An Invitation For A Party,

[facklexm]

Cara, the ignorant person does not see his mistakes, and disdains advice.

[Nur]

JB

 

You Ask:

 

" Do you mind expounding the assumption that a religious person ( no matter in what s/he beleives in ?) has a richer and purposeful life than an Agnostic/Atheist?"

 

 

JB

 

Let me expound. Athiesm is a belief that there is no superior being responsible for creation of man and the Universe. As such, an Athiest sees that life has no purpose, except for the purpose the Athiest charts for himself in his short life span, which is pursuit of his own pleasure.

 

An Athiest (who believes in one life to live) finds comfort in maximizing his own self pleasure and minimzing his own displeasure, regardless of others, which leads him to be reluctant to sacrifice his pleasure for others if needed. He sees survival of fittest as the rule and politically subsribes to Machiavelli's version of power. Thus, an Athiest is likely to inherit bad characters of Greed.

 

In Contrast, a believer in Allah looks forward to another life after the present, which liberates him from inhumane characters making him a generous and helpful person.

 

in Conclusion, you can trust a true believer, but you can not trust a true Athiest!

 

 

Nur

[Johnny B]

^Sorry my Sheikh, Athiesm is a lack of belief that there is a superior being responsible for creation of man and the Universe, and neither Atheists nor theists that i know of conduct a purposeless life, be it one they themselves set for themselves or a mawkishly assumed purpose a theist claims to have been set for him by a Deity of his choice, so that an Atheist is 'likely' to enherit bad characters of Greed is baseless accusation that needs to be substantiated.

 

The list of contributions made by Atheists to the enlightment and well-beeing of Humanity speaks volumes of its own.

 

A trust based on oath is a trust that appeals to a forced morality, No amount of "by the name of" Allah,Christ/God or mother Goose can transform a lie to truth, all it does it intensify our willingness to believe or trust a person.

 

The amount of people who kill and/or got killed by the name of 'Allah'Christ/God is a testamony to that.

 

In conclusion, If you're keen to trust people becouse they can put 'by the name of Allah' in front of any assertion they make, nobody is gonna jimmy that lock.

After all, who are we to tell you how to validate/verify and rationally sift through wild assertions?!

 

My experience is different though, most of the people i'd difficulties trusting were more than willing to had me trust them by claiming that the Deity they believe in is their wittness.

[jamaal7777]

^ I think the sheikh was right. Athiesm is as much a belief as any other. In religions people believe that GOD IS without being able to prove. In athiesm people BELIEVE that GOD is NOT also without being able to prove.

 

It is commonly said that only the positive can be prove and no negative can be proved becuase it is a negative, however any assertion becomes a positive.

 

If you can claim that GOD IS NOT then you also ought to be able to prove that and not simply pass the onus to those that claim that GOD IS.

 

Agnostics are different. They are in my opinion the true scientists. They will not pass judgement until they know. In my opinion agnostism is then lack of belief.

 

As far as athiesm making people greedy and bringing about bad charactors is concerned, i also go along with the sheikh. Charactor formation is largely an exercise in self restraint.

 

A religious person in not only ordered to restrain the self, they are also thought how. Yes there usual sticks and carrots are also used-hell for the wicked and heaven for the good. Hell is the worst place one would want to end up and heaven is the best- at least to those who value life (afterlife) and a good life. If credit is to be given when due, i think that it is the religious community that always struggled for those charactors that we now call virtues. Always and everywhere.In our world today it is seen not nice to quote an idea's originators or those who made them popular. I can only think of the religious community to have furthered virtues more than any other.

 

And it can arguably be claimed that most benefactors of mankind were in fact believers including the scientists. Many scientist and philosopher were either priests monks or had a strict religious upbringing.

 

Many think that morality needed not religions and they could have come about even in an athiestic society. I beg to differ. I think if religious people hadnt struggle, upheld and instilled into the large majority of people religious values, they could and would never have come about.

 

Many thinkers would agree that in an arnachy it is not the virtues that will win but the vices. Noticed how even in the most advanced nations a blackout can result in all sorts of sins or illegal activites including killings and rapes and robereies.

 

We benefit today, in my opinion, because the religious values instilled in us have over the years been discovered by men to be good. They were at first only GODLY commands. They were not adopted becuase men reasoned first and then found them good.

 

 

And lastly religion gives meaning to life and fills our hearts. This it does by putting alot of stress on our relationships. It says life is valuable and compassion is rewarded highly by GOD. In our own religion, in a hadiis, if i can recollect rightfully, a wowman who was a sinner all her life is revealed to have been rewarded with jana for giving water to thirsty dog. Islam is not even dog freindly. What gives meaning to our lives is not materials but how rich our relationships are with one another and with GOD swt. Only religions have always championed for strenghtening those relationships.

 

Because athiesm does not put the stess or promotes virtues over vices it can lead to disorientation-emptiness. You can live for sensations but they will also contribute to emptiness.

 

Notice how the disintergration of the marrige institution, by secular governments, has resulted in the erosion of many of the virtues we have come to know and love. The end result of this secularism has not even been seen yet. It may not be nice when it comes. It will be living like the beast for no amount of force or the treat thereof is able to contain the masses.

