Is atheism a natural progression or does it suffer from identity crisis?

[Rajram]

I did not say that proof has to be in terms of physical reality or that there has to be proof? I asked you a question, if soul has physical attributes. That is a simple question - is it not?

If you think soul is imaginary and has no physical attributes, I have no disagreements. If you think soul has existence as a feeling, like say feeling of happines, I have no issues with that either. I am just trying to understand what you think soul is? What its attributes are and it seems based on your post, you think soul has no physical attributes, no memory, nada, zilch. It is either physical or non-physical. Non physical means non tangible. In other words it is a feeling of the mind, or an imagination or a state of the mind. Since it is not described in terms of emotions, the only thing left seems to be Imagination.
[/quote]
Lets just say it is instinctive. The existence of my self, my viewpoint is reason enough to believe I have existed and will exist after this life along with the universe. If I had not existed, the universe did not exist either. Someone has to have, should have had and will have a first person perspective, if not me then who? [quote]
Light acts as a particle and has wave properties. Light has a finite speed in a physical world that can be measured. When photons hits photosensitive material, there is photovoltaic effect. Mass and energy are interchangeable. When photons strike a photosensitive film, they leave an image - photography. Light is not a feeling, it is not a philosophy that cannot be explained but that has to be felt. Light is real. It exists even after the emitting source is gone. For example if alpha centauri were to disappear today, we will still be seeing the light for the next 4.5 years as it is travelling.
[/quote]

Light also has a property that when it travels, time freezes in the frame of reference that light is travelling essentially making light travel from Alpha Centauri or Andromeda to earth in zero time (in it's reference). My point was would light have been "tangible" without humans having eyes ? If yes then how? If no then along those lines there is a possibility that there exists some way of sensing souls and humans don't have that sense.


[quote]
You give soul the capacities of a physical being of intellect, of being able to discern if the hand belongs to it or not and you argue it is not physical!!! I see contradictions.
[/quote]
I never gave soul the capacities of a physical being of intellect. Matter in a conducive form such as a human body or mind allows soul to carry memory, feel tangible things etc. The physical attributes here such as memory, nervous system etc are still outside of the soul.

[quote]
The reason I did not respond to this part of the query in previous post, because this is really a discussion of science and a topic of a separate thread.
[/quote]
I would have kept science away. I had to bring it since you asked if my philosophy could stand scientific scrutiny.


[quote]
Google tunnelling microscope. (BTW, I am not asking for pictures of a soul, although that may come later).
Science discovers some things and then based on study of the discovered things explains their behavior.
Science postulates other things based on some observed phenomena, These postulates are just a hypothesis at this point. Based on hypothesis, predictions are made and attempts made to verify them and when every prediction made is correct, is repeatable, the hypothesis is no longer a hypothesis, it is a theory. Scientific theories of gravitation, evolution are treated as facts as predictions based on theory can be verified.

Now what is your point? That soul is a hypothesis based on observations? That God is hypothesis based on observations? or have they been elevated to theory? If hypothesis, which o bservations?
If theory, which predictions have been validated. I can show you predictions that have gone awry.
[/quote]
Like I said philosophy doesn't have to be a hypothesis or theory. They can be speculative in nature. These speculations need not be imaginative but can be instinctive.

[techynt]

If people keep brainwashing their kids at home and they become indoctrinated, its kind of hard for science to win, because most of these seems to be incorporated in one's psyche by the time they become adults.

I agree there is not much to debate, according to you there is a writing on the wall in invisible ink which we cant read and you also cannot explain........

It fine, maybe another 20 years we will have less religious folks in next generation and then after 50 years, I have a feeling people will be laughing at all the mythological stories. Its just a matter of rational folks reaching 55% of population tide will turn and we wont have to worry about people getting killed in the name of religion.

My post was in general about atheism, I am not judgmental (maybe a bit mental), I just can't understand how atheists can't see the writing on the wall, Which isn't about religion but state of affairs related to organized religions. We are living in most acceptable time period for atheism in history of human civilization, atheists have backing from scientific discoveries, this means people who follow organized religions should decrease in numbers, Only problem is, it's not happening. We have more religious hardliners than we had in at-least last few centuries, more and more people are interested in following thorough religious rituals, public gathering at religious places which had no significance few decades back would amaze you. Hold these false preachers has over people is overwhelming, hardliners are taking over organized religions and in turn regimes. People are ready to kill each-other over slightest religious provocation, What atheists wanted is NOT GONNA HAPPEN even in a million years (though I would give humanity even far lesser time than Hawkins). Infact atheists believing that world would be free from organized religions is biggest unrealistic fairy tale I ever heard. I think If atheists are rationalists then they would agree up to this point in my post.

