiphenomenon of whirling atoms, though what that could mean no one can say. You have dissolved yourself into particles and with that you have deprived all your assertions of significance--nothing that you have said about empiricism or werewolves has any more meaning or sense than the bronze age superstitions you deride.

Which is why I say that in choosing atheism for your Religion, you have chosen the most irrational and self-contradictory of Faiths and put yourself on a level so low that even the silliest worshipper of stones and winds could see through it.

So, if you want to discuss the existence of God in a rational way, get serious! Put aside all the mocking japes about werewolves and the pathetic needs of believers for a sense of purpose and get down to brass tacks! But like most atheists, you will likely lose interest when it become apparent that you are the silly one. :p

PS. I am assuming that you are a grown man or woman even if your opinions are rather adolescent and can take the kind of treatment you dish out. If you are a precocious sixteen-year-old debutante or a pimply teenager who is feeling his oats after just discovering the Intellectual World, I beg your pardon.

One can be a lifelong advocate of the silliness and irrationality of the belief in God and then change one's mind. Here is Anthony Flew, the British philosopher who has figured out that the theists were right after all:

Prometheus [the publisher of Flew's new book] specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that's too bad," Mr. Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Mr. Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web site. Mr. Carrier assured atheists that Mr. Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.
Mr. Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," Mr. Carrier said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041209-113212-2782r.htm

He became an atheist at age 15 and figured out that God existed at age 81! So there's still hope for "Planet"! :p

Not everything can be seen, at the same time, not everything that exists is seen!
Potential Energy for example, can't be seen nor felt, but it was proved by science that it exists!
You can't say that PE doesn't exist just because you can't see it or feel it!!
There are many examples in our everyday's life that can't be seen nor felt, yet they do exist!

Interesting story Jeff!

Can a human being see his own soul?

If some is standing behind a wall, can atheists see him?

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around, does it make a sound ?

Do bears do it in the woods ?

didn't get your point wudjab, care to explain !?

Just some more silly questions in the vein of "If some is standing behind a wall, can atheists see him?"

I don't know, Wudjab. I mean, I see your point. After all, the atheist can always respond that he doesn't demand to SEE the guy behind the wall, just to see evidence that he is there.

But you know, Ice Tea is still on to something. I find that the most seemingly silly objections of Believers to Atheists actually have a lot of punch to them once you think about them. And atheists, no matter how clever they sound, end up being revealed as missing the most obvious stuff in the world.

Atheists DO act like they can't tell that a man is standing behind a wall when they can't see him. They ask for "empirical evidence" for a non-empirical entity, which is exactly like asking to see a man hidden behind a wall. They refuse to see the simplest things and ask for physical evidence that a pool game is going on and insist that it is only balls rolling around on a table. The balls roll because they roll.

And they pretend that scientific data are the primary facts about the universe, when they really rest on a long chain of evidence which rests on a reliable spiritual conscious entitity capable of observing and knowing things that actually exist but do not explain themselves. If you understand my last sentence--I admit it's a bit thick philosophically--you can see that God is the man behind the wall. As St. Thomas explained, the universe has no REASON for being that can be found in itself. It is real and yet it doesn't NEED to be there. Something is behind it. There's a "man" behind that wall. And the evidence that he's there is overwhelming. But the atheist covers his eyes and says, "I can't SEEEEEEEEEEEE you!"

So kudos to you for making a sound point. But kudos also to my friend Ice Tea for getting to a reality that he understands and Planet has hypnotized himself into not being able to see...

Playing the devils advocate here, the atheist is still able to walk to the other side of the wall and CONFIRM if there is someone there or not.

The pool game analogy escapes me because I have never heard an atheist use that argument.

While you and me might be comfortable basing our belief on faith, the atheist is comfortable demanding empherical evidence of the existence of God.

Nothing wrong in either position.

wudjab, I don't see anything silly about my logic.

Let us assume that the atheist can't walk to other side of the wall due to no road to get there. Does that means not being able to see the man means he is not there?

If there is a wall, then there will be a way to know what is on the other side.

Unless this wall is exists in some strange time warp scenario in an old episode of the Twilight Zone.

If the atheist can't walk because his legs are totally broken then how he will be able to climb a high mountain not a wall this time?

Well, Wudjab, you might be interested to know that the Catholic Faith has defined as an infallible truth that the existence of God is not a matter of faith, but can be certainly known with the reason alone from observing the created world and anathematizes anyone who denies this. Here it is:

1. If anyone says that

* the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty
o from the things that have been made,
o by the natural light of human reason:

let him be anathema.

This is from the decrees of the First Vatican Council, Canon 2, Section 1.

http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#1.%20On%20God%20the%20creator%20of%20al l%20things

The canons are interesting to read and not well-known...the one that everybody knows of course is the infallibility of the Pope.

So, I have to disagree that atheists are reasonable when they deny the existence of God because they lack faith. Lack of faith excuses not knowing about the divinity of Christ, for example, but we don't need faith to believe in God.

And if you think about it, this is exactly what St. Paul says in the Letter to the Romans:

The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.
Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.

Romans 1: 18-21.

and of course, the Psalmist tells us:

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

Psalm 14: 1.

