Definitely not my friends, school or even the media portrayals of muslims. It was a lot of things I guess, but most of all knowledge. I just couldn't seem to agree with a lot of the things that the Quran claimed, because so much of it is simply against hard science.
I thought of it like this: If I'm judging a murder case with two suspects, should I choose the suspect with the most and best proofs or the one who I just "feel" is guilty? There were just too many things pointing against Islam for me to accept it. I still think you can learn a lot of positive things from it, but to follow a religion I think you should believe everything it says and that just wasn't the case for me.
I see. What knowledge do you have in mind? Physics, biology, cosmology, things read on reddit? I sometimes wonder why it is that evolution (and all the sciences) have been taught in Norwegian schools for decades as a fact without people stop believing in a God, but now in the last 10-20 years something is changing? To me it seems to be a cultural shift I am very skeptical towards and the reason behind, a mystery.
I'm not going to take any side in this, I actually could care less. But there is one thing I want to say: The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I guess that could work both ways, but really, who cares. To each his own.
Who cares? That axiom is not really sound, especially when yo confuse evidence for absence with ignorance. If your axiom were true, we'd all be entertaining possibilities for Russell's invisible pink teapot spinning around the sun (and then every other imaginable possibility).
First, read up on nihilism, because you clearly don't understand that there is a level at which one can say reality does not exist when subscribing to nihilism. To add to that, the sentence "Your assertions about rejecting reality are not comparable to the definitions of Nihilism," has nothing to do with anything I said, because I never stated rejecting reality is an inherent part of nihilism. I only suggested that one can exist within the other.
Second, you are no different than any religious person by simply stating facts on the basis that you think it is that way. You start by saying "Reality is not evidence of God or a definition of God." Then you go on to simply state more of what you think because you think it. This is the the way religious people think, because they similarly restrict their view of what what God is. You are still holding on the the contradiction of religion's definition of God, and your entire post reveals that you think what you think and refuse to evaluate it. I am not saying this is the way things are, I am simply giving a summary of my views. I would be glad to evaluate and incorporate other information and knowledge I don't have, and compare it against my current stance as I said in the first post when I talked about an ever changing understanding of existence. However, simply telling me I'm wrong because you think I'm wrong adds nothing to the conversation, and proves nothing.
Lastly, going in depth about reality, logic, and reasoning requires a larger discussion. This is why I made a summary of my understanding, not an explanation. If the definition of God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent as well as unknowable, which would technically make it indescribable, then my understanding of God fits perfectly. The only hole in my understanding would be if reality doesn't exist. The general basis of what I'm talking about when I say reality is the Theory of Forms. These things are undeniable facts, and this is what reality is. Even if our understanding of what it is changes, it still exists.
The last thing I'm going to say here is that you need to let go of your preconceived notions about what God is. In fact, let go of the notion that you actually know anything. Simply evaluate the information you have on hand, and compare it against any new information you come across and form your own understanding. Because really, if you want to get technical, I have no idea that you even exist. I have no idea if anyone exists. The only thing I know is what my senses tell me and the forms that are constant, and even that is iffy.
My investigations into atheism and Nihilism have (from the philosophers I referenced and others) already enabled an understanding of Nihilism that does not include a rejection of reality. I require a justification and evidence to believe something, just like anyone - religious or not. I was letting you know that your justification is faulty and you have provided no evidence for your assertion.
Your objections to me telling you that you are wrong would back-fire if you considered that it was exactly what you were doing yourself to atheists, with your ill-formed and ungrounded comments about the nature of reality and your Nihilist's rejection of it.
If you let go of the fact that you know anything, then you won't be able to make such posts as you have about why atheists are "wrong". You say you have no idea if anyone exists, yet are still able to make assertions about why atheists are wrong. My own "agnostic atheism" (like that of many other atheists) is grounded in the position that many "truths" are unknowable (hence the agnosictism).
@Mushir: haven't gone to the extent you have here, but I have had doubts about religion in general in the recent few years - mind you, not being a religious person does not mean you are not spiritual, imo. You can still be spiritual and not follow a particular religion, or be religious at all.
Religion is something that was formulated by man, and as such, is rife with inherent flaws.
The bureaucracy, corruption, and scandals that inundate a lot of the religious bodies out there, let alone the extremist behaviours/dogmas have turned me off from really following any religion to the same degree I grew up with.
I still believe in God, but I don't believe in the way how society tries to govern people's beliefs about it all.
good for you, it means you're not delusional! science is imperical evidence and religion is irrational faith and substitution hope that is false. don't align yourself with that whole "be respectful" mumbo jumbo either, make them question their faith, it makes more sense to brace reality than fictional aforementioned irrational faith -- the logical ones will question said irrational faith and the ones that are feuled by elitism and egocentric behaviour won't budge.
@diz: Read my response I just posted above. Also, if you read all of my previous posts, you would know I understand nihilism is not defined by the whether not reality exists. What I'm saying is that most atheists are not even nihilistic, and that you don't even need to be a nihilist to be a true atheist, but you need to be one that rejects reality.
Also, if you read my post above, you will see that your suggestion of a lack of evidence is incorrect because reality is the evidence. That is, unless reality doesn't exist, and then there would be no evidence and I'd be wrong.
I've replied to you because i have read your responses - several times. Your assertions about rejecting reality are not comparable to definitions of Nihilism.