So What's the remedy or second best option for atheists as well as for anyone else wanting a better world ? Keeping organized religions in hands of sane liberal men, all smart talks from smarty pants atheism preacher like Sam Harris mean nothing, they are as corrupt as these fake baba we have, Only difference is that his audience is better informed than that of these Baba, But he's following very same principles, Be smarter than your audience, Tell them what they wanna hear and add emotions here and there when needed.

Trust me, When you tell someone something he won't like/ held sacred, he/she would never believe you. People don't want to believe in truth, they believe in what they want to believe. So when you would give these examples to someone who believe in that particular religion, You won't be able to change his mind, You would just make him angry at you and a bit more hardliner about his beliefs.

This debate about atheism versus at-least Islam could never finish, even the best atheist preacher would not be able to defeat me, And I won't be able to defeat him either. But essentially we both want the same thing, A world worth living in and while we engage in silly debates, only hardliners would gain from this.

[sunburns80]

So What's the remedy or second best option for atheists as well as for anyone else wanting a better world ? Keeping organized religions in hands of sane liberal men, all smart talks from smarty pants atheism preacher like Sam Harris mean nothing, they are as corrupt as these fake baba we have, Only difference is that his audience is better informed than that of these Baba, But he's following very same principles, Be smarter than your audience, Tell them what they wanna hear and add emotions here and there when needed.

.

Teachings of Sam Harris are corrupt? How do you mean? Please elaborate.

I don't think he speaks what his audience wants to hear. He has audience because of what he speaks. There's more money to be made in easier ways with out endangering one's life like he did.

Do you have similar perspective towards Hitchens, Dawkins too?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[realgoogler]

This debate about atheism versus at-least Islam could never finish, even the best atheist preacher would not be able to defeat me, And I won't be able to defeat him either. But essentially we both want the same thing, A world worth living in and while we engage in silly debates, only hardliners would gain from this.

The use of word "defeat" shows a lot of ego support for your position. Its all good but just that it might just shut your door to facts and truths.

The reason why it will be difficult to weed out religion is because it is so interlinked with culture and it hangs on culture and habits. It is not easy or prudent to throw all culture out. So it will take time. In million years we might not have religion in the current form but other mass appealing craziness.

[Dovahkiin]

If people keep brainwashing their kids at home and they become indoctrinated, its kind of hard for science to win, because most of these seems to be incorporated in one's psyche by the time they become adults.

I agree there is not much to debate, according to you there is a writing on the wall in invisible ink which we cant read and you also cannot explain........

It fine, maybe another 20 years we will have less religious folks in next generation and then after 50 years, I have a feeling people will be laughing at all the mythological stories. Its just a matter of rational folks reaching 55% of population tide will turn and we wont have to worry about people getting killed in the name of religion.

Yes, That's true in most cases, But most of you would remember it (As I mentioned previously) that I am from a Hindu family, grown as Anti Islam guy and later discovered and embraced Islam without any kind of external influence. It required open mind, logic and intelligence.

You are still stuck about my explanation about how God can't be described in human terms. 'Writing on wall' was about organized religion are here to stay and best atheist can expect is them to stay in hands of sane, tolerant men.

They won't laugh, they would get violent. Every country in this world teach their kids lies about being greatest country in the world, greatest culture etc etc until they believe in that and would fight any opposing view.

Teachings of Sam Harris are corrupt? How do you mean? Please elaborate.

I don't think he speaks what his audience wants to hear. He has audience because of what he speaks. There's more money to be made in easier ways with out endangering one's life like he did.

Do you have similar perspective towards Hitchens, Dawkins too?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

That's what every charlatan makes his audience to feel. When someone tries to insert emotions here and there, speak untrue things to elicit a response, he/she becomes a charlatan. A saw his one video (which someone posted with great enthusiasm, must be one of his better one) and I see him outright lying and trying to add emotions here and there. Haven't seen Hitchens, Dawkins, If I see their views, I can only then give my opinion.