Atheists are materialists. Materialist deny or reduce consciousness to a material thing. But consciousness MOST OBVIOUSLY is not a material thing. And it obviously does not contain an explanation for itself. The existence of one's self and the world simply shout out the need for a creator and cannot be understood at all without reference to one.

The pool game analogy: Look imagine you are a life form that is completely different from life forms on earth. Perhaps you are made of plasma or something or are microsopic but intelligent. You have never encountered life forms that look like human beings or animals. They look like mere material objects to you.

No matter how long you watch a pool game, you will never understand what is going on...until you posit will and intention...which are non-material things. You will just see balls rolling around and weird looking objects with sticks knocking into them and you will never, never understand what is going on through scientific material means. If you insist on material, empirical explanations only, you are ruling out of court any evidence that could possibly show you what is going on.

Or imagine you are a genius ant on the surface of a painting in a shed. You study the contours of the oil painting's surface, you catalog its chemical compostion, you note the color variations and you come up with an infinite number of theories about how it got there. Or you just say..."It's always been here, it doesn't need an explanation."

You have to look for an explanation of a different order, of a different kind. Once you see that you must do that, you begin to be able to approach the question of what the painting is and who the creator of it might be. But you have to look to intelligence and will and consciousness for your answers...you won't find the answers in a falsely narrow "empiricism."

The point is not that the atheist raises these questions. The point is that he WON'T understand these questions. He insists on narrowing his inquiry about God to material things and empirical causes. And so, of course, he says, "I see no evidence for God." Because as St. Paul says, he refuses to SEE it.

I'm sorry daddy.

Eh?.........

Can a human being see his own soul?

What soul ?



If some is standing behind a wall, can atheists see him?

No.

That is one of the classic uses of walls. Another is to hold roofs up.

There, you're on your way to an engineering degree.

What soul ?




No.

That is one of the classic uses of walls. Another is to hold roofs up.

There, you're on your way to an engineering degree.

Yes, atheists build walls so they can't see what's behind them!

There, you're on your way to wisdom! :p

Not everything can be seen, at the same time, not everything that exists is seen!
Potential Energy for example, can't be seen nor felt, but it was proved by science that it exists!

Are you saying that it was measured and/or calculated? If so, I don't see your point. I've made no claims that something must be physically seen to be believed. There simply must be objective, empiricle evidence.

Otherwise, people will start imagining that stored energy is "Angel Force", or "Spirit Power".


You can't say that PE doesn't exist just because you can't see it or feel it!!
There are many examples in our everyday's life that can't be seen nor felt, yet they do exist!


Relevant Points. I believe that relevant points exist. Now if you would please just produce one.

I don't see why you believe that relevant points exist. I think they are figments of your imagination.

Can you produce empirical evidence of them?

it can be measured and calculated only by calculating how much kinetic energy (for example) was converted, that's all according to principle of energy conservation. PE only exists because of that principle, otherwise NOTHING can prove it exists felt..

didn't get what you mean by relevant points

^^^

He means that your point proves nothing about God or evidence for him. It's just the silly parlor trick stuff that atheists do. If you go on their websites they tell this stuff to each other all the time! Poor dears, it amuses them.

my point is that things that cannot be seen or felt can produce things that can be seen & felt

God Almighty can't be seen, but you can see the things that are created by Him

Well, the classical definition of atheism is the belief that there IS no God, whether that is asserted to be on the basis of lack of evidence or any other reason. You on the other hand say you merely "lack belief", which used to be called indifferentism or agnosticism. Nevertheless, your assertions about fairies and werewolves belie your pretence that you just haven't happened to see any evidence for God's existence.

It shouldn't be any wonder that Theists might define Atheism different than an Atheist might.

You continue using "God" - capitalized and singular, on what basis did you conclude that:

a) such things/beings exist ?
b) there is only one ?



You mock belief in God and make it quite clear that you not only haven't seen any evidence, but that on the basis of the claimed evidence that you HAVE seen you conclude that belief in God is mad, childish, absurd, etc. So, your protestations notwithstanding, I think it's quite clear that you are a member of the tribe of Religious Atheists, those who believe that there is no God and I reassert that that religion is the most irrational one going. After all, you and I don't just say we have seen no evidence of Santa Claus, but that we believe and assert that there is no Santa Claus (in the literal sense.)

Actually on the basis of the claimed evidence that I HAVE seen I conclude that belief in gods is irrational. Even you seem uncomfortable with the notion so you will only allow yourself one of them. What say you of the rest of them ?

Santa exists as a concept. There are many wonderous things attributed to Santa, but nothing to indicate that Santa is anything more than a mythical figure. Werewolves exist as a concept. There were many horrible things attributed to Werewolves, but nothing to indicate that Werewolves are anything more than mythical creatures.

Gods exist as a concept. There ... well, you should be able to figure it out.



When such an unprovable belief is the one around which one builds one's life, it is a religious belief. You sir are a True Believer in Atheism and a very devoted one! :p Otherwise you would not be doing the rounds at websites proselytizing the cause of your Faith.

See that why you keep wanting atheism to be about denying gods rather than simply lacking belief symantically. You need it to be a belief system so you can claim it a religion. But in my case, at least, with respect to gods and animals that shiat gold bars and boxes of raisins, I don't believe in them, and that is not a Belief.