Reality is not evidence of God or a definition of God. Reality is a subjective perception, rather than an objective entity. reality does exist in a variety of different perceptions for all of us, but is not necessarily an explicit indication of God - even if you choose to define it in the woolliest and most generic of terms as you do.
You should be careful of how you describe logic, which can be inductive inference, or be deduction. With inductive logic, most any conclusion can be established, as you've shown with your own personal reasoning.
I'm not going to take any side in this, I actually could care less. But there is one thing I want to say: The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I guess that could work both ways, but really, who cares. To each his own.
Having grown up in a very religious family (Christian) as well, I can definitely relate; although my parents acted/act understanding and all about my conversion two years ago, I know the change was definitely a blow to them.
i don't see why this is a big deal. If you don't believe who cares? Other then obsessive religious people and radical atheists it should not matter. You don't owe your mother anything she cant force you into believing in something. Do listen to anyone or jump on the atheist fads or what not. don't let any tell you how things they will be just as wrong as anyone else.
I wish I didn't have to explain that agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive in every religion thread. One is a statement about knowledge the other is a statement about belief. You can accept that it is impossible to know something for sure but still believe/not believe it.
Anyway good for you OP. My family are all atheists so I can't really know what your situation is like but it's interesting to read about. Thanks for sharing.
I've replied to you because i have read your responses - several times. Your assertions about rejecting reality are not comparable to definitions of Nihilism.
Reality is not evidence of God or a definition of God. Reality is a subjective perception, rather than an objective entity. reality does exist in a variety of different perceptions for all of us, but is not necessarily an explicit indication of God - even if you choose to define it in the woolliest and most generic of terms as you do.
You should be careful of how you describe logic, which can can inductive inference, or deduction. With inductive logic, most any conclusion can be established, as you've shown with your own personal reasoning.
First, read up on nihilism, because you clearly don't understand that there is a level at which one can say reality does not exist when subscribing to nihilism. To add to that, the sentence "Your assertions about rejecting reality are not comparable to the definitions of Nihilism," has nothing to do with anything I said, because I never stated rejecting reality is an inherent part of nihilism. I only suggested that one can exist within the other.
Second, you are no different than any religious person by simply stating facts on the basis that you think it is that way. You start by saying "Reality is not evidence of God or a definition of God." Then you go on to simply state more of what you think because you think it. This is the the way religious people think, because they similarly restrict their view of what what God is. You are still holding on the the contradiction of religion's definition of God, and your entire post reveals that you think what you think and refuse to evaluate it. I am not saying this is the way things are, I am simply giving a summary of my views. I would be glad to evaluate and incorporate other information and knowledge I don't have, and compare it against my current stance as I said in the first post when I talked about an ever changing understanding of existence. However, simply telling me I'm wrong because you think I'm wrong adds nothing to the conversation, and proves nothing.
Lastly, going in depth about reality, logic, and reasoning requires a larger discussion. This is why I made a summary of my understanding, not an explanation. If the definition of God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent as well as unknowable, which would technically make it indescribable, then my understanding of God fits perfectly. The only hole in my understanding would be if reality doesn't exist. The general basis of what I'm talking about when I say reality is the Theory of Forms. These things are undeniable facts, and this is what reality is. Even if our understanding of what it is changes, it still exists.
The last thing I'm going to say here is that you need to let go of your preconceived notions about what God is. In fact, let go of the notion that you actually know anything. Simply evaluate the information you have on hand, and compare it against any new information you come across and form your own understanding. Because really, if you want to get technical, I have no idea that you even exist. I have no idea if anyone exists. The only thing I know is what my senses tell me and the forms that are constant, and even that is iffy.
I understand what you are going through. I lost my faith less than a year ago. At the time I was seriously considering going into ministry and so I was putting a great amount of thought into my religious beliefs. This wasn't anything new for me. I always had played a large role in my Church and would often get into religious discussions at school. It was during a religious retreat that I was talking with my pasture that the idea really started to come up. I began to really study the scriptures, both in my Freshman College classes and in my free time. I looked into the origin of the scriptures and the morals that they valued.
It was about a six month period that I was going through my struggle with faith. I questioned whether I really got my morality from the scripture and why I should believe that they were divinely inspired. I never spoke to anyone else about my doubts, simply out of fear. Eventually I decided to come out to my parents and church. It was on a Thursday and I was leading my Bible study group. I explained to them that I had rejected Christianity and that I was stepping down from my position. I explained my reasoning for leaving and no one had any arguments against my points. It all went over very peacefully. There were a few people at my church and school who wanted to discuss my reason for leaving and I willingly talked with them.
It was tough having no one to relate to about your beliefs but eventually I was able to find like-minded people to express my feelings with. Coming out as an atheist was a difficult decision but was also one of the best and most liberating decisions of my life. I now live peacefully with my Christian friends and family and still passionately discuss theology with Christians.
You made the right decision in deciding to come out. I wish the best for you.
@diz: Read my response I just posted above. Also, if you read all of my previous posts, you would know I understand nihilism is not defined by the whether not reality exists. What I'm saying is that most atheists are not even nihilistic, and that you don't even need to be a nihilist to be a true atheist, but you need to be one that rejects reality.
