Prejudice of Atheism

[SheikhOnDeRun]

This is an excerpt from God Arises by Sheikh Wahiduddin. This is one of the answers of how the atheistic mind works. Yes, I realize that this might be long but to understand the society in which we live in, it is worth reading. In my view, the author is brilliant.

Prejudice of Atheist

The concept of God and religion will never fit into the narrow frame of their materialistic minds. Yet their dissatisfaction is not really due to any lack of sound reasoning behind religion. No, the actual reason for their disagreeing with us is that their prejudiced minds are not prepared to accept religious reasoning. Sir James at the end of his book, Mysterious Universe correctly remarked: ‘Our modern minds have a sort of bias in favor of materialistic explanation of facts.’
In his book, Witness, Chambers tells us how he was watching his little daughter one day, when he found that he had unconsciously become aware of the shape of her ear. He thought to himself how impossible it was that such delicate design could have come about by chance. They could have been created only by premeditated design. But he pushed this thought out of his mind, because he realized that the next step in logical sequence would have to be: design presupposes God- a thesis he was not ready to accept. With reference to this incident, Thomas David, former Chairman of Department of Chemistry, Stanford: ‘I have known many scientists among my professors and research colleagues who have similar thoughts about observed facts and physics.’

I confess that it is beyond my power to satisfy those scholars whose bias in favor of materialistic reasoning is so strong that they are unable to keep their minds open to self-evident facts. There is a particular reason for the bias, about which George Herbert, an American physicist had this to say:

‘Conviction of the reasonableness of theism and the tenuousness of atheism usually in itself does not cause a man to accept practical theism. There seems to be an almost innate su••••ion that the recognition of God will somehow rob one of freedom. To the Scholar, who cherishes intellectual liberty, any thought of abridged freedom is especially dreadful.’

In the same sense, the concept of Prophet hood has been described by Julian Huxley as an ‘intolerable demonstration of superiority’. That is, the acceptance of someone as a Prophet implies his elevation to such a high status that his word becomes the word of God, giving him, in consequence, the right to impose his will on the people, the right to make people accept his word as law. BUT THEN that is what it means to be a Prophet, and when man is the creature and not the creator, he is in the position of being the humble slave of God, and not God, how can this situation be changed or avoided simply on the basis of concepts which are the result of ignorance or wishful thinking?

Cressy Morrison asks, with reason, in his book, Man Does not Stand Alone, ‘How much must man advance before he fully realizes the existence of a Supreme Intelligence, grasps His Goodness that we exist, assumes his full part in destiny and strives to live up to the highest code he is capable of understanding without attempting to analyze God’s motive, or describe His attributes?’

Things are as they are. We cannot change the hard reality: we simply have to acknowledge it, accept it, bow to it. Now, if we are not to adopt an ostrich-like attitude, rather to deny it. By denying the truth, it is man who loses. His denial of the truth in no way alters, harms, or diminishes it. The truth is the truth.

[j deazy]

Originally Posted by SheikhOnDeRun

No, the actual reason for their disagreeing with us is that their prejudiced minds are not prepared to accept religious reasoning. Sir James at the end of his book, Mysterious Universe correctly remarked: ‘Our modern minds have a sort of bias in favor of materialistic explanation of facts.’
In his book, Witness, Chambers tells us how he was watching his little daughter one day, when he found that he had unconsciously become aware of the shape of her ear. He thought to himself how impossible it was that such delicate design could have come about by chance. They could have been created only by premeditated design. But he pushed this thought out of his mind, because he realized that the next step in logical sequence would have to be: design presupposes God- a thesis he was not ready to accept.

this is a modification of the blind watchmaker idea... this is such a lame argument... this steps into an infinite regress because this 'perfect' being is without creation which is a step against your claim that nothing is without a creation... if the ear is so perfect that it could not be a random mutation over time but had to be designed how is it that a deity gets carte blanche???
what is the difference between regular reasoning and religious reasoning?? would that be blind faith and willingness to accept without an iota of proof? just curious

[Sodium]

i think the concept of god is only ever understood by two groups: god as understood by the people and god as understood by the scientist/philosopher. for the people god is seen in a religous context. one of laws, after-lifes, heavens, hells: all the things that give their life structure and show them how to live. to the scientist/philosopher, god is seen and understood by their seeing and understanding of the nature of things. throughout the journey they embark upon -- breaking down the world, digesting and analyzing it to its most base -- they in time come to see the word as one made not by chance, but by reason. and so they come to realize that a diety of some sort must exist, as what else could bestow the world with its reason; reason seen that can only be seen by the scientist/philosopher.

there are scientists/philosophers who are athiests, of course. but, to my mind, their view of reality is incomplete. something in their disposition stops them from seeing the reality as it truly is. they know not enough, or are emotionally disgusted by the suggestion of a deity.