It could of course in logic be true that I believe in God out of some irrational desire for purpose and assistance in my life.

Hey, if it's helping you get chicks, I'm not going to fault you too much.


In fact, calling yourself "Planet" does seem to provide evidence of cosmos-sized delusions of grandeur, but I'll let that pass.

So insightful, Jeff, so there, have we gotten name calling out of the way now ?



I remind you again that I have preached the same message of salvation that you are preaching and was oh, so convinced that "there was no evidence", etc, etc, and all believers were superstitious numbskulls.

I have no message of salvation, Jeff. What's that called when you put words in another's mouth and then attack those words ?



But...I grew up and got more mature and deliberated on the question more deeply and concluded that I had been mistaken and that of course there was a great deal of convincing evidence for the existence of God of a variety of kinds, but that I had refused to look at it, ruling it out of court for specious and shallow reasons. There was no feeling of a need for purpose, just the conviction in reason that I had been foolishly wrong and now knew better.

That was very moving, Jeff. You should consider a miniseries.

So you became aware of gods and picked one to worship, or did you find a god and stopped looking ? Or did you simply adopt one of several currently popular gods to start ... whatever one does for gods ? I believe many of the members here bow and pray several times a day and have to celebrate the death of a Jew to do right. Others swing ball of incense. Others still, like Monotheism, can't wait to build a temple and start killing animals in it.

My money's on that you didn't think all that deeply and simply took up with one of the currently popular gods. Right, Jeff ? Isn't that what you did after all your - difficulties with women, I mean soul searching.



What is "evidence"? Well, I think you mean something like "material evidence", don't you? But what is "material evidence"? You first have to come to some conclusions--at least provisional ones--about yourself and other people and all that stuff out there before you can decide what is and what is not evidence.

Yes, again, what evidence do you have about your deep knowledge of this Inside and Outside that you've been going on about ?

You do have some evidence, don't you , Jeff ? Something a bit more substantial than that you did all this "soul" searching and then adopted the religion of your parents, eh ?


Now your conclusion about all that stuff out there--the universe of observable and measurable phenomena--is that it is all that there is.

Until there's some evidence, it's all conjecture and imagination. And we have ample evidence that people can imagine all sorts of wild stuff.

Can you really kill a Hindu ? I mean, won't he just keep coming back - as someone or something else ? Actually, I'm partial to that concept.


Babbling ... maybe you are your own dream ... same thing over again ... maybe dreams are more than just wet, they could be insightful ... babbling

You starting believing in gods because you had a dream ! And that's your evidence ?

Well, maybe I can fly and just maybe "NUMBER 9" is a Holy number.


I think you have to admit that you have no evidence one way or the other.

Yes, and what does a rational person do in the absense of evidence ? Just guess if you're stuck on that too long.


You have faith that what you have regarded as real is in fact real and that it will always appear that way to you. But you do not know that.

True. Everything - all matter, all energy, might dissolve tomorrow when the Council of Zombo decides that the gods they created have gone too far in creating this physical world and all the little wet things living in it, and they open the Orb of Silence - and wash those gods and all of their creations away.

Perhaps you should appeal directly to the Zombo in your prayers tonight.


You have no evidence that this self is a material thing...in fact you do not experience it that way at all. To reason that it is material only on the basis of your observations to deny the very reality of the thing your observations are founded on. To say that your Self is just a bunch of whirling atoms is as irrational as to say that a dog is a pile of sand. You start getting into circular nonsensical talk about how material things "experience" things or else you cut out the irreduceable evidence of an Experiencer. You wind up with meaningless jargon. Philosphical materialism is the most self-contradictory of all philosophies and far less plausible than Santa Claus or the silliest superstition.

No, in order to talk about evidence for God, you have to first face up to the fact that the material universe is not and cannot be all that there is. There is a spiritual and a moral reality that is "other" than the material and quantifiable universe. "Outside" means "other".

But the existence of a Knowing Self, the non-self explanatory nature of the universe of empirical phenomenon, the reality of a moral order independent of ourselves and the impossibility even of holding a coherent conversation without acknowledging these basic things prove that we know things that are neither material nor empirical in the sense you mean. We know these things and we must discuss them in order to discuss whether God exists.

To try to discuss anything about life--even the things you want to discuss--without acknowledging that is gobbledegook. The kind of gobbledegook that is implicit in your self-contradictory assertions. If there is no supernatural dimension, then talk about "wondering what meaning the universe has" is without content, though you admit you engage in it. The universe of course can have no "meaning" since meaning is non-material. You should reject it. But then, really, on your terms there is no reason to reject it, since meaninglessness doesn't matter in a material universe. Nor does irrationality. So the whole point of your exercise here on Sabla becomes pointless. As does every other conversation with another human being. Your consciousness is just an epiphenomenon of whirling atoms, though what that could mean no one can say. You have dissolved yourself into particles and with that you have deprived all your assertions of significance--nothing that you have said about empiricism or werewolves has any more meaning or sense than the bronze age superstitions you deride.