Also, if you read my post above, you will see that your suggestion of a lack of evidence is incorrect because reality is the evidence. That is, unless reality doesn't exist, and then there would be no evidence and I'd be wrong.
I've replied to you because i have read your responses - several times. Your assertions about rejecting reality are not comparable to definitions of Nihilism.
Reality is not evidence of God or a definition of God. Reality is a subjective perception, rather than an objective entity. reality does exist in a variety of different perceptions for all of us, but is not necessarily an explicit indication of God - even if you choose to define it in the woolliest and most generic of terms as you do.
You should be careful of how you describe logic, which can be inductive inference, or be deduction. With inductive logic, most any conclusion can be established, as you've shown with your own personal reasoning.
There is nothing wrong about being Christian, Muslim, Agnostic or Atheist as long as you arent a smug a**hole about it and dedicate your life to prove others wrong and ridiculing them for not being "reasonable". The world, the universe and life is no less a riddle with or without a god.
But what fascinates me @Mushir is that I to live in Norway and from a Christian to a former Muslim I would like to know what sort of "awaken" you to not believing in a god. Norway has slowly moved from a relaxed christian culture to a more depressed secular culture just in the past 10-20 years and I have to wonder why? Its not that we have become more "reasonable" as many atheist believe, cuz we have known of evolution, physics, science implications for 150 years now, but only the last 20 years there has been this growing hostile anti-religious atheist movement in Norway. Was it your friends, the school, the knowledge you have learned, media portrayals? Do you remember when and why did you think; there cant be a god here?
Definitely not my friends, school or even the media portrayals of muslims. It was a lot of things I guess, but most of all knowledge. I just couldn't seem to agree with a lot of the things that the Quran claimed, because so much of it is simply against hard science.
I thought of it like this: If I'm judging a murder case with two suspects, should I choose the suspect with the most and best proofs or the one who I just "feel" is guilty? There were just too many things pointing against Islam for me to accept it. I still think you can learn a lot of positive things from it, but to follow a religion I think you should believe everything it says and that just wasn't the case for me.
@DoctorWelch I think it's a stretch to say reality is omniscient. Reality does not know all, it is all. There is a difference here. Knowledge requires a conscience. Reality is not aware. For this reason alone the concept of god can not be replaced by the concept of reality.
@diz: Read my response I just posted above. Also, if you read all of my previous posts, you would know I understand nihilism is not defined by the whether not reality exists. What I'm saying is that most atheists are not even nihilistic, and that you don't even need to be a nihilist to be a true atheist, but you need to be one that rejects reality.
Also, if you read my post above, you will see that your suggestion of a lack of evidence is incorrect because reality is the evidence. That is, unless reality doesn't exist, and then there would be no evidence and I'd be wrong.
I think not many "atheists" agree with your definition of God which is problematic from any standpoint but your own. I think this loops back around to what I was saying earlier about the word "atheist" but I have been talking enough about that.
What I mean is, anyone who calls themselves atheist will likely disagree with your definition of God, making your point kind of... false by definition. "You can't deny the existence of God, because God is reality and reality is by definition real." You make it sound more complicated than this, but really your line of reasoning is false since basically you're stipulating that God is real and exists and therefore it is not possible to deny his existence. This is objectively not true, or at least, to not disrespect anyone's delusions, highly doubtful.
You can't define God to be nature and science just like that. The reasoning is sort of baffling to be honest.
I knew I should have put that edit in there when I read it and it sounded like I say "God is real so to reject God is rejecting reality." That is not what I'm saying at all. Rather, I'm saying that reality is God, and there for rejecting God is rejecting reality.
Now, to get onto the definition thing. I'm not just defining God as what I please to prove a point, I'm simply using reason to understand what a God must be in order for such a thing to exist. In other words, religions like Christianity and Islam put arbitrary restrictions on what they call God. Even though they say "he" is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, it is imposible for their God to be these things because of the contradictions they make with their definition of what God is.
These contradictions are then seen by the skeptics, and they proceed to reason that a God defined with such contradictions is impossible. Therefore, they say God does not exist, and, in turn, call themselves atheists. However, what I'm doing, is suggesting that wholly rejecting the existence of God because ignorant individuals are defining it illogically, is, in itself, illogical. Instead, one should recognize the definition and understanding of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent "being" should change (which I put quotes on because calling God a being is putting a restriction on it, and the word "it" should even receive quotes if I'm getting really picky).
That is basically my argument. Atheists rarely reject the existence of something that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent because reality is such. Therefore, rejecting reality is the only way to escape the one true thing we know fits the definition of God, in that God is everything, reality, and basically undefinable.
I'm saying that atheist philosophy and the modern understanding voiced from those who claim to be atheists directly contradicts its definition. I am saying this because I am not confining the definition of God to be something along the lines of Zeus or Yahweh, which is the core of what modern atheism rejects, but rather a more abstract philosophical idea that modern atheism does not reject, but the definition does. Therefore, the only way to be a true atheist, in definition, is to be a nihilist that believes reality doesn't actually exist.
My entire philosophical perspective on this hinges on the definition of God, in that God can have no true definition because it is everything. It is existence. It is science. It is reason. So, because God is essentially reality, the only way to be an atheist is to reject reality.
I hope that makes it clearer. It's still a very simple explanation, but I think it gets across the idea better than what I wrote before.
