Posts Tagged ‘atheism’

Atheism- as a counter-reaction of the wrong creeds of Christianity

November 5, 2017

Later when people in the West realized the wrong concepts of Christianity they altogether denied G-d and started becoming atheists; a counter-reaction of the wrong creeds of Christianity.

Thread: “Atheists believe there is no God” “What a hoary canard it is
Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

Post 298: 

[Replying to post 295 by paarsurrey1]

Quote:
Atheism as admitted here by them is a position/no-position of ignorance, so in ignorance they see things topsy-turvy and in the whimsical ways …

D——s wrote:

I beg to differ. I was raised in a very Christian household and was saturated with the subject from birth until I left for college at age 18. It was Sunday school and the main service every Sunday morning, another service on Sunday night, then again on Wednesday night. We had two full weeks of “vacation bible school” in the summers, a week or so at a place called the Missionary Plantation Bible Camp in the mountains of NC each summer (where the first seed was planted in my head that something was seriously wrong with this whole idea), a prayer (“grace” or “the blessing’) before every meal, more religion in the boy scouts, and on and on and on. I think before it was all over I’d read the bible through twice, and I would not call myself ignorant of Christianity by age 18 … at least the Presbyterian/Baptist version prevalent throughout the U.S. southeast where I grew up. But there was nothing at all taught about other religions, other than that they were all “wrong.”‘

I eventually decided to study the different religions of the world, their origins and general beliefs, etc., and came to the conclusion that there is zero evidence for any of the thousands of gods that humans have invented in their heads over the millennia, including the Christian/Islam/Jewish flavor, or any other, having ever existed. These stories were mostly developed while humankind was scientifically illiterate and thus had no understanding of how nature worked, and gods were a convenient explanation at the time, and people in power came to realize that organized religion could be a useful tool for control of populations. So the various religions became entrenched and as has been pointed out on these forums many times most people adopt the religion of their parents or region as young children, and stay with it. Just look at a map of the distribution of religions:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

So it is not always ignorance that causes people to reject religions ideals … just the opposite. Simple analysis of the probability that any of them are actually true shows that the probabilities are so low that it is impossible to believe them.

paarsurrey1 wrote:

There is no compulsion to believe in Allah-the-One-True-God, he has given this option to every human being whether they believe in Him or not, and I am satisfied with it:

[76:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[76:2] There has certainly come upon man a period of time when he was not a thing spoken of.
[76:3] We have created man from a mingled sperm-drop that We might try him; so We made him hearing, seeing.
[76:4] We have shown him the Way*, whether he be grateful** or ungrateful^.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=76&verse=0
*the right path
**he becomes a believer
^ or denies to become a believer
OOOO
There could be others who have subscribed to Atheism and then they left it, totally disgusted with it.

I believe in one’s example my sentence in the last post fits, if one doesn’t mind, please :

Quote:
Later when people in the West realized the wrong concepts of Christianity they altogether denied G-d and started becoming atheists; a counter-reaction of the wrong creeds of Christianity.

If I may ask one:
Did one study Quran from cover to cover, please.

Regards

Advertisements

Belief in the One-True-God is the default position

November 5, 2017

Belief in the One-True-God is the default position; when one is off this position or derailed from the right path due to different factors one could become believer in many gods or just an atheist, not believing any gods. 

Thread: “Atheists believe there is no God” What a hoary canard it is

Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

 

Post 295: 

[Replying to post 292 by paarsurrey1]

Quote:
Though Atheism is not supported by any reasonable and positive evidence. It is just a claim without a positive reason. Right, please?

b—–b wrote:

No, not right, thank you.
Atheism arises as a result of the failure of theists to support their position by what would be considered reasonable and positive evidence. It requires no reason itself as it is the natural default position.

It is my opinion that all religious belief is the result of upbringing. Even if some people don’t accept the beliefs of their parents and peers fully, the seed is still there to allow acceptance under the right conditions later on. But for those who do develop strong beliefs from an early age, there is no question that the evaluation of evidence played any part in it. The question of evidence comes into play much later when those people try to shore up their beliefs by retrofitting whatever they can muster and claim as supporting evidence.

paarsurrey1 wrote:

Welcome to the forum and this thread also.
Atheism as admitted here by them is a position/no-position of ignorance, so in ignorance they see things topsy-turvy and in the whimsical ways, nevertheless they are lovely people:

Belief in the One-True-God is the default position 

Belief in the One-True-God is the default position; when one is off this position or derailed from the right path due to different factors one could become believer in many gods or just an atheist, not believing any gods.