Jeff, just say you don't have diddly squat in plain English. Your "Outside" has all the markings of being your imagination. Your spiritual self is all stuck in your wet little brain.

I don't believe in werewolves, that bronze age people had some special insight in the reality of this world - the poor fools didn't know much about their own world let alone your imaginary ones, or that your dreams of copping a feel off the little girl (or boy) next door require me to rethink my philosophies.



PS. I am assuming that you are a grown man or woman ...

Based on ... a dream ? Or evidence ? Wishful thinking ? I mean, all these appear to be valid options to you.

I don't see why you believe that relevant points exist.

I have observed that you can't seem to make one.

However, I have observed others doing so.

it can be measured and calculated only by calculating how much kinetic energy (for example) was converted, that's all according to principle of energy conservation. PE only exists because of that principle, otherwise NOTHING can prove it exists felt..

didn't get what you mean by relevant points

Yes, and once you do that experiment, can you make accurate predictions about the outcome of subsequent trials ?

I really don't get what you are saying, if its the principle then yea the whole Energy seems to be disappearing, whereas it's assumed that it is converted to PE, which can't be seen nor felt.. and yes, based on that principle, the whole amoutn of enegry is converted to PE

this thread has turned to a lesson in physics :rolleyes:

my whole point of using this example is as I said above: things that cannot be seen or felt can produce things that can be seen & felt

I really don't get what you are saying, if its the principle then yea the whole Energy seems to be disappearing, whereas it's assumed that it is converted to PE, which can't be seen nor felt.. and yes, based on that principle, the whole amoutn of enegry is converted to PE

this thread has turned to a lesson in physics :rolleyes:

my whole point of using this example is as I said above: things that cannot be seen or felt can produce things that can be seen & felt

OK, I'm trying to understand and learn from you. It's been a long time since I took any Physics class.

Wouldn't, say, water against the side of a Reservoir/Dam contain PE ? By releasing that water in a controlled fashion onto a turbine, aren't we converting PE to Electrical Energy ?

And given the volume of water and the dimensions of the Dam/Reservoir can't we calculate the PE of the water pushing on the Dam as well as the PE of the Dam walls as it is pushed out of shape by the water ?

you can calculate only when you assume that the enegry is conserved, otherwise your calculations are wrong. Still even if you calculate, you can't see it nor touch it, but the energy is still there & as u said can be converted to electrical energy with the right tools, thats how things that can't be felt produce things that can be felt :)

I'll leave the last reply to you, since we diverted away from the topic.. I have cleared my point & got nothing more to say regarding this example

What soul ?


A human being is having a body and a soul. When the person dies the soul is taken out and will remain a body without life. You can notice this while sleeping your soul also goes out because sleeping is a minor death. So can you see your soul?


No.

That is one of the classic uses of walls. Another is to hold roofs up.

There, you're on your way to an engineering degree.

Just try to enlarge your view and assume there is a person living behind a wall but you don't know he is there.

A human being is having a body and a soul. When the person dies the soul is taken out and will remain a body without life. You can notice this while sleeping your soul also goes out because sleeping is a minor death. So can you see your soul?

We can agree that humans have bodies. I'm not aware of any meaningful, conclusive evidence of a soul.

As far as I can tell, when you die, all your brain's synapses, all of the biochemical processes that produce your memories, thoughts, hopes, dreams, and emotions, start decaying. You are gone.

That doesn't mean I have an active disbelief in souls, as Jeff likes to phrase things, I simply have no compelling reason to believe in souls.

Do you have some evidence of them ?



Just try to enlarge your view and assume there is a person living behind a wall but you don't know he is there.

OK, I'm imagining that there's a person behind a wall. She's showering. Now what ?

you can calculate only when you assume that the enegry is conserved, otherwise your calculations are wrong. Still even if you calculate, you can't see it nor touch it, but the energy is still there & as u said can be converted to electrical energy with the right tools, thats how things that can't be felt produce things that can be felt :)


OK, but it IS ultimately measurable. I can't feel or see an atom, but we can conduct experiments to support the theory that matter is made of atoms. I can't feel PE, but we can measure it in some form via experiment and we can take that knowledge and make predictions about the PE in other scenarios.


I'm confident that there are other forces that we will uncover over time. I'm wide open to that idea. But I don't see any evidentiary support for entities we call gods, and certainly no support for any specific one of them.

You would be seriously stupid to say that one time scientists will know 'everything'...That is a fact that had been proved wrong in every era.

You would be seriously stupid to say that one time scientists will know 'everything'...

I agree that that would be a stupid thing to say. But we will know more with the scientific method and viewpoint than by praying and making up explanations based on angels, gobblins, and talking donkeys.

What are the things that make you seriously stupid ? There must be a cause for the effect.



That is a fact that had been proved wrong in every era.

Well, science is all about proving hypotheses wrong so that fact that scientists get proven wrong isn't anything damning, but an expected outcome from the process of figuring out what isn't wrong - and what is correct.

Do you honestly think that someday an Omani theologian will prove that table salt isn't NaCl ?

^No...But I do believe that there are some questions that WILL remain unanswered forever. Tell me for example, where is the end of the universe? How did the universe start? How did life start on Earth? All we have are theories on such questions...We are not aware of their answers because there's no hard evidence that supports the hypothesis, which is one of the basic neccessities of a good science research. And you can't get me an evidence, for example, about the size, end, start of the universe. Can science, at least, give me the same happiness that I get when I pray? No.