That is a rather open definition of God that entirely demeans it's significance and reduces God to some form of Pantheistic entity, which atheists may reject on the absence of any supporting evidence and vagueness of the term. You should also be more careful to define Nihilism correctly and perhaps read some Kierkegaarde and Nietzsche to understand that Nihilists may believe in reality too.
My parents are both Atheists (well my mom is kind of Agnostic) and they constantly give me a hard time about being Christian. It's rough being different from the people who birthed and raised you, but making your own decisions and finding your own way in life is the point of life itself, so I try not to let it bug me too much and you shouldn't either. Even though they make it really hard to do so.
Even though I am of religious faith, I totally understand your decision to leave your religion if you have doubts about it. I have friends who've told me they chose not to follow their family's religion and depending on the reasons they've gave to me, I understand where they come from. Its good to know that your mom is handling this better than how most parents entrenched in some form of religion would if any of their children decide not to follow their faith.
@Kidavenger: Agree with you on being a good person. I personally believe in God, but I don't go into the Bible everyday to model my life after the stories of the Old or New Testament. I just do what I think is the best thing to do.
I think you're quite wrong in your assumptions about atheism and atheists - from what you've typed. Perhaps you should read Camus, Heidegger and Russell for a clearer conception of atheist philosophy, which is not restricted to Nihilism as you infer.
I'm saying that atheist philosophy and the modern understanding voiced from those who claim to be atheists directly contradicts its definition. I am saying this because I am not confining the definition of God to be something along the lines of Zeus or Yahweh, which is the core of what modern atheism rejects, but rather a more abstract philosophical idea that modern atheism does not reject, but the definition does. Therefore, the only way to be a true atheist, in definition, is to be a nihilist that believes reality doesn't actually exist.
My entire philosophical perspective on this hinges on the definition of God, in that God can have no true definition because it is everything. It is existence. It is science. It is reason. So, because God is essentially reality, the only way to be an atheist is to reject reality.
I hope that makes it clearer. It's still a very simple explanation, but I think it gets across the idea better than what I wrote before.
I think not many "atheists" agree with your definition of God which is problematic from any standpoint but your own. I think this loops back around to what I was saying earlier about the word "atheist" but I have been talking enough about that.
What I mean is, anyone who calls themselves atheist will likely disagree with your definition of God, making your point kind of... false by definition. "You can't deny the existence of God, because God is reality and reality is by definition real." You make it sound more complicated than this, but really your line of reasoning is false since basically you're stipulating that God is real and exists and therefore it is not possible to deny his existence. This is objectively not true, or at least, to not disrespect anyone's delusions, highly doubtful.
You can't define God to be nature and science just like that. The reasoning is sort of baffling to be honest.
I think you're quite wrong in your assumptions about atheism and atheists - from what you've typed. Perhaps you should read Camus, Heidegger and Russell for a clearer conception of atheist philosophy, which is not restricted to Nihilism as you infer.
I'm saying that atheist philosophy and the modern understanding voiced from those who claim to be atheists directly contradicts its definition. I am saying this because I am not confining the definition of God to be something along the lines of Zeus or Yahweh, which is the core of what modern atheism rejects, but rather a more abstract philosophical idea that modern atheism does not reject, but the definition does. Therefore, the only way to be a true atheist, in definition, is to be a nihilist that believes reality doesn't actually exist.
My entire philosophical perspective on this hinges on the definition of God, in that God can have no true definition because it is everything. It is existence. It is science. It is reason. So, because God is essentially reality, the only way to be an atheist is to reject reality.
I hope that makes it clearer. It's still a very simple explanation, but I think it gets across the idea better than what I wrote before.
@Anund: Don't worry, I did a pretty terrible job of explaining it, but, like I said, it's almost impossible to explain it well without using thousands upon thousands of words. I'l try to give the super super short summary of what I'm saying though.
I find most people calling themselves atheist today aren't actually atheists. They are either agnostic, or simply calling themselves atheist when they recognize the stupidity of how religion tries to restrict and define what God is in order to meet their own needs, wants, and goals. Then, instead of thinking about God on a more philosophical and broad level, they adhere to what they believe atheism to be in the same way that someone may adhere to a religion.
That is basically the thesis of what I'm trying to say, and explaining why takes a lot more time.
I think you're quite wrong in your assumptions about atheism and atheists - from what you've typed. Perhaps you should read Camus, Heidegger and Russell for a clearer conception of atheist philosophy, which is not restricted to Nihilism as you infer.
@Anund: Don't worry, I did a pretty terrible job of explaining it, but, like I said, it's almost impossible to explain it well without using thousands upon thousands of words. I'l try to give the super super short summary of what I'm saying though.
I find most people calling themselves atheist today aren't actually atheists. They are either agnostic, or simply calling themselves atheist when they recognize the stupidity of how religion tries to restrict and define what God is in order to meet their own needs, wants, and goals. Then, instead of thinking about God on a more philosophical and broad level, they adhere to what they believe atheism to be in the same way that someone may adhere to a religion.
That is basically the thesis of what I'm trying to say, and explaining why takes a lot more time.
@Anund: Words are made as needed. At some point in time, someone needed to classify that group and that's when it was born. Probably same reason we come up with stupid ass words for the rarest of phobias. Aerophobia - Fear of drafts.