The use of word "defeat" shows a lot of ego support for your position. Its all good but just that it might just shut your door to facts and truths.

The reason why it will be difficult to weed out religion is because it is so interlinked with culture and it hangs on culture and habits. It is not easy or prudent to throw all culture out. So it will take time. In million years we might not have religion in the current form but other mass appealing craziness.

That's because I understand how their brain works, What kind of arguments they would make and when comes the point where It would stuck.

There are not much reasons (emotions) under which one claims to be atheist, I can come with only 3

1. Hopelessness: It would be the weakest variety, they would change to theism without any kind of external influence once they pass that phase.

2. Greed/ Materialism: They also might be not true atheists, some might be closet theist, Some is so much involved in materialistic never ending greed, they just don't want this to end or fear what would happen if they would be accountable for their deeds, so they mock it but inside they are afraid. There is another variety who would do something entirely different (clearly they won't turn atheists), They would try to give God personality, or make things up like false deities who would give them special consideration, who could be bargained with, these false deities want materialistic things too, in exchange they would wipe out sins of these people and give them special consideration or are biased in other words. People in this category if received enough materialistic success in life won't even wanna die, Egyptian pharaoh made grand pyramids in hopes of being raised once again to rule and enjoy life by false deities they thought bargained with or received special consideration from, result was human misery, thousands of innocent slaves/servants were killed or buries alive with them so they can serve them when they are raised again. Nowadays atheists of this variety (too greedy and rich) are also doing something similar, they want their bodies to be put in cryo chambers until the day science would be able to raise them again, false deities have changed (Egyptian to science) But basic emotion is the same, But as they believe in science, they would be atheists, To me both are same level of hypocrisy and stupidity.

3. Arrogance: They are strongest of the lot, even in them there would be two varieties one who would make arguments for sake of atheism (like Sam Harris) and second who would use those arguments on weak theists to prove their intellectual superiority. Many of them are like vegans, they would try to force their views on others, they have limited knowledge of science, they fill in the gaps with lies which suit their version of truth, they are charlatans, they have made their opinions/version and then try to find things which would suit their theories. They aren't men of science, Men of science and logic are supposed to impartial seekers of truth, not ruling out any possibility unless it's proven otherwise, hence I call them charlatans.

Now they can't DEFEAT me, But I don't dislike the lot except materialistic variety (whom I abhor) and they up to some extend do what I want them to do, i.e. avoiding the falsehood, But (Now I would speak religiously) those who become and remain atheists (till death) because of arrogance with intelligence would be committing greatest sin in comparison to other two varieties (excluding murders committed by materialistic variety). They would be once who would lose most in comparison to work they have done i.e. came away from falsehood yet got lost, harder part is getting away from falsehood, If they don't make their journey they would have no one else to blame but their arrogance.

[Desi]

People believe in nonsense ( meaning, illogical) because either they have been brainwashed by parents, relatives, pastors, mullahs, Godmen, stupid books or they do not rationalize and resort to community beliefs. Their reasoning may go one or two questions which is faulty to begin with. Most people cannot seriously think and cannot peel layers of an onion, and start believing in a supreme entity with unfathomable powers, a figment of imagination of an irrational mind and start believing and worshipping an almighty ogre - what a poor joke.

[sunburns80]

That's what every charlatan makes his audience to feel. When someone tries to insert emotions here and there, speak untrue things to elicit a response, he/she becomes a charlatan. A saw his one video (which someone posted with great enthusiasm, must be one of his better one) and I see him outright lying and trying to add emotions here and there. Haven't seen Hitchens, Dawkins, If I see their views, I can only then give my opinion.
.

There's zero substance in your argument except callous accusing without a shred of evidence. I expected something more logical. I should have known better after reading some of your replies.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[hermes]

This post is in general to atheists, Most atheists aren't original thinkers, they just repeat what few self proclaimed atheist speaker charlatans (like Sam Harris, who was making absolute laws in biology)

One of the biggest mistake atheists commit is that they expect God to be described in human terms and rules of physics, They expect God to be what they read as in Kids stories/ fairy tales. Asking questions is a good thing, It takes you away from falsehood, But what's the use if You (Atheists in general) use knowledge and brain to get away from falsehood and don't complete the journey to Truth ?