And at that point, where all human intelligence fails, you surrender to a higher power that knows the answers.

Fellow Believers:

Well, but the obviously silly part of this notion of science as the only arbiter of truth is that science deliberately EXCLUDES non-material phenomena from its study.

That's a very useful thing to do in many circumstances. If you exclude the possibility of a non-"empirical" explanation for things, then you may discover the empirical cause you missed.

So, if cholera is caused by microbes rather than by the spirits of the dead, you will do a fine job of discovering that by systematically excluding non-measurable and non-empirical causation. Viva science and down with superstition! Woo-hoo! We are deep in debt to science for the not at all minor fact that most of us can avoid the miseries of cholera.

But if something is essentially non-material and non-empirical and not measurable or quantifiable, then science is not going to discover it. Why? Because it's against the rules of the game.

So, when science is baffled by trying to understand, not how life WORKS, but what life IS, it ends up going round and round in circles. Science has no idea what the principle of life is...it can describe all the various material manifestations of life in overwhelming detail, but it cannot locate the organizing PRINCIPLE, the center of animation. It has no idea of course how life could possibly have come into being from non-life--beyond primitive old exploded notions about "zapping" amino acids--and it cannot even begin to understand how to CREATE life itself...and if life is not fundamentally different from non-life, then that ought to be a fairly simple matter to do.

It has no idea how life forms change into other life forms, beyond speculating that it MUST have been some variety of mutation and natural selection, even though a force that could produce changes of such magnitude has never been isolated and reproduced. All such experiments have failed.

But has that proved to scientists that life and the various types of living organisms are animated by something immaterial and different from empirical data--something ordinary people call "soul"? No! Why? Because scientists are not allowed to entertain such an idea.

"Give us time! Give us more time! We always find a material explanation in the end. We solve all the mysteries. Just be patient," they say. And they COULD be right. But wouldn't they go on saying that for 100 years? 1000 years? Even if they make zero progress in explaining life in material terms?

OF COURSE THEY WOULD. Because they are not allowed to entertain non-material explanations. If they did, they would be violating the canons of scientific method. They stack the deck and then sneer at you because you can never seem to win a hand! :p

Science can never by its nature find or even admit to SEEING something unexplainable by science.

Planet and other atheists are performing the sleight-of-hand of asking a question which is framed in such a way as to exclude all possible evidence: "Give me scientific evidence of the sort of thing science by definition cannot recognize."

It's a parlor trick. Once you catch on to the idea, you will never be fooled again.

And what's the response when you point this out to them? Oh, it's reaaally sophisticated.

Objections like this: "All you really want is women. You don't have enough. I however, am a stud as are all atheists!"

Or this: "How shall we decide between werewolves and God? It makes my head hurt, so it's obviously dumb! All you stupidos are from the bronze age!"

:rn: :XD:

Do those seem like very sound objections to you? Me neither! :no:

Do they sound like the neutral, dispassionate observations of someone who is not convinced of something? Or do they sound like the fatuous, defensive declarations of someone trying to shore up an irrational Faith in materialism that is not sustained by any evidence or even common sense?

Yes, it's the Faith of Atheistic Materialism. A trivial, adolescent faith that can't see the forest for the trees.

Bronze age belief in werewolves and tree-spirits might be pretty silly, but it's nowhere NEAR as silly as atheism. :yes:

Ice Tea and Threadlike of course are right. And Planet is laughably wrong. Souls exist because life exists and they prove the existence of the Divine. They prove it in a far more definitive way than any measurable data ever could. But if you are a Worshipper at the Altar of Measurable Data, you will never consent to give honor to any other God. :duh:

How did life start on Earth?

Working on that.

So far it appears that life is partly explained by self-organizing chemical systems.



Can science, at least, give me the same happiness that I get when I pray? No.

Nope, and that is not the goal of science. Does your prayer give you the same happiness as those who run around singing "Hare Krishna - Krishna, Krishna"

The point is that the goal of science is not to make you happy and feeling all warm and fuzzy, but more to tell you which chemicals are responsible for that "Ahhhhh" feeling after intercourse and what is in the smoke from the cigarette you habitually light up.

^My other questions please :)

If you exclude the possibility of a non-"empirical" explanation for things, then you may discover the empirical cause you missed.

There, Jeff, you stumbled right past the point. If you settle on a supernatural explanation, rather than digging for a natural explanation, you:

a) don't determine the true cause
b) develop a variety of contradictory, mutually exclusive, fanciful explanations that may become a point of contention with others.

But that is precisly what you are doing. What you and IceTea and others here do to the detriment of knowledge is to hold on to and promulgate ancient mythological explanations for phenomena.



But if something is essentially non-material and non-empirical and not measurable or quantifiable, then science is not going to discover it. Why? Because it's against the rules of the game.

Because scientists are not allowed to entertain such an idea.

If they did [entertain non-material explanations] , they would be violating the canons of scientific method.