In the end, it's English. We have words for everything. I think most people would call someone who doesn't believe in ghosts a skeptic (which can also be considered an atheist).
No one gives a shit about astrologers; they get nothing ;)
Hehe, yeah, skeptic is a better word I think. I just don't like the word atheist because it does imply belief, inaccurately in my opinion.
@Anund: Words are made as needed. At some point in time, someone needed to classify that group and that's when it was born. Probably same reason we come up with stupid ass words for the rarest of phobias. Aerophobia - Fear of drafts.
In the end, it's English. We have words for everything. I think most people would call someone who doesn't believe in ghosts a skeptic (which can also be considered an atheist).
No one gives a shit about astrologers; they get nothing ;)
@TyCobb: It's semantics, I guess. My point is that the word itself is useless and shouldn't have to exist. Why do we need a word to describe people who don't believe in something? There is no need. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in ghosts or astrology of any number of things. Why do we need one for people who don't belive in gods? It makes no sense. All it leads to are pointless arguments like "Hah! But you can't prove there isn't a God so your beliefs are just as silly!"
The word atheist is pointless.
Reading some about this online just now I came about this quote which I really liked by Stephen F. Roberts: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
The point is that atheism is not dogmatic, there is nothing I have to take on faith to be an atheist. All I have done is I have looked at the claims of different religions, dismissed them as unlikely based on what I know of the world and moved on. There is no need for any beliefs in this process, I just see no reason to believe in any religion. That is all. Kind of like how I don't see any reason to believe in Santa or leprechauns.
@DoctorWelch You didn't mean to offend, but you did mean to imply that you are much more knowledgeable about this topic than I am. That may well be, because I have no idea what you were trying to get at in your post other than listing a bunch of philosophers and hinting at your great insight without actually spelling anything out.
If I understand you correctly you think morality is part of a cosmic law of right and wrong. This cosmic definition of good and evil is your representation of a God. Is this right? I find it an interesting concept, but at the same time I think you are putting morality on too high of a pedestal. Is there really a cosmic, unwavering scale against which we can measure our actions? I doubt it. There have been science experiments where animals, specially pack animals like monkeys and wolves, exhibit signs of moral behaviour: sharing food with the less fortunate for example. Personally I believe the concept of morality is just one of the necessary pillars required for living life in a society, not evidence of a cosmic force of right and wrong.
With this line of reasoning you end up in some weird situations. For example, look at what is happening in the Middle East with fathers killing their daughters for loving the wrong man, or stoning women for getting raped. In these cases, perhaps a majority of people in the area would agree that is it morally right to do so. Does this make these actions morally right? No, right?
In this case, ironically, I think the answer is looking at the foundation of these moral values. Are they based on logical reasoning, or are they based on dogma? This is the irony of religion in a way. Religion often claims that without them, there would be no concept of right and wrong when in reality what religion does is impose dogmatic definitions of right and wrong rather than a logical definitions. You end up in lines of reasoning like "Well, this action is morally right because my holy scripture said so, and the scripture is right", rather than "This is morally right because it is the good thing to do".
All in all, morality is such an interesting concept.
And atheism is not "just as bad" as saying your religious. Atheism is not the belief that there is no God, it's a lack of belief in a God. There is a difference. I find the existence of the word "atheism" weird. As someone said: We don't have a word for people who don't believe in astrology, why do we need one for people who don't believe in religion?
I really don't mean to offend you when I say this, but if you want to talk in depth about morality, which is extremely complicated, I suggest you read some Plato/Aristotle, Kant, and Peter Singer, or just take a course on ethics to get a broad view of the different philosophies of ethics. I say this because I don't think you understand my point, and some of your points lead me to believe you don't have a clear grasp of these philosophers theories on ethics.
In my opinion, true atheism requires nihilism. (This is something extremely hard to discuss because the word atheism needs to be clearly defined, but the idea of God and what a God is needs to be defined in order to do that in the first place. Once that is done, than it becomes easier to understand why I say true atheism requires nihilism and I can better explain why I say that modern atheism is not true atheism.) Modern atheism is the rejection of the Gods put forth by religions, not the rejection of a higher power. I say this because most atheists aren't nihilists, and most atheists do adhere to some form of ethical code.
Even so, I would say being a nihilist doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a higher power either. The only thing you can believe that contradicts the understanding of something greater is the belief that reality doesn't exist. So, this is why I say that there are barely any true atheists out there. Essentially, I would say most people that claim to be atheists are either agnostic, or defining atheism as what I call modern atheism.
This is an extremely complicated topic that is really hard to discuss in a forum, and there's almost no way I can properly explain any of this stuff without a verbal conversation or thousands of words. So I won't be surprised if these ideas seem extremely vague or poorly explained. It's something I love to think about and talk about, and someday I'd love to write a book about it, right now I just don't have the time.
@Mushir One of my closest friends has struggled with her Islamic faith. Her family always came off as incredibly, intensely devoted to their faith. To a fault. At some point she concerted to Christianity but had to keep it secret because Islamic culture was so crucial to her family that she likely would have been disowned had she admitted to her conversion. In my experience, the Islamic faith is particularly challenging to leave, because of it'sstrong ties to family and stubbornness.
Thankfully, despite the vast of majority of my family being Roman Catholic, they aren't what you would call devout, so I never had to "come out" or anything.