Example:

Jesus was a Jew and believed in the one true G-d; he expressed this in a very clear and straightforward terms.

Yet Paul invented Trinity and made Christians believe in it; and later there were some Christian denominations that worshiped Mary also making into four deities.

Later when people in the West realized the wrong concepts of Christianity they altogether denied G-d and started becoming atheists; a counter-reaction of the wrong creeds of Christianity.

Regards

November 2, 2017

Atheism is definitely a position and a negative one, but they deny it to avoid the burden of proof for it. They cannot give proofs, the same kind of proofs they demand from the believers, the only thing they do is to deride and ridicule the believers and their religions and put one religion against the other. Their position is position of DOUBT and uncertainty. I believe that they just leapt into the dark and they made darkness as their abode.

Thread: “Atheists believe there is no God”
What a hoary canard it is Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

 

Post 256: 

H———-a wrote:
[Replying to post 1 by T—–i]

I disagree that not believing in God is not to hold a position. Atheists hold the positions that there is “no God”, this IS a position and so is a belief with a burden of proof as much as the position to believe in God.

This is why I could never agree with the notion that Agnostics or Skeptics should be labeled as Atheists.

For a belief is defined by something we are CONVINCED by,. Agnostics and skeptics are NOT convinced, and so should not be labelled theists or atheists.

Its completely false to claim there can only be two positions, or that atheism hold no position, and after years debating with them as I was labelled to be one I found proof of this over and over.

I am not convinced by either argument, though I think the argument for God is stronger than the argument against God, and the argument against religion is stronger than the argument for religion. But to call me an atheist when I have not dismissed the idea of God is ridiculous, just like it would be to call me a theist just because I think the argument for theism is stronger. That does not mean that I am CONVINCED by the argument that God exist or the argument that God doesn’t exist. In fact I am not.

If you look Atheism up you will find that the Christian are right on this point.

Atheism: “atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.”

Rejection: “the dismissing or refusing of a proposal, idea, etc. ”

Belief: “acceptance/confidence that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.”

See Websters dictionary and Wikipedia.

So Atheism is to DISMISS ACCEPTANCE of God existing. That is not what agnostics do, hence agnostics should not be labelled atheists. Further, to dismiss acceptance IS a position, just like it would be to reject a law or marriage proposal. A position can be both in favor and against.

If theism is a 1 and Atheism is a rejection of 1 (-1), that does not mean everything can be labelled simply in two categories of 1 and -1. There is also 0. And what about those who don’t believe in God, but KNOW there is a God? Yes for a atheist that argument is dismissed on faith without proof, for we don’t know if anyone know there is a God or not.


Quote:
Atheists hold the positions that there is “no God”, this IS a position and so is a belief with a burden of proof as much as the position to believe in God.

Paarsurrey wrote:

I agree with one that Atheism is definitely a position and a negative one, but they deny it to avoid the burden of proof for it. They cannot give proofs, the same kind of proofs they demand from the believers, the only thing they do is to deride and ridicule the believers and their religions and put one religion against the other. Their position is position of DOUBT and uncertainty. I believe that they just leapt into the dark and they made darkness as their abode. Nevertheless, it is their choice and they are entitled to it. If one could believe in Atheism without any evidence/proof why one cannot believe in One-True-God.
Regards

Is Atheism a superstition?

October 23, 2017

Thread: “Prayers for my child” Forum: Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Physical Fitness and Health

Post 8: 
Re: Prayers for my child

[Replying to post 7 by D———–t]

Quote:
Do religious people believe in ghosts or not? If not, then what sense do angels and demons make?

Paarsurrey wrote:

The Truthful religion has no teachings to believe in”ghosts” or to believe in myths or to have superstitious beliefs/no-beliefs.
Fors instance we don’t believe in Atheism as it is just superstitious to believe in notions that are neither supported by “Religion” nor by science. Right, please?

