The Theist Hatred Of Atheists

Mach said:
HazardPerry, I read over the Lecture by Seyyid Hossein Nasr, am I understanding this correctly? He's saying... ok, follow science along, but, get some "feeling" from "religion".... kind of half and half... that science can only supply so much?

Here is a video..... do you agree with some of his views?..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyboXCIVJY0
Click to expand...

On the Nasr - in a way. I enjoy the lecture because it highlights the interesting fabric of various opinion within the doctrine. I just sort of wanted to provide an example of active discussion and desire, even need for science and religion to co-exist. In my studies I have found that historically Islam embraces science more than the other monotheistic religions, and I have always believed that the two can interact freely.

On the video, it was an interesting talk. The beginning part concerning the covering of women haha, could be it's own topic. The part I feel you wanted me to watch though, concerning an imaginary conversation (conversion?) with/of an athiest I was quite uncomfortable with. Firstly, I dislike the idea that one is to be going around looking to convert atheists, but I have said that in this thread before. Secondly, I dislike captive dialogues like the one he held. If he is conjuring the "athiest" and his "responses," then of course he will get to prove his point. Finally, I feel the way he went (if the situation must occur) about it is entirely wrong. There is a cottage industry of erstwhile scholars who nit-pick the Qur'an seeking out semantics like the ones he quoted, to hold up as "proof." I have come across most of the things he said before, and more often than not (having a grasp of Classical Arabic) they are being judiciously translated, to say the least.

These sort of Qur'anic parlor tricks are commonly distributed in pamphlets and literature I suppose seeking to "shock and awe" non-Muslims. I have never once seen it do that, and my first reaction to it (as a Muslim) was to crack open my Qur'an and start translating for myself. Most of it is wishful thinking. I generally believe that one must be "shown" or "discover" their own path, unless they are particularly impressionable, and as he mentioned, echoing my sentiments earlier in this thread, most atheists are not in the possession of impressionable minds in the first place. Further, what enlightenment can the impressionable obtain from doctrine they blindly follow?

Anyway, here is an interesting video from a teacher I do rather admire, on a similar topic.
 
the Winner is (R0N P@uL) said:
In the "The Good Book" it says either you have God in your heart or you are damned for eternity

.......not much room for Atheists in Heaven
Click to expand...


But there is room for murderers, child molestors, etc....all they have to do is proclaim their love of God/Jesus and they get a free pass. Not really the types I'd chose to hang out with.
 
Excellent post #70, HazPer...

"Perhaps the Christians you have come in contact with are very vocal in their support of war and would like nothing better than to wage a moral crusade, both domestic and foreign. But mustn't it be recognized that they may not be particularly representative of the full body of practice?"

Yes, as I have said religion is segmented and personalized. Of course you don't believe what other Chrisitians believe...that would be insane.

Of course, I'm not especially rational, myself...that's true. I take my mind for a ride on certain subjects and just let it spill onto the page. I didn't become an atheist after not thinking about it.

As I understand it, Christians in my neck of the woods are bible literalists who have plenty of tracts to hand out and a scripture quote for every instance of their lives. But why, Haz? It's because here is where they where born into their religions. If they'd been born in India, they might have never heard of Jesus, who holds "son of god" status over here. Almost all Chrisitians share that point of faith, but they all disagree on the details of everything else. They have picked and chosen among the tidbits of their religious doctrines and seperated themselves from other Jesus believers along the lines of those differences. If that is allowed, ...(and the Pope says it isn't)... then religion becomes suspect because two truths cannot tolerate one another's existence.

Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. (Dire Straits)

I get this "I'm not that kind of Christian" talk all the time. But, it was only a matter of time before "that kind of Christian" made its way into the White House. Hmmm, seven years later we're corn-holing two predominantly Muslim states relentlessly, under the guise of justice for an attack we might have turned the other cheek on. It can't be proven that these guys (our leaders) are sincere in their beliefs, but if they are, there is plenty to be found in their religions to strengthen and justify their goals...and in the case of Christianity, there's even a provision for forgivness and AFTER DEATH reward. I apologize to dissenting Christians, but shouldn't they be as alarmed as I am that "this kind of Christian" is at the helm, fingering the unholy mechanisms of nuclear destruction? They're right there, ready to fulfill prophecy, and cement their destinies. That makes me quite nervous, actually. Where is preacher to lead us in protest?