 

Religion gives them qualities which they come to love. Which makes their lives important to them and in the eyes of their religions. It gives them hope. That is the meaning of life.

 

I have to say though that i am a peaceful person and i believe that no one has the right to force others to do anything except to free him/herself from their tyranny so i wish all believers and non believers alike a very good life insha ALLAH.

 

PS I am not saying that cara's life is empty or johny b's, i am saying that if yours is rich now, you maybe surprised how much richer life could be with faith.

[Johnny B]

^Firstly Welcome to SOL.

Though you agree with the Sheikh and purposefully so, you seem to have fallen short delievering what is in demand of our Sheikh, namely, Why an ATheist's life is Empty.

That you think it can according to you get richer with faith, given that imagination is equal opportunity human-trait, is also of intrest.

 

There has been endless attempts throughout time to rationalize the Theistic stance, but claiming it's opposite to be itself( or like itself) has never been the successful one.

 

The statement " In religions people believe that GOD IS without being able to prove. In athiesm people BELIEVE that GOD is NOT also without being able to prove." is, though fashionable, a failed and misleading rationaliziation, which i'll be more than happy to demonistrate why.

 

Let's say for arguendo that i claim to believe in NGOGNONGONGONGO, you ask me what a NGOGNONGONGONGO is?, i tell you it's something that IS, then you conclude that you can't rationally share my belief in NGOGNONGONGONGO .

 

Now, is your knowledge-negative stance a function( reaction if you must) of my knowledge-posstive stance or have you had your own inherent lack of BELIEF in any NGOGNONGONGONGO who just is, that you have no knowledge of?

As it's clear, to claim the later is a futile attempt to rationalize the first and a failed one at that, as you can not possibilly negate belief in (or lack thereof) something that is/was not affirmed first.

Therefore, the notion "If you can claim that GOD IS NOT then you also ought to be able to prove that and not simply pass the onus to those that claim that GOD IS." becomes fallacious, as that demands an inherent self-generated negation to something that i don't pocesses an inherent affirmation for.

 

It is like asking a two year old kid to prove that s/he doesen't know Calculas.

Q.E.D

 

Regarding Agnoticism,i do agree agree with you that many respectable scientists are Angostics, but AGNOTICISM is about knowledge, not about belief or lack thereof. The agnostic position is the only rationally correct stance regarding many things in life, but once we become in poccesessision of a knowledge regarding something we can't stay Agnostic.

The Agnostic stance regarding Religion is " We can not know about Gods".

therefore believing in them can not be a knowledge of them.

 

I'll have to come back to few assertions regarding virtue, restrainings etc etc later.

 

 

 

 

What is more intresting is shifting the once from the one with the possitive claim to the one with the negative claim.

[jamaal7777]

^ If belief means, as the dictionary on my computer tells me, ACCEPTANCE THAT SOMETHING IS TRUE OR REAL, then we as believers accept of GODS BEING without being able to prove. Prove is the derivation of facts from previous knowledge.

 

Athiest says there is no GOD. Is this a statement or not ? I can for instance CLAIM that there is no CHAIR in my living room and if you wanted to confirm that you will simply have a look and because we already agree on the defination as to what a chair is, you may be able to confirm true or false right? I can then prove my claim that there is actually no chair in my living room.

 

If i as a believer says there is GOD and then i tell you that i wont be able to prove to you that there is and you then say that there is no GOD and you also wont be able to prove are not both believers. WE have both accepted things as true which we are not able to prove.

 

I can for instance claim that if johny b is not in my living room. I am ofcourse assuming that there is human being(organic)with whom i am conversing. You as johny b can confirm this can you not ? have i not proven then to you of, as you say is not possible a negative statement.

 

I still say that yours is as much a belief as is mine.

 

Appolgies if i write alot that says very little

[Johnny B]

^I think i understand exactly where you're falling short, so let me clarify few concepts first.

 

The theistic stance is the position that claims the belief in (or a knowledge of )a real true 'God', hence the burden of proof is on them regarding that 'God'.

 

Now,few theists are prepared to carry that burden, so they desperately seek out some way to shift it to Atheists.

Understanding the dishonesty in shifting the burden of proof can easily be noted through the fallacy of begging the question.

 

It's at best an innocent deception to make the theistic claims fade into the background and not be subject to the critical examination.

 

Now, let's not forget that main question here, our Sheikh needs answer.

 

Ps, you're doing just fine, in fact you seem to be a reasonable Theist.

[jamaal7777]

Thanks for the compliment johnny b and although the sheikh and i tried to convince you and failed we may regroup and try again

 

I hope all is good with Cara. Wish you peace and GOD'S blessings IA and a very fulfilled life aamiin.

 

ps i am not new saaxiib but still thanks for the welcome. I lost my password and couldnt get it so i made me a new name.

[Nur]

JB

 

You write:

 

"Sorry my Sheikh, Athiesm is a lack of belief that there is a superior being responsible for creation of man and the Universe, and neither Atheists nor theists that i know of conduct a purposeless life, be it one they themselves set for themselves or a mawkishly assumed purpose a theist claims to have been set for him by a Deity of his choice, so that an Atheist is 'likely' to enherit bad characters of Greed is baseless accusation that needs to be substantiated."

 

 

My question directly to you saaxib, What is the purpose of life?

 

Nur