How to describe God ? Do they expect it in matter of 3D dimension or Visual appearance or sound or magical powers ? It's So silly, How can one expect to describe Allah when every last piece of information human brain has, many short comings, There was no space (3D or otherwise, So how can you expect Allah to be described in space), there was no light (How could they expect to describe visually) there was no sound. Everything been created during or after The Big Bang. Time, Space, Matter, Gravity and every rule of physics, Any information we have is of events after big bang, every guess we would make would be just guess, No theory Just a wild guess. Our perception and our intelligence has it's limitation in describing Allah, Best way to describe Allah is reading about 99 names (Attributes actually) described in Islam, That's closest Humans can get to describe Lord in their limited level of consciousness. Even atheists If read them with neutral mind would say that If God exists, These would be best attributes to describe him in realm of human consciousness.

You say that man kind cannot comprehend universe or creation, that's enough fair.
But can you explain how they figured out these 99 attributes of Allah(or any other religions God attributes)? It looks like wish list rather than based on facts.
Why all merciful God(of all religions) would want to kill other people of other religion? What happened to his mercy when entire nation (children) are bombed?

These attributes are the exact reason why mankind became atheists. Religions are just means or platform for the few powerful people to control and manipulate the mass.

[techynt]

How did you understand it if it cannot be described in human terms, are you not human? or is the notion that no need to understand, just accept it as divine magic?

You are still stuck about my explanation about how God can't be described in human terms. 'Writing on wall' was about organized religion are here to stay and best atheist can expect is them to stay in hands of sane, tolerant men.

Another thing to keep in mind, while writing please pay attention to TL;DR . I usually skip anything which has more than 20-30 lines in same paragraph in a internet forum.

Please keep in mind that we are not scholars, we are just people with too much time in our hands and rambling in some anonymous forum. It usually helps if we are not on our high horse.

[Dovahkiin]

There's zero substance in your argument except callous accusing without a shred of evidence. I expected something more logical. I should have known better after reading some of your replies.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

You can always search for my response to his video most probably in this thread only. Your response to me calling a charlatan a charlatan is hardly better than people who defend any particular Baba.

You say that man kind cannot comprehend universe or creation, that's enough fair.
But can you explain how they figured out these 99 attributes of Allah(or any other religions God attributes)? It looks like wish list rather than based on facts.
Why all merciful God(of all religions) would want to kill other people of other religion? What happened to his mercy when entire nation (children) are bombed?

These attributes are the exact reason why mankind became atheists. Religions are just means or platform for the few powerful people to control and manipulate the mass.

They were revealed in Holy Quran and some were taken from Authentic Hadith, Quran is divine in origin, So no one 'Figured them out', They were revealed.

It was allowed for believers to defend themselves when pagans were attacking and killing them, No where it's mentioned in Quran as aggression. Even present law of every country allows killing in self defense, In Holy Quran even with allowing self defense restrictions were put (Which were stricter than Geneva convention), even in self defense/ during war believers were forbidden from killing Kids, Women, elder and anyone else who is not fighting with them, they were forbid to cut green trees or leaving any settlements in ruins. It was forbidden to disrespect bodies of fallen enemies, and those who were captured would to be returned humanely (maybe after war reparations were paid).

There is not a single regime in world who would follow any rules remotely as good as these.

So your claims are false and probably taken from some biased source.

How did you understand it if it cannot be described in human terms, are you not human? or is the notion that no need to understand, just accept it as divine magic?

Another thing to keep in mind, while writing please pay attention to TL;DR . I usually skip anything which has 50 lines in same paragraph in a internet forum.

Please keep in mind that we are not scholars, we are just people with too much time in our hands and rambling in some anonymous forum. It usually helps if we are not on our high horse.

Didn't you know ? I am Dovahkiin, Born with Giant soul.

That's your choice whether you read it or not, I would answer queries put to me.

That wouldn't be true about me.

Now NEXT LINE IS IN GENERAL

Aren't we getting little too excited and rambling irrelevant things in response to my previous post ? Whatever I posted was true about atheism and atheists, They aren't that big of mystery to me, I can solve them easily. I even tried to give them logic (other than to follow religion), But I feel little hostility and mockery, which is kind of unwarranted.