Someone a couple of pages back said this was an angry thread. I have to disagree. For the subject matter, this thread is pretty civil. Sure, it's kind of mean, but that 's part of the fun. It hasn't disentigrated into childish bickering just yet. As for those that wonder why this thread should exist here...exactly how many sub-forums does this site have, anyway, and why can't Ron Paul supporters have a small discussion regarding religion versus atheism? I fully admit to being a "fight-starting troll", because there's nothing I like more than a debate. I don't care much for crude pissing matches, though, even if it seems that I am asking for it. Posts like HazardPerry #70 prove that contoversial subjects can be discussed in a relatively peaceful manner. One thing about this forum...it has convinced me that Ron Paul supporters are "everybody".



...alone with your tweezers, and your handkerchief
you murder time and truth, love, laughter, and belief
but don't try to touch my heart, it's darker than you think
and don't try to read my mind, because it's full of disappearing ink... - Elvis Costello All the Rage


rope rope the misanthrope
 
Last edited:
Defining Obscene said:
I hate everyone equally, because no one will ever admit they're wrong :)
Click to expand...

You haven't met me yet. I used to be a born again Christian. All my life up til about 5 years ago. Was a preacher even. Studied the hell out of that bible, and believed so much that I preached in the park to passersby that unless they repented they'd be going to hell. Later I fell in with a messianic type group that kept the 7th day sabbath. I taught that Moses killed a man on orders from God because the man picked up some sticks on the Sabbath.

All of that changed about 5 years ago... the story of my transformation from believer to agnostic is a lengthy one and I'll not repeat it here, but suffice to say that my belief in the god I once believed in (or gods... father, son, ghost... depending on your theology, there's one god, three in one, one in three, or something in between) is now as strong as my belief in Santa Claus.

And even now, I'm still agnostic on all points. I could be a brain in a vat and not know it.

Now how many people do you know who will admit to not knowing jack shit?

(I think I met Jack once a long time ago, but I never really got to know him.)

Now then... if only everyone could only just admit "I THINK such and such" or "I BELIEVE such and such". Works for both theists and atheists.

I THINK there is (is not) a god.

I BELIEVE there is (is not) a god.

or I AM NOT SURE there is a god, what it's name is, what it does for a living, etc.

If we could all just agree to this, maybe we could all get along.



I THINK, THEREFORE I AM. NOW, WHAT THE HELL AM I?
 
the Winner is (R0N P@uL) said:
In the "The Good Book" it says either you have God in your heart or you are damned for eternity

.......not much room for Atheists in Heaven

(but who am I to judge, it's all there in black, white, and red)
Click to expand...

It's a good thing I'm not immortal then, otherwise I'd have something to worry about.

The only thing in my heart is blood.
 
WilliamC said:
It's a good thing I'm not immortal then, otherwise I'd have something to worry about.

The only thing in my heart is blood.
Click to expand...

WilliamC, I've read a lot of your posts on this thread and agree with everything, except your implied insistence that you know for a fact that you are not immortal. I might agree with you if you could prove your lack of immortality.

Or would you just admit that you are not sure if your consciousness transcends the death of the body?

All I know for sure is that "I am". In one sense, that makes me God.

I don't know if I will live after the death of my body. I suppose I'll know one day. How can you know either way until your body dies? Isn't that when you'll really know? (of course if you don't transcend, you won't even know it then, for there will be no more "you"... how ironic!)

Just seeking clarification to satisfy my curiousity.