Regards

Further reading.

When God Goes Away, Superstition Takes His Place

Atheism is the position of ignorance.Is it?

October 12, 2017

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=889143#889143

Post 11: 
2——–d wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, there has been no experiment which data refutes the hypothesis that God exists. Or Zeus, for that matter.

R—-21 wrote:

Really? We can’t refute the hypotheses that a man throwing lightening bolts lives on top of Mount Olympus?

If we can refute the claims made by religious scripture then we can refute the deity it describes. The Greeks were not describing deities that actually existed. Maybe there is a god, but it clearly cannot be Zeus.

Similarly we can look at many of the claims made in the bible and see that they are not true. Some of the easiest are from the book of Genesis. We know that the creation story, the garden of Eden, Noah and the flood, the tower of Babel, Jonah and the great fish, and others are purely myths or legends. So if a supernatural god exists, it cannot be the one described in Genesis.

We can continue this exercise through other books of the bible or any other religious scripture to separate the wheat from the chaff. The further we go, the more gods get eliminated until only the truth remains.

R—-21 wrote:

Quote:
We can continue this exercise through other books of the bible or any other religious scripture to separate the wheat from the chaff. The further we go, the more gods get eliminated until only the truth remains.

Paarsurrey wrote:
Agreed,with Atheism admitting that their position is of ignorance, they are out of the probe about believing One-True-God until they open their hearts and minds for the probe with unprejudiced mindset. Of course, the Atheism people have a right to disbelieve, however irrational this may be, though.

The method suggested by one appeals to me and the next step is between the believers themselves to define and probe which God to believe who has truthful verities and absolute attributes that exist, are very manifest in the Universe, and we believe no rational, prudent and unprejudiced person could deny. Right, please?

Please correct me if I am wrong.
Anybody, please

Regards

Atheism is the position of ignorance.Is it?

October 10, 2017

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=888924#888924

Post 17:  “Science does not support Atheism, does it?”

[Replying to post 16 by W—m]

 

Paarsurrey wrote:
Is the position/no-position of Atheism people claiming it to be “default position”?:


W—m wrote:
Atheism is a position, not a ‘no position’.
As a position, it is one of ignorance in that ‘the default position of a new born is ignorance’. Not as in ‘atheism is ignorance.’The reasoning is that we are not born knowing that GOD does or doesn’t exist. We are born ignorant of such things. Such things are not contemplated, and in that, it is a neutral position.

Thus atheism is a neutral position and the default position of every new born


Quote from W—m:
Atheism is a position
As a position, it is one of ignorance

Paarsurrey wrote:
Thanks for agreeing, if I understood one correctly, that Atheism is the position of ignorance.

Though I don’t agree that a child is ignorant. A child is endowed with the seed of knowledge and learning that flowers forth as the child grows year after year to adulthood and beyond.
So, why ascribe a child with “ignorance”, please?
With due respect, I will like to state that it is perhaps the Atheism people who stick to ignorance all their lives?!
Please correct me if I am wrong. Right, please?

Regards

OOOOOOOOOO

Research:

Secret #3 The Absorbent Mind

It begins with a knowledge of his surroundings. How does the child assimilate his environment? He does it solely in virtue of one of those characteristics that we now know him to have. This is an intense and specialized sensitiveness in consequence of which the things about him awaken so much interest and so much enthusiasm that they become incorporated in his very existence . The child absorbs these impressions not with his mind but with his life itself.

~Maria Montessori, The Absorbent Mind

The child has a different relation to his environment from ours… the child absorbs it.  The things he sees are not just remembered; they form part of his soul.  He incarnates in himself all in the world about him that his eyes see and his ears hear. ~Maria Montessori, The Absorbent Mind.

“…if we compare our ability as adults to that of the child, it would require us sixty years of hard work to achieve what a child has achieved in these first three years.” ~Maria Montessori, The Absorbent Mind

“Impressions do not merely enter a child’s mind; they form it.” ~ Maria Montessori

https://archive.org/stream/absorbentmind031961mbp/absorbentmind031961mbp_djvu.txt

https://ami-global.org/montessori/montessori-quotes

  • Montessori, Maria (1948). The Discovery of the Child. Madras: Kalkshetra Publications Press.
  • Montessori, Maria (1949). The Absorbent Mind. Madras: Theosophical Publishing House.
  • Montessori, Maria (1914). Dr. Montessori’s Own Handbook. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company.
  • Montessori, Maria (1912). The Montessori Method. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company.
  • Montessori, Maria (1936). The Secret of Childhood. New York: Longmans, Green

When Do Babies Start Learning?