While your points are bordering on hysteria, they are essentially correct. The scientific method, by definition, relys on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and not the fireside ramblings of old men who believe that the Earth is flat and that the winds are caused by the gods moving to and fro in this world.


So, when science is baffled by trying to understand, not how life WORKS, but what life IS, it ends up going round and round in circles. Science has no idea what the principle of life is...it can describe all the various material manifestations of life in overwhelming detail, but it cannot locate the organizing PRINCIPLE, the center of animation. It has no idea of course how life could possibly have come into being from non-life--beyond primitive old exploded notions about "zapping" amino acids--and it cannot even begin to understand how to CREATE life itself...and if life is not fundamentally different from non-life, then that ought to be a fairly simple matter to do.

It has no idea how life forms change into other life forms, beyond speculating that it MUST have been some variety of mutation and natural selection, even though a force that could produce changes of such magnitude has never been isolated and reproduced. All such experiments have failed.

People who are particularly ignorant of a field, whose world view is threatened by that field, seem to have the greatest difficulty actually understanding anything about it.

Baffled, You may certainly throw up your hands and cry out that "The gods did it". Meanwhile, there are thousands of people who don't know the answer - "baffled" was your term - but who are trying to find the real cause. They are producing volumes of knowledge about life, evolution, DNA, the genome, and peripheral information with applications in psychology, pharmaceuticals, cancer treatment, transplants, agriculture, archaeology, history, ecoloogy, etc.

They are not working on Holy water and they are not appealing to the gods.

Save them the time and trouble and produce your "Ghost in the machine".

Instead you argue that you MUST be the evidence of and result of a soul - like your goldfish. And when your goldfish is found belly up, you seek solace in knowing that the life force which animated it is now in fishy heaven - with quiet air stone pumps, and larger food flakes, or returned and made whole again with that great light of Life.

Philosophically, that's so poetic. So reassuring. And so utterly useless in explaining anything here and now.



But has that proved to scientists that life and the various types of living organisms are animated by something immaterial and different from empirical data--something ordinary people call "soul"? No! Why? Because scientists are not allowed to entertain such an idea.

It is more the lack of evidence, because scientists would all love to be the first to demonstrate evidence of a soul. You are confusing using SOUL as an explanation of something with DETERMINING that souls exist.

Scientists need to determine something exists BEFORE using it as an explanation. Weak-minded people, the mentally ill, and conspiracy theorists are not held to that standard.




"Give us time! Give us more time! We always find a material explanation in the end. We solve all the mysteries. Just be patient," they say. And they COULD be right. But wouldn't they go on saying that for 100 years? 1000 years? Even if they make zero progress in explaining life in material terms?

And how long would it take if we were simply satisfied with the explanation that "the gods did it", "it was/is the will of the gods" ?

How old is the nonsense that substitutes for knowledge that you believe ?

3000 years old ?

Were the cave painters right or wrong ? Did the drawings summon the herds ?



Planet and other atheists are performing the sleight-of-hand of asking a question which is framed in such a way as to exclude all possible evidence: "Give me scientific evidence of the sort of thing science by definition cannot recognize."

It must suck that you have nothing to show. Just your hopes and feelings. Just someone else's mythology that you've now "borrowed". Seeking solace in the promises, a place in the rituals, a view at the sacrifice, a seat in a front row pew, a wink from a pastor.



Ice Tea and Threadlike of course are right.

So you are announcing your conversion to Islam now ?

If they are right, you need to convert - otherwise, they are wrong. But perhaps it's the GOOD kind of wrong the "I believe in SOMETHING, ANYTHING kind of wrong", that you hold in high regard

Planet...For the second time: My other questions. Or you couldn't answer?
Okay...Here's a cool one: What do you mean by an 'infinite' universe?

I don't even need to refute Planet's answer!

Read what I wrote carefully and then read his responses. He's conceded all my points without understanding them.

1. Planet asks for evidence of immaterial things.
2. I point out that his frame of reference--materialism and the scientific method--deliberately EXCLUDE any POSSIBLE evidence of the immaterial from the outset.
3. Planet agrees! and thus admits that his own challenge is senseless.

But we have interesting stuff on reindeer, which seem to have replaced werewolves and fairies in his Bestiary! :p

So far it appears that life is partly explained by self-organizing chemical systems.




This is all imaginations based on a limiled human being brain cells without any scientific evidence.

Tell me for example, where is the end of the universe?

I don't know - perhaps there is no end. Shall we seek an answer or just make something up ?

Here is a discussion about "seeing" the edge of the universe:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1343171.stm



How did the universe start?


I don't know - perhaps we will never know - some say the "Big Bang" destroyed any evidence of what was before. Shall we seek an answer, determine it cannot be answered, or just make something up ?

Here is some info from NASA. Perhaps you should call them and let them know that you have the answer and that they should do something else.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html



How did life start on Earth?

So far it appears that life is partly explained by self-organizing chemical systems.



And at that point, where all human intelligence fails, you surrender to a higher power that knows the answers.

Which ends the search and thirst for some knowledge.

You assume that you are surrendering to a power. I think you are surrendering to a weakness.

This is all imaginations based on a limiled human being brain cells without any scientific evidence.

And that is exactly what I would expect a fearful, superstitious person completely ignorant of the fields of study to say.