I also seek to learn why theists absolutely know that they will inherit an afterlife... how do you know for sure? How can you prove it?
 
beachmaster said:
WilliamC, I've read a lot of your posts on this thread and agree with everything, except your implied insistence that you know for a fact that you are not immortal. I might agree with you if you could prove your lack of immortality.

Or would you just admit that you are not sure if your consciousness doesn't transcend the death of the body?

All I know for sure is that "I am". In one sense, that makes me God.

I don't know if I will live after the death of my body. I suppose I'll know one day. How can you know either way until your body dies? Isn't that when you'll really know? (of course if you don't transcend, you won't even know it then... how ironic!)

Just seeking clarification to satisfy my curiousity.

I also seek to learn why theists absolutely know that they will inherit an afterlife... how do you know for sure? How can you prove it?
Click to expand...

Well I can't say I have proof because I haven't yet died.

I just happen to think I am not immortal just like I think that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

I can't prove that either, all I can do is wait for it to happen.

Maybe I'm wrong and there is a supernatural component to me that lives after my brain shuts down.

And maybe a rogue black hole will collide with the sun today and cause it to go nova.

All I know is that, in my experience, nothing has come close to convincing me I have an immortal soul.

Without that belief religion is sort of a moot point for me.
 
WilliamC said:
Well I can't say I have proof because I haven't yet died.

I just happen to think I am not immortal just like I think that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

I can't prove that either, all I can do is wait for it to happen.

Maybe I'm wrong and there is a supernatural component to me that lives after my brain shuts down.

And maybe a rogue black hole will collide with the sun today and cause it to go nova.

All I know is that, in my experience, nothing has come close to convincing me I have an immortal soul.

Without that belief religion is sort of a moot point for me.
Click to expand...

I hear ya, believe me. Me on the other hand... I've had out of the body experiences, which really still proves nothing. But they are anecdotal evidence (not proof) that there is another "me" that is not of a physical nature. Lucid dreams are another of these pieces of the anecdotal puzzle.

And yet still I just don't know, even with this evidence. I don't try to convince myself one way or the other. I believe in the possibility of this, that, or the other, but don't believe anything absolutely, except one thing... I AM. I can't even be sure of what I am. It appears that I'm a human being living on a planet called earth. But if there is anything to The Simulation Argument (and I believe in the possibilities of it), then truly I just can't know for sure.


I can't prove that either, all I can do is wait for it to happen.

Maybe I'm wrong and there is a supernatural component to me that lives after my brain shuts down.
Click to expand...
That's what I was hoping to see from you. I just wish everyone could admit that they could be wrong, that they can't prove their beliefs. Then we could all start working together and forge ahead toward peaceful living.

Thanks for your candor.
 
beachmaster said:
I hear ya, believe me. Me on the other hand... I've had out of the body experiences, which really still proves nothing. But they are anecdotal evidence (not proof) that there is another "me" that is not of a physical nature. Lucid dreams are another of these pieces of the anecdotal puzzle.

And yet still I just don't know, even with this evidence. I don't try to convince myself one way or the other. I believe in the possibility of this, that, or the other, but don't believe anything absolutely, except one thing... I AM. I can't even be sure of what I am. It appears that I'm a human being living on a planet called earth. But if there is anything to The Simulation Argument (and I believe in the possibilities of it), then truly I just can't know for sure.



That's what I was hoping to see from you. I just wish everyone could admit that they could be wrong, that they can't prove their beliefs. Then we could all start working together and forge ahead toward peaceful living.

Thanks for your candor.
Click to expand...

Anytime.

I have become increasingly skeptical of everything as I get older, including myself.

I'm a scientist by training, but a long time ago I figured out that to be successful in science you essentially have to become a professional beggar and write grants all the time. For some strange reason I don't think that the taxpayers should be supporting most scientific research anymore.