Ever wondered when babies start learning? Get the lowdown on when the learning process starts and how you can help enhance it.

It would seem logical to think that babies first start learning when they’re born, but in fact the learning process actually starts much earlier than this. Believe it or not, but babies begin to learn when they’re still a small foetus in their mothers womb. Various studies have shown that this is the case. For example, in one study by doctors in the Netherlands, they were able to tell that unborn babies were learning how to remember and react to certain sounds, when they were aged between 37 and 40 weeks.

http://www.earlychildhoodeducation.co.uk/when-do-babies-start-learning.html

 

Science does not support Atheism, does it?

October 9, 2017

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=888773#888773

Post 15: 
paarsurrey1 wrote:
I don’t agree with one’s reasoning, one need not agree with me on it though and may stick to it.

W—-m wrote:

It doesn’t matter.


The default position of atheist is not to have any belief in GODs. This is the same position of a new born human being. . This is the same position of a new born human being.

As a position atheism has nothing to do with having choices based upon information. It is a position of ignorance.

This is why there are subsets to atheism. Because inevitably information makes itself know to the human being, and some of the information is theist based speculation and for those who choose to remain in a position of not knowing one way or the other, they are referred to as being agnostic atheists. They have no belief in GODs as well as they have not made their mind up one way or the other as to GODs existing.

Generally agnostics should be truly neutral within that position but often they are not and will lean towards supporting theism or supporting atheism, and the odd ones will swing confusingly between leaning toward either position on any given day of the week. Some will even use the position to proclaim leaning towards theism while showing the opposite in their expressions.

I generally treat those who claim to be agnostics but who demonstrate more leaning towards theism or atheism as people who are not entirely being honest with themselves and – depending on which way they lean in regard to how they express themselves, I will treat them as that, rather than refer to them as agnostic.

If they act like secularists, they more than likely actually are.

Simply put, agnostics don’t have the licence to be either/or depending on their particular mood of the moment. It should always be regarded as a purely neutral position, in the same way that atheism is. If someone claims to be an agnostic but consistently expresses as (for example) an atheist materialist secularist, then they are not really agnostic, because they have shifted from a neutral position to one which is not.

Where atheism can be non neutral is within its subsets. One can lack belief in GODs (be atheist) and also hate theism/theists and proclaim that GODs do not exist. (be atheist but not neutral.)

Thus they can be called anti-theist atheists, and their position is no longer neutral.


Quote:
The default position of atheist is not to have any belief in GODs. This is the same position of a new born human being.

Paarsurrey wrote:

Is the position/no-position of Atheism people claiming it to be “default position”?:
1. just one’s conjecture or
2. supported by a scripture of a revealed religion or
3. it is from Science, please.
If it is from (1) above, then it has little to no significance, one will agree, please.
If it is from (2) above, then please quote from the revealed scripture, one believes in.
If it is from (3) above then, please:
• quote from a text-book of science or
• quote from a peer-reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
• Also please mention the discipline of science which has taken up this issue.
Right, please?

Regards

Atheism is just a position of indecision. Isn’t it?

October 8, 2017

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=888639#888639

Post 13: Thread: “Science does not support Atheism, does it?”

[Replying to post 9 by paarsurrey1]

Quote:
Atheism is just a position of indecision

W—– :

No. Atheism is a neutral position. It is the position one has in relation to ignorance, in that it holds no belief in GODs not that it has made a decision one way or the other about the existence of GODs. Agnosticism (which is regarded as being a subset of atheism) is more the position of not having made a decision, of being undecided.

Subgroups of atheism however, do involve decisive positions.

“Truthful Religion” has nothing to do with whether science does or does not support atheism, as per the OP.