In fact, renouncing my religion may have caused my Dad to do the same, caught him reading some Dawkins and Hitchens the other week.
My Mum on the other hand, still tries to get me to use the Spring Water from Lourdes on my injured shoulder and almost takes offence when I refuse.
This is too large of a topic to discuss quickly in a forum, but I guess I'll just try to sum it up (which is probably a bad idea). Essentially, I recognize that atheism today doesn't necessarily mean a rejection of a higher power, but, rather, the rejection of the higher powers that shitty religions put forth. In that sense, I am an atheist. In another sense, though, I'm not really an atheist in the hard definition because I believe in something more abstract. Basically, that science and the rules of the universe, whatever they may be and whatever we may know, or think we know, about them currently, exist. This existence is basically the definition of God in a way. That reality and morality exist is the definition of a higher power than us animals. It's something we can't control, and it just is. Even if our understanding of it changes, it still is, and even if the actually truth of it changes, even if we don't perceive it or understand it, it still is.
So, when you talk to your parents about God and such, try to talk to them in a way that isn't so... antagonistic? Maybe that's not the right word. I guess I mean, don't simply put yourself in the box of being an atheist, because then you are no better than those putting themselves in a religious box. Instead, don't restrict yourself by any stupid definition and just create your own understanding of existence through the acquiring of all knowledge possible while using logic and reason to compare and contrast that knowledge against what you previously understand to be true. Your understanding of our existence and our universe should never be stagnant, so don't try to define something that should be ever changing.
In the end, we are all humans, and what we understand to be true doesn't impact the reality that applies to all of us...unless, of course, it does, and then that opens up a whole other can of worms.
If I understand you correctly you think morality is part of a cosmic law of right and wrong. This cosmic definition of good and evil is your representation of a God. Is this right? I find it an interesting concept, but at the same time I think you are putting morality on too high of a pedestal. Is there really a cosmic, unwavering scale against which we can measure our actions? I doubt it. There have been science experiments where animals, specially pack animals like monkeys and wolves, exhibit signs of moral behaviour: sharing food with the less fortunate for example. Personally I believe the concept of morality is just one of the necessary pillars required for living life in a society, not evidence of a cosmic force of right and wrong.
With this line of reasoning you end up in some weird situations. For example, look at what is happening in the Middle East with fathers killing their daughters for loving the wrong man, or stoning women for getting raped. In these cases, perhaps a majority of people in the area would agree that is it morally right to do so. Does this make these actions morally right? No, right?
In this case, ironically, I think the answer is looking at the foundation of these moral values. Are they based on logical reasoning, or are they based on dogma? This is the irony of religion in a way. Religion often claims that without them, there would be no concept of right and wrong when in reality what religion does is impose dogmatic definitions of right and wrong rather than a logical definitions. You end up in lines of reasoning like "Well, this action is morally right because my holy scripture said so, and the scripture is right", rather than "This is morally right because it is the good thing to do".
All in all, morality is such an interesting concept.
And atheism is not "just as bad" as saying your religious. Atheism is not the belief that there is no God, it's a lack of belief in a God. There is a difference. I find the existence of the word "atheism" weird. As someone said: We don't have a word for people who don't believe in astrology, why do we need one for people who don't believe in religion?
There is nothing wrong about being Christian, Muslim, Agnostic or Atheist as long as you arent a smug a**hole about it and dedicate your life to prove others wrong and ridiculing them for not being "reasonable". The world, the universe and life is no less a riddle with or without a god.
But what fascinates me @Mushir is that I to live in Norway and from a Christian to a former Muslim I would like to know what sort of "awaken" you to not believing in a god. Norway has slowly moved from a relaxed christian culture to a more depressed secular culture just in the past 10-20 years and I have to wonder why? Its not that we have become more "reasonable" as many atheist believe, cuz we have known of evolution, physics, science implications for 150 years now, but only the last 20 years there has been this growing hostile anti-religious atheist movement in Norway. Was it your friends, the school, the knowledge you have learned, media portrayals? Do you remember when and why did you think; there cant be a god here?
All I have to say is, don't be like the asshole atheists that want to shove their atheism down others throats because they choose to believe in something else. They are as bad as the religious folk that want to shove their religion down your throat because you believe in something else.
When they start limiting the rights of my countrymen and embarking on crusades in the name of atheism, and preventing adequate medical care, and causing the death and suffering of untold millions if not billions because of a book written by sheepherders 2000 year ago, then I will grant you that they are "just as bad". Until then, no, they are not even remotely close.
Thanks for making my point.
Your point is that a paragraph like mine is worse than everything religion has done combined?
No. My point was that people like to shove their beliefs in other's faces for no fucking reason. There was no reason for you to have a small rant about how religion is bad. My post wasn't defending either side as both sides have assholes like you.
You said people who type paragraphs are just as bad as people who stone adulterers, who suppress the rights of my neighbours, who murder by the millions in the name of a nonsensical book, and on and on and on. That's ridiculous. You don't get to make a claim like that and expect it to be ignored. I didn't reply for "no reason". When you compare me to that, I'm going to defend myself. If I said you were a rapist murderer, I suspect you would do the same thing.