[Anidawehi]

Theist / Atheist

It really makes no difference.
A Theist is one who believes nonsense.
An Atheist is one who rejects the truth because of the Theist's nonsense.

[double ML]

quite the opposite


ppl whose minds are so narrow that they aren't able to reason for themselves are the ones who follow religion


religion= a way to control the mindless masses

[Leila Night]

Originally Posted by Sodium

i think the concept of god is only ever understood by two groups: god as understood by the people and god as understood by the scientist/philosopher. for the people god is seen in a religous context. one of laws, after-lifes, heavens, hells: all the things that give their life structure and show them how to live. to the scientist/philosopher, god is seen and understood by their seeing and understanding of the nature of things. throughout the journey they embark upon -- breaking down the world, digesting and analyzing it to its most base -- they in time come to see the word as one made not by chance, but by reason. and so they come to realize that a diety of some sort must exist, as what else could bestow the world with its reason; reason seen that can only be seen by the scientist/philosopher.
there are scientists/philosophers who are athiests, of course. but, to my mind, their view of reality is incomplete. something in their disposition stops them from seeing the reality as it truly is. they know not enough, or are emotionally disgusted by the suggestion of a deity.

I really like this post.

ML, does that mean the military is your religion? You are pretty mindless in regards to the US military.

PS. I think humans do not have the capacity to "understand" God. I believe our only "understanding" of God is understanding our own insignificance.

[double ML]

Originally Posted by Leila Night

I really like this post.

ML, does that mean the military is your religion? You are pretty mindless in regards to the US military.

no you simple minded slore. the military is my job.

and double M.L. is clearly not mindless in any capacity.

[Leila Night]

It's clearly more than a job if you're willing to see people die so you may get paid. You prove that the military is an ideology by insulting every Joe and Jane who comment negatively regarding the military.

I don't think I mind being simple-minded. ^_^
Would you agree that we all have room to improve? That will be new project: Become less simple-minded, if only to please ML.

What's a slore?

[double ML]

the ppl who speak negatively about the military tend to have no fuckin' clue about the military or the ppl in it


shit like this:

moron #1: "all soldiers are rapists and murderers"
moron #2: "yeah- and they're too stupid to get real jobs"
moron #3: "they're in afghanistan only to steal oil"



clearly, all 3 statements are quite false. but these fucktards continue on like they're on point with shit.

and since when did i every say i wanted to see ppl die so i can get paid?

i don't recall havin' ever said anything even remotely close to that.

[Leila Night]

You did say something along the lines of the military being just a job. If it is just a job, you must realize your job is to obey others and essentially kill people. Whether they are your enemies or not (I'm sure your enemies are each the loved ones of someone), you're being paid to kill.

I guess I sound like a radical _____, (m'eh...) but I truly want to know when is killing en masse the right of any gov't?

I don't believe the statements of Moron #1, #2 or #3.

[double ML]

the "only obey others" shit is what moron #4 would say, because in any job, unless you own your own business, you're gonna have someone you answer to

and me, i give orders as well as receive them.

at this point in my career, you could consider me "middle management"

[Anidawehi]

Double - Is controlling the masses a bad thing?

I hear people say this all the time, but control is necessary. Society depends upon leadership and leadership's goal is to establish some form of control. Anarchy is not an option and the only way to prevent the stupid people from creating chaos is to take control over them. The best way to do that is to give them a religion (since they cannot grasp philosophy) and keep their idiot asses pre-occupied with meaningless traditions.

It does amuse me how people's beliefs contradict their other beliefs.
Religion is a form of control. Government is another. The Alpha Lion in a male pride controls the rest of the pride from getting out of line and the rest of the pride expects that from him. In fact, they test him from time to time (naturally and without conscious decisions since they are not human) and he whoops their asses. If he doesn't they kick his ass out and find a new Alpha Male.

The people want to be controlled. Don't let whining liberals fool you.
People want a simple life. They want a job doing what they enjoy. They want enough money to buy the things that entertain them. They want a nice home, good meals, nice clothes and if given that, they will be happy and satisfied.

However, those same people will grow greedy with time. Religion gives them something to focus their greed on. Religion says, "Don't be greedy in life. Enjoy what you have now and you'll have more when this is over. Be greedy for eternal pleasures." Priests offer them this because a greedy man will NEVER have enough unless he believes that he'll have enough in the next life and then he'll wait patiently for that life. Greedy people are never able to function in society nor should they be allowed to think for themselves because they will fuck everything up for the rest of us who aren't selfish and greedy.

[double ML]

Originally Posted by Anidawehi

Greedy people are never able to function in society nor should they be allowed to think for themselves because they will fuck everything up for the rest of us who aren't selfish and greedy.

^^that part there actually made me laugh out loud