I suggest that if you want to express your beliefs in what you consider to be “Truthful Religion” you can either create a thread in the Non-Christian Religions and Philosophies forum section (due to the obvious belief you have in regard to what the “Truthful Religion”) or perhaps use your tokens to purchase a thread of your own which no one else can comment on, in the Members Notes section of the forum

Paarsurrey wrote:
I don’t agree with one’s reasoning, one need not agree with me on it though and may stick to it.
The critical postmortem the Atheism people make religion subject to, they don’t accept that on Atheism though Atheism is by far most unreasonable. So from our point of view, they entered Atheism position/no-position without any positive evidence on its side from science, hence its refutation needs no evidence. It is a temporary abode, as soon as they open their hearts and minds to the Truth, they will come out of it, happily.
No compulsion, however, whatsoever, please.
Regards

Science does not support Atheism, does it?

October 8, 2017

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=887315#887315

Post 9: 
Re: Science does not support Atheism, does it?

paarsurrey1 wrote:
Science does not support Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism, does it, please?
Regards

William wrote:
Science does not support atheism or theism. It is a process which is used to examine things which can be examined. Material things.

It is not used to show the fact of existence, but to examine the fact of existence.

In this, science can be used to provide some evidence as to how things on earth came to be but cannot be used to determine whether these things happened through a mindless process or a mindful process.

Thus it cannot support theism or atheism because it cannot show conclusively that the process was or was not a mindful one.

The evidence which comes to light through the process of science can be interpreted either way. The atheist can interpret the evidence as being a mindless process… because the implication of an intelligent creator behind the process = “GOD” and atheism by default is not having any belief in “GODs” … and the theist can interpret the same evidence as being a mindful process, because the theist by default has belief in “GOD(s)” – an intelligent designer or for that matter, a group of intelligent designers.

Science itself is just a process and thus is not something that has an opinion either way. Opinions either way derive from those who interpret the same evidence in a different way.

Science also is not capable of being used to determine what is or isn’t ‘the truthful religion’, even if there actually was one.


Quote:
Science does not support atheism or theism. It is a process which is used to examine things which can be examined. Material things.

Paarsurrey wrote:
Thanks for poising believers and non-believers equally.
As one agrees science does not provide a refuge to Atheism, and the like. Atheism is just a position of indecision having roots neither in Science nor in Religion. All the basics of the truthful Religion, the six Articles of faith* together with five pillars of observance are beyond the observable material science. The truthful founders of all revealed religions and particularly the founder of the Truthful Religion never spoke anything against Science, as a branch of knowledge, or the scientists. They did not want to hamper its progress so they left it open to be dealt with on material observation (belonging to the “seen” realm/s). Religions’ stress is on the “unseen realm/s”:

[2:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[2:2] Alif Lam Mim.
[2:4] Who believe in the unseen and observe Prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;
[2:5] And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee, and that which was revealed before thee, and they have firm faith in what is yet to come
[2:6] It is they who follow the guidance of their Lord and it is they who shall prosper
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=2

Regards
__________
*Six Articles of Faith
• Unity of God
• His Angels
• His Books
• His Prophets
• The Last Day
• Divine Decree
**Five Pillars of Islam (for its observance)
• Kalima
• Prayer
• Fasting
• Zakaat
• Hajj
https://www.alislam.org/

Do the Atheism have any positive alternative Ideology, and on what basis?

October 6, 2017

Paarsurrey says:

One should note that there are two aspects to the discussion/debate among the believers and non-believers. Amongst the believers, the discussion/debate is mostly from the scriptures. Among the believers vs non-believers, the debate/discussion is only meaningful if the non-believers accept that their world-view is subject to the same critical analyzing and postmortem and on the same paradigm as they think that is valid in case of the believers for them. In the post-atheism period Just attacking and ridiculing the believers and their religions is not going to do anything good to the society. It will just create a feeling of ill-will and hatred. The non-believers are welcome to debate and discuss the religion and believers, no harm, but they must present the alternative they have.

OOOOOOOOO

One may like to read more in this connection posts by   SHEM THE PENMAN

“Post-Atheism: There’s No God, Let’s Move On”
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularspectrum/2017/10/post-atheism-theres-no-god-lets-move/#HEBA7eXMtQvRCMkT.99