Yes... I suppressed the rights of your neighbors because I told someone to not be an asshole. Fuck off. I am really confused on where you think I defended religion. If you want to infer that I compared you to religion, that's on you. If you got this worked up because I said to not be an asshole like atheists and religious folk that flaunt their beliefs then I don't want to know what you would do if I called you a holy crusader. I wouldn't give a shit if you called me a rapist murderer because I know it isn't true and it's the internet. Now go to sleep Holy Crusader, you have religion to fight for tomorrow.
All I have to say is, don't be like the asshole atheists that want to shove their atheism down others throats because they choose to believe in something else. They are as bad as the religious folk that want to shove their religion down your throat because you believe in something else.
When they start limiting the rights of my countrymen and embarking on crusades in the name of atheism, and preventing adequate medical care, and causing the death and suffering of untold millions if not billions because of a book written by sheepherders 2000 year ago, then I will grant you that they are "just as bad". Until then, no, they are not even remotely close.
Thanks for making my point.
Your point is that a paragraph like mine is worse than everything religion has done combined?
No. My point was that people like to shove their beliefs in other's faces for no fucking reason. There was no reason for you to have a small rant about how religion is bad. My post wasn't defending either side as both sides have assholes like you.
You said people who type paragraphs are just as bad as people who stone adulterers, who suppress the rights of my neighbours, who murder by the millions in the name of a nonsensical book, and on and on and on. That's ridiculous. You don't get to make a claim like that and expect it to be ignored. I didn't reply for "no reason". When you compare me to that, I'm going to defend myself. If I said you were a rapist murderer, I suspect you would do the same thing.
All I have to say is, don't be like the asshole atheists that want to shove their atheism down others throats because they choose to believe in something else. They are as bad as the religious folk that want to shove their religion down your throat because you believe in something else.
When they start limiting the rights of my countrymen and embarking on crusades in the name of atheism, and preventing adequate medical care, and causing the death and suffering of untold millions if not billions because of a book written by sheepherders 2000 year ago, then I will grant you that they are "just as bad". Until then, no, they are not even remotely close.
Thanks for making my point.
Your point is that a paragraph like mine is worse than everything religion has done combined?
No. My point was that people like to shove their beliefs in other's faces for no fucking reason. There was no reason for you to have a small rant about how religion is bad. My post wasn't defending either side as both sides have assholes like you.
All I have to say is, don't be like the asshole atheists that want to shove their atheism down others throats because they choose to believe in something else. They are as bad as the religious folk that want to shove their religion down your throat because you believe in something else.
When they start limiting the rights of my countrymen and embarking on crusades in the name of atheism, and preventing adequate medical care, and causing the death and suffering of untold millions if not billions because of a book written by sheepherders 2000 year ago, then I will grant you that they are "just as bad". Until then, no, they are not even remotely close.
Thanks for making my point.
Your point is that a paragraph like mine is worse than everything religion has done combined?
All I have to say is, don't be like the asshole atheists that want to shove their atheism down others throats because they choose to believe in something else. They are as bad as the religious folk that want to shove their religion down your throat because you believe in something else.
When they start limiting the rights of my countrymen and embarking on crusades in the name of atheism, and preventing adequate medical care, and causing the death and suffering of untold millions if not billions because of a book written by sheepherders 2000 year ago, then I will grant you that they are "just as bad". Until then, no, they are not even remotely close.
All I have to say is, don't be like the asshole atheists that want to shove their atheism down others throats because they choose to believe in something else. They are as bad as the religious folk that want to shove their religion down your throat because you believe in something else.
When they start limiting the rights of my countrymen and embarking on crusades in the name of atheism, and preventing adequate medical care, and causing the death and suffering of untold millions if not billions because of a book written by sheepherders 2000 year ago, then I will grant you that they are "just as bad". Until then, no, they are not even remotely close.
andre gide said, "believe those who are seeking the truth. doubt those who find it." i think religion is a constant truth-seeking, and when people wave it around like it's a finished thing, The Truth, they're doing it wrong.
my family is really weird: father's side has always been intensely buddhist, but father himself is undeclared and yet increasingly very curious about christianity and God, while mother's side is crazy protestant (heaps of pastors and such), but mother herself has not gone to church in years or prayed and instead believes in evolution, aliens, physics, etc. my sister is an avid qur'an reader. growing up in this environment, ive pretty much had to fend for myself. (extended) family gatherings at holidays are by far worse than sexually transmitted diseases, as that is when things inevitably get awkward/tense with maybe fourteen people trying to get me to say, "yes, i will come to church this sunday" or, "yes, i will come to temple service at 4am tomorrow." critical thinking and reasoning not encouraged. some fighting ensues. i get phone calls, too, but those, i can dodge easily enough.
really odd how its always the mums that get so emotional about this subject...after the initial one-line endorsement, the dads just go quiet and uncomfortably nod their heads here and there, while its always the mums that raise their voice and/or cry. now that im all grown-up, i can make excuses to not be present at these family gatherings, because, honestly, I'm still asking questions wherever i can and these people don't give me answers. i don't know what camp i'm in yet, and i don't want to be pressured all the time. family is still important to me, but ive got to separate them from this topic.
After what my brother did I started thinking more and more about religion as well. I started having doubts. And while I still believe that Islam has taught me a lot of good things, I just could not believe in a lot of the things that it says. I told my mother this and said that the only reason I do anything religious is because I love her, not God or the religion. She told me that she didn't want me to do that for her, and said that I should just stop if that's the only reason I do anything related to Islam. And so I did.