I don't even need to refute Planet's answer!

Well, and you can't.



Read what I wrote carefully and then read his responses. He's conceded all my points without understanding them.

1. Planet asks for evidence of immaterial things.
2. I point out that his frame of reference--materialism and the scientific method--deliberately EXCLUDE any POSSIBLE evidence of the immaterial from the outset.
3. Planet agrees! and thus admits that his own challenge is senseless.

Proving that you cannot provide any evidence - no matter your claims. You simply believe what someone else told you. You didn't come up with a Truth and then found it matched a currently popular religion, you simply adopted someone else's thoughts on the spiritual realm. Now instead of taking evidence and coming to a conclusion, you muxt take evidence and make it fit some very ancient and obvioulsy erroneous assumptions.

You have no evidence or your evidence seems to be nothing than daydreams.

And you think this is a weakness of science.

BTW - why aren't you converting to Islam if IceTea and Threadlike are right ?

I mean, how could they be wrong since they did exactly what you did.



But we have interesting stuff on reindeer, which seem to have replaced werewolves and fairies in his Bestiary! :p

Do you believe in flying reindeer Jeff ? Someone wrote stories about them.

That should be enough for you.

Perhaps we'll never know...Self-organizing chemical systems made you and me? TELL me about it :rolleyes:

Seek answers even though 'we may never know' is like digging a well in the desert even though you are 100% sure that you won't find any water.

Perhaps we'll never know...Self-organizing chemical systems made you and me? TELL me about it :rolleyes:

Yes - it was a start, and No - that isn't the whole story.

The evidence suggests that life is part of a self organizing chemical system.

Think about what happens when water (Hydrogen and Oxygen) freezes - it self-organizes into a less dense Hexagonal ice structure.

Think about surface tension in water - a film more difficult to move through than interior water - it's a membrane of sorts.

Now add Carbon and Nitrogen to the mix. How will these 4 elements influence each other ? These are the 4 most common elements in living organisms.


Once there was life, new pressures come to bear: Evolution - which just happened to lead to us.

Actually this is getting interesting now...
If a living cell was made so long ago in such conditions why can't WE make a living cell out of dead stuff right now? I mean...The logic says: If it was done long ago, it could be done now! We have nitrogen, carbohydrates and all the materials that compose a living cell, YET we still cannot make something living out of something dead. I wonder why!

And that is exactly what I would expect a fearful, superstitious person completely ignorant of the fields of study to say.

I hope readingthis (http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_p1_02.php#9a) will help you to understand.

Oh and btw...Jeff doesn't have to be a Muslim to believe in simple logic or religion.

Actually this is getting interesting now...
If a living cell was made so long ago in such conditions why can't WE make a living cell out of dead stuff right now? I mean...The logic says: If it was done long ago, it could be done now! We have nitrogen, carbohydrates and all the materials that compose a living cell, YET we still cannot make something living out of something dead. I wonder why!

1) All of the physical properties necessary to broadcast a television signal existed 15,000 years ago, but we only relatively recently learned how to do it. Just because we don't know how to do something NOW doesn't mean it can't be done.

2) It probably took a billion years in a lab the size of Earth to produce the life that we eventually descended from. How do you think that compares to the amount of time and scale of current scientific study of the subject ?

3) Besides DNA and RNA, there are a variety of interesting (and robust) nucleic acids that can act as information stores: GNA, TNA, and PNA. It could be that we simply haven't produced or focused on all of the necessary precursor components.

A biologist once commented that abiogenesis could be occuring naturally even now, but we'd be hard pressed to see it, as the resulting life would be "slow and delicious"

hey there!
i just wanted to know you thought about something..
someone said "Atheism isn't a religion..."
so for you, Is atheism a religion ?
plz explain your point of view

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f295/nicobambi/atheism.jpg

well....
somehow i dont consider it as a religion....
coz athiest dont believe in the existence of any God, they have no1 2 pray 2, unlike the other religions no matter what they pray to.

I dont think Atheism is a religion ..
Any one who believe in it think that religion is prophets-made ..
So never consider it as religion

Define religion, then we can consider if atheism is a religion or not.

Define religion, then we can consider if atheism is a religion or not.

Totally agree !

Atheism entails the absence of belief in the existence of God or other deities.

Atheism has also been defined as the belief in the non-existence of God.

If we define religion as believing in a certain God (whatever that God may be) then athiesm is NOT a religion.

Whereas if religion is defined as something man-made, a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community..Then athiesm is man-made too.. And so could be considered a religion of having no religion!

lol..I honestly dont know.

from wikipedia :
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

All patriarchal religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane. [1] Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life".

The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures. "Organized religion" generally refers to an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion with a prescribed set of beliefs, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization). Other religions believe in personal revelation and responsibility. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"[2] but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions.

What exactly an atheist does to feel that he has a religion?

No. It's a non-religion.

An atheist doesn't believe in a superior divinity or deity. That's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.

maybe its the only religion that doesnt believe in a god?

i think we should ask an athiest...