Lately I've become increasing dissatisfied with science and working in a lab, it's boring. I'm trying to take more math classes with the goal of being able to teach math at the post-high school level. I've never been very good at math but I've always wanted to learn more of it. I've really got to stop wasting my time with this politics stuff and do more studying :)
 
Mini-Me said:
Quite frankly, I think the animosity on both sides is ridiculous...far too many people on both sides are arrogant and utterly overconfident that they "know the real truth" to the exclusion of everyone else, and then they proceed to publicly exalt themselves and belittle others for their beliefs.
Click to expand...
+1
 
WilliamC said:
Anytime.

I have become increasingly skeptical of everything as I get older, including myself.

I'm a scientist by training, but a long time ago I figured out that to be successful in science you essentially have to become a professional beggar and write grants all the time. For some strange reason I don't think that the taxpayers should be supporting most scientific research anymore.

Lately I've become increasing dissatisfied with science and working in a lab, it's boring. I'm trying to take more math classes with the goal of being able to teach math at the post-high school level. I've never been very good at math but I've always wanted to learn more of it. I've really got to stop wasting my time with this politics stuff and do more studying :)
Click to expand...

As you are a scientist, I'd be interested in your take on the Simulation Argument. There's some computational math involved in it! And it's the ultimate in skepticism of everything! :)
 
beachmaster said:
As you are a scientist, I'd be interested in your take on the Simulation Argument. There's some computational math involved in it! And it's the ultimate in skepticism of everything! :)
Click to expand...

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

ABSTRACT. This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

On the surface it sounds like a non-testable hypothesis to me.

No, I think that the simplest explanation is that this is all objectively real, and that we are but a brief flicker of awareness in the grand scheme of things, both as individuals and as a species.

Now if we can hold it all together long enough to start expanding into the solar system and establish self-sufficient colonies on other planets and moons then I'll be a tad bit more optimistic about our long term survival.

A tad bit.
 
WilliamC said:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/

No, I think that the simplest explanation is that this is all objectively real, and that we are but a brief flicker of awareness in the grand scheme of things, both as individuals and as a species.

Now if we can hold it all together long enough to start expanding into the solar system and establish self-sufficient colonies on other planets and moons then I'll be a tad bit more optimistic about our long term survival.

A tad bit.
Click to expand...

I lean heavily to this being the real reality. Occam's Razor and all. But then again, just what does that mean exactly. What is reality? Is what you see as "blue" the same color that I see as "blue"? What if what you call blue is what I call red? So what is real? Math probably is indeed the closest thing to true objectivity.

Which brings me full cycle into wondering perhaps maybe the Simulation Argument could be real, since it would be a master computer doing gazillions of computations (math).

If this world is "real", I don't see us surviving long enough to make such a computer, just based on what I perceive as human nature. But that's not to say that some other civilization didn't make it to the high tech state required to build such a computer, and just decided to simulate beings that we call humans.

I can go for Occam's Razor overall, just to make my life simpler. But that still doesn't make it so. I still really truly don't know the answer 100 percent for sure. And I'm reasonably sure nobody else does either.

Which leads me to conclude that it's possible none of "you" are real. Maybe I really am God. I was alone in the void, and very lonely. I decided to concoct an amazing dreamworld, and invented all of "you" out there, and the world, birds, air, stars, beer, sex, war, suffering, etc., so as to shake off my extreme boredom. And to make it real, I hypnotized myself so that I would not know I had done this... I would "live" out a life as a mere mortal man without knowing what my true nature was... until I awake.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure now that I'm really God. That's got to be it!

Now bow before me!
;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
QJAE: The Incompleteness of Central Planning
Replies
0
Views
45
PAF
PAF
jmdrake
The disappearance of Gabriela Rico Jiménez
Replies
3
Views
22
TheTexan
TheTexan
W
Germany Bans Far Right Compact Meg, Germany Defends Migrants. Potical Order
Replies
0
Views
629
WarriorLiberty
W
PAF
Trump deploys National Guard to Memphis, calls it ‘replica’ of Washington crackdown
Replies
0
Views
34
PAF
PAF
jmdrake
The vast military involvement in Operation Warp Speed
Replies
1
Views
21
PAF
PAF
Back
Top