Based on your post, you sound as if you decided to have disbelief in God based on first hand assumption, so I can't take your decision seriously like almost everyone else on here. I can relate to your situation a lot, including having doubt in the existence of God, but what you decided to do was the opposite of what I did, which was to reaffirm belief. Sure, you may have found things that you don't agree in, anyone can do that based on reading the Quran for the first time, specifically the English translations, but have you ever bothered to look up reliable explanations for those things to find a greater understanding in them? That's what Islam encourages. In the end, it's your decision. Just make a wise one.
All I have to say is, don't be like the asshole atheists that want to shove their atheism down others throats because they choose to believe in something else. They are as bad as the religious folk that want to shove their religion down your throat because you believe in something else.
This
@Bane122 said:
As a Christian I'll just say. Good on ya. I'm glad you didn't try to hide something like that and that it has not created a gulf between the two of you. Your mom sounds like a hell of a lady.
People from both camps (believers and non-believers) often care too much about what the each other thinks. Your beliefs should only matter to you.
I am a believer in my religion (not telling which) and that is cool. However, respecting other people opinions is the right way to go. It doesn't matter if you use god, God, supreme being, etc. Atheism, Theism, Christianity, Muslim, or even Vajrayana. All of these thoughts and ideals must be treated equally and shown respect.
There is something my dad taught me as a kid. No matter what, you parents will see you as their child. They will worry about you. They will care for you. They will always love you no matter what person you may be.
Your mom is praying for you because she cares. If she didn't, then she would not.
@Mushir: I think from what you've said, you've got a good outlook on this sort of stuff. All to often these things are undertaken as some kind of rebellion which persists into adulthood, and while you might agree with the sentiment, I find that sometimes people are so desperate to define themselves outside of religious faith that they start to seem quite tedious. It sounds like you at least are lucky enough to have kind, decent parents that you respect enough to know that at least some of their values have some meaning or bearing on your life. I know some people aren't so lucky.
I don't want to suggest that I agree with your mother that it's just a phase, but I wonder whether you'll start to have the same sorts of yearnings for religion I've had since I left school. I was never brought up Christian, strictly speaking, but christianity is something of a de facto part of life for most british schoolchildren, I think.I stopped believing relatively early on, but I do sometimes yearn for the comfort of it, and I can't deny the numinous quality of cathedrals and church ceremony. I suppose I'd ascribe that to aesthetic experience these days but what does that even mean?
The cold smell of sacred stone called him. He trod the worn steps, pushed the swingdoor and entered softly by the rere.
Something going on: some sodality. Pity so empty. Nice discreet place to be next some girl. Who is my neighbour? Jammed by the hour to slow music. That woman at midnight mass. Seventh heaven. Women knelt in the benches with crimson halters round their necks, heads bowed. A batch knelt at the altar rails. The priest went along by them, murmuring, holding the thing in his hands. He stopped at each, took out a communion, shook a drop or two (are they in water?) off it and put it neatly into her mouth. Her hat and head sank. Then the next one. Her hat sank at once. Then the next one: a small old woman. The priest bent down to put it into her mouth, murmuring all the time. Latin. The next one. Shut your eyes and open your mouth. What? Corpus: body. Corpse. Good idea the Latin. Stupefies them first. Hospice for the dying. They don't seem to chew it: only swallow it down. Rum idea: eating bits of a corpse why the cannibals cotton to it.
He stood aside watching their blind masks pass down the aisle, one by one, and seek their places. He approached a bench and seated himself in its corner, nursing his hat and newspaper. These pots we have to wear. We ought to have hats modelled on our heads. They were about him here and there, with heads still bowed in their crimson halters, waiting for it to melt in their stomachs. Something like those mazzoth: it's that sort of bread: unleavened shewbread. Look at them. Now I bet it makes them feel happy. Lollipop. It does. Yes, bread of angels it's called. There's a big idea behind it, kind of kingdom of God is within you feel. First communicants. Hokypoky penny a lump. Then feel all like one family party, same in the theatre, all in the same swim. They do. I'm sure of that. Not so lonely. In our confraternity. Then come out a big spreeish. Let off steam. Thing is if you really believe in it. Lourdes cure, waters of oblivion, and the Knock apparition, statues bleeding. Old fellow asleep near that confession box. Hence those snores. Blind faith. Safe in the arms of kingdom come. Lulls all pain. Wake this time next year.
He saw the priest stow the communion cup away, well in, and kneel an instant before it, showing a large grey bootsole from under the lace affair he had on. Suppose he lost the pin of his. He wouldn't know what to do to. Bald spot behind. Letters on his back: I.N.R.I.? No: I.H.S. Molly told me one time I asked her. I have sinned: or no: I have suffered, it is. And the other one? Iron nails ran in.
Religion is a hard thing to deal with. There is an innate need to create a sense of order and principles to explain the world and our universe. Its a intrinsic property of thought. The ability to think, is the essence of what god is. The ability to actively change and shape reality through choices, traits which we embody.
I think those concepts have far reaching repercussions on if a god does exist or if one someday could be created. Regardless of that, it also seems pretty clear that no religion can claim to worship the one true god. Take what works and use it as a guide to being a better person. I think the world would be such a better place if we could do just that.
153 Comments