What exactly an atheist does to feel that he has a religion?
An atheist can have a strong conviction, for example, on the theory of evolution. He may believe that things came to be because of natural chemical reactions that are, through time, being explained with scientific proof. An atheist will also be a person, who is most probably the most peaceful person you'll ever get to know. He has nothing to argue about, nothing to fight over and doesn't really care what everyone else bellieves in.

Ironic isn't it?

I know quite a few atheists... they're perfectly normal and good people.

I personally don't consider it a religion !

A Religion is either belief a God ( with all what he send ) like Islam, Christianity, Jews, or following a practices ( which a group sets over the years ) like Hinduism, Buddhism, etc


Atheism entails the absence of belief in the existence of God

it's a religion of you want to belive it is .. and I don't think anyone should judge on anyone based on his religion .. at the end it's his/her choice .. just respect it and they respect you ... :)

I already said what i think in another thread..

^ well there''s no harm if you repeat what you said and share your thoughts :)

its as simple as, its not a religion, because themselves say we dont have a religion!

its like someone told me.. I have no religion.. therefore im an athiest! That happend two weeks ago

Religion is believing of the existence of "a" God. Without believing in God, it could be considered a faith, belief, creed...etc. but sure not a religion. In Arabic, the word religion "DEEN" conveys the meaning of crediting yourself to a creator, a controller. So it has the same root of the word "DEEN" which means (to be in dept to someone) so as if God has giving you the soul which is his property so you owe him something so you follow his orders because your existence and soul is just to his ownership.

I don't want to complicate things, but to conclude, Atheism is never a religion, it is more like if we call those who hold cups of tea "teares" and those who hold cups of coffee "coffeeres", what should we call those who hold "empty" cups!?

And they said: "There is no (other life) but our (present) life of this world, and never shall we be resurrected (on the Day of Resurrection)."

If you could but see when they will be held (brought and made to stand) in front of their Lord! He will say: "Is not this (Resurrection and the taking of the accounts) the truth?" They will say: "Yes, by our Lord!" He will then say: "So taste you the torment because you used not to believe."

They indeed are losers who denied their Meeting with Allâh, until all of a sudden, the Hour (signs of death) is on them, and they say: "Alas for us that we gave no thought to it," while they will bear their burdens on their backs; and evil indeed are the burdens that they will bear!

It's too late!

And if you only could see when the Mujrimûn (criminals, disbelievers, polytheists, sinners) shall hang their heads before their Lord (saying): "Our Lord! We have now seen and heard, so send us back (to the world), that we will do righteous good deeds. Verily! We now believe with certainty."

Atheism can't be a religion because the whole concept of atheism is based on non-religion :p

Anyhow, as I Muslim, I feel Atheists are better off than those on the wrong path. Being on no path is better then following a wrong one.

define religion:... to me religion is a belief system...

and atheism is a type of belief system as well... it IS a belief.
they don't believe in god yes... but

they BELIEVE there's no god.

they nevertheless have a belief, innit the same?...lol

to me it sounds like a belief system... and a belief system's a religion

I don't think it is considered a religion, I don't think atheists would want to be viewed as a certain religion followers because basically they're against the "religion" idea!

as everybody said i don't consider it as a religion since u don't believe in anything :)

Plus to some points mentioned here, I would ask do they practice anything?!

It shouldn't be considered a religion is if its based on NOT having a religion!

Ask any Athiest.. "What do you believe in?" "Nothing"
So "You don't believe in God?" "No." "Any God?" .. "No.."

I think Athiests came to be, because they can't find any religion that would satisfy them, they barely understand the one they are born with, and they don't really put any effort in understanding anything else. Plus, seeing what our world has come to today, it seems to them that having a religion will help being discriminated against, or they'd be included in some stereo-typing generalization..

So to them..Its easier to just NOT have a religion to begin with, since nowadays all religions have some group/community/nation going against it.

When they declare they stopped believing in a God, or stopped following a certain religion, they are asked many questions. That's when they turn to science and start using the scientific proofs and conclusions, convincing themselves that it justifies life and our existence and the existence of everything around us..

Thats what I think... :)

But frankly.. If I were an athiest, I would want another explanation to our existence rather than we were once monkeys! :hmm:

When they declare they stopped believing in a God, or stopped to follow a certain religion, they are asked many questions. That's when they turn to science and start using the scientific proofs and conclusions, convincing themselves that it justifies life and our existence and the existence of everything around us..

Thats what I think... :)

But frankly.. If I were an athiest, I would want another explanation to our existence rather than we were once monkeys! :hmm:
... this is what everyone does ... lol
so tell us from were we came from ? other than "god created us" :)

NicoBambi, there is no other logical and valid option, God created the whole universe not just humans, humans are a tiny part (like a drop in the ocean) of the whole creation.

Atheism is a different and revolutionary form of BELIEF.
It might not extend to be called religion in its conventional meaning but it is a parallel line to religion with a different form.
Cannot be classified as a religion for reasons mentioned before. As well, in religion there are relative description to its followers. I mean there are the devout, less devout, strongly devout (Muftis ,clerics, priests...). In Atheism there is no such a thing.
However, I would call atheists believers. Believers in reason and the objective application of mind. No thing can be attributed to supernatural power.

on second thought....^^ I agree to that.

I guess every religion is a belief... but not every belief is a religion