OOOHHH, they definitely won't like this.
Where's the pop corn. I wanna watch this!
I think this is going to be a longer thread!!!!
Yea I'm going to do the laundry ,but will bring back some pizza.
If Im late send me a txt to remind me ,I'm not too bright somedays
Me too! Save some for me.
Paarsuey, why do you feel this way? I mean, I personally don't agree with your claim that Atheism didn't exist in the 'olden days.' Sure it did, but, just look what happen to people who question religion with a sense of scientific reasoning? Are you familiar with Sir Isaac Newton, or better yet Galileo? Do you honestly believe that Newton or Galileo believed in a God?
Well I don't think they did. I think that they were more agnostic than anything else. However, I do see your point you're trying to make. I think. But then again- most atheist I know, take the time to educate themselves first, and then...., choose not to believe in something as a consequence of what they learned.
You, or someone wrote, "Are you familiar with Sir Isaac Newton, or better yet Galileo? Do you honestly believe that Newton or Galileo believed in a God?"
I am familiar with both. Newton believed something. He studied the Bible, looking for clues in its chronology for the End Times. Did he believe in God? I cannot say. But he did believe in the Christian God enough to study the 66 books in order to find answers to his pressing questions.
Galileo? Let's save him for some other time.
Newton did believe in the Creator-God; he had written religious books.
Analytical or scientific query is not restricted to atheists; it is common to all the human beings and it had remained as such in all the ages. Science is a joint production; it is open to everybody, it had always remain open to everybody; it will remain open to everybody. The atheists become unscientific when they claim that analytical and scientific query is limited to them only .They become narrow minded when they claim it.
I dont think lying is either scientific or unscientific. Which atheist claims that science is limited to atheists? I want to argue with him. I never met a single atheist who ever claimed that before.
Oh wait, you're not making strawmen again are you? Did an atheist really claim that or did you make it up?
Who was it?
Well maybe Newton is a bad comparison..... yes, surely it was. So let's take Albert Eisenstein. He was Jewish, yes? Yes. So he believed in something right? Or, did he?
And Paarsuey, I chose these people for their geniuses, and not because of their science. The science part is clearly just a coincidence. Since I was at the time referring to your idea that there was no Atheism, when you thought people only believed in religion- I selected Galileo as a reference to the idea that this might not be necessarily true. That through out history, great minds could have challenged the idea of God- and kept it to themselves. How do you or any of us really know what these great minds were thinking?
As for Albert Eisenstein, he makes a direct comment about his feelings on God and religion. And he said, "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.
..... If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."
Now does that sound like something an Orthodox Jew might say? No, but it does sound like something someone searching for options might say.
Where on earth did you get this view? Newton wrote more on Biblical hermeneutics than he did on science. Galileo was a devout believer in God.
You think???? After the church shunned his ideas and made him a prisoner in his home? You think?
I don't think so. And as for Newton, one can quote scripture and write poetry, but when your scientific findings completely contradicted your faith..........., I don't know. I think he probably deep down inside had his doubts. That is how I came up with this opinion of them. And it is only an opinion like I said.
I just think that most Atheist's probably know more than the average Muslim does about their faith, more than the average Jew or Christian about their faith too. People have a natural ability to want to believe in something. People need to feel they belong. They very idea of Atheism contradicts this basic need of survival and existence. So, I firmly believe that it probably takes an individual some time before deciding to be an Atheist. I wish some certain sects of Christianity would take more time studying their faith, as Atheists do in making up their minds. Maybe then the Christian faith as a whole, wouldn't have so many prostrated ideas and misconceptions.
I don't know, this is just what I feel. What do you think?
Newton never stated nor believed that his findings contradicted his religious views. Are you not aware of his famous statement (after his major discovery) that "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." His religious views are well known, I suggest looking the evidence up before you make a claim like this.
Please provide the sources that state Galileo did not believe in God. You are at odds with the historical record. You are in danger of proving the dictum of the original post that ignorance and atheism goes hand in hand.
Even basic periodicals such as the Smithsonian recognizes this fact: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n … amp;page=3
"......as Dava Sobel says, "Everything he did, he did as a believing Catholic." Galileo simply believed that Scripture was not intended to teach astronomy, but rather, as he wrote in a 1613 letter to his disciple Benedetto Castelli, to "persuade men of the truths necessary for salvation."
In addition to your Newton commentary. Sir Isaac wrote a book of prophecies, predicting that the earth would end in something like 2030. The book is in the Vatican (Surprise!)
Did you not see this,
"Well maybe Newton is a bad comparison..... yes, surely it was. So let's take Albert Eisenstein. He was Jewish, yes? Yes. So he believed in something right? Or, did he?" and there is more.
I wrote before your response. Are you only selectively reading by chance? Yes, I agree Newton- bad comparison. Bad. Smack my hands, bad.
You're not understanding me........ it is just my OPINION. I never said or wrote that it is written in stone, or that it was a formulated fact. I said, as I say it now, please, this is just my OPINION. Which YOU clearly disagree with, and with valid argument at that. But I disagree regardless. I'm looking to the man- on a more personal anthropology level, and not through the eyes of what history books tell us to be so.
Definition of an opinion. That might help you too. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion
Now I have explained why I feel this way. I know my history quite well, and I am challenging what history tells us, by looking at what and how the man lived...., and what happened to him, and how he was imprisoned, and so on........ You asked me how I came up with this idea. Did you not? I told you that it was my opinion, and why it was my opinion. okay? But I do thank you for your input though.
I know the definition of "opinion." Clearly you are wrong so yes it is your right to hold a wrong opinion. What is astonishing is the fact that even when contradicted by the historical record you still hold to a wrong opinion. Also, it is my opinion that you do not "know your history quite well" either. If you had then you would not have made such statements and if you do know your history "quite well" why do you insist on continually referring to Einstein as "Albert Eisenstein?"
Remember, before making claims, make sure you have sufficient evidential criteria to bolster the claim.
OMG! I admit fault.
And...........!, with an opinion, I don't have to list credible facts. Here is it's definition: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
Bad girl. Like I said, smack my hands bad!
Not believing your hate filled tome does not make one an atheist. It simply means some people are not indoctrinated by bronze aged myths.
You really are behaving like a basket case.
Do you believe the Bible is a "hate filled tome"?
When you refer to Bronze-aged myths do you refer specifically to the earliest books? Or do you incorrectly refer to all of them? What is your intent?
Not that it matters but have you ever read it? Some of it is pretty good storytelling. It is the stuff of movies and high adventure.
Yes I have read it, and yes it has beautiful poems and wise sayings as well as 40,000 horrible threats that the NT tried to disconnect with.
How do you deal with the threats>
1. Claim they are quoted out of context.... all of them.
2. Say the NT came along to change it?
Or do you have some other means of avoiding the words in the book you don't like to acknowledge?
From what I understand from Reform Judaism today is that the sacrificial system and the 'horrible threats' that you are off to quote are to be understood in their cultural framework of the time. God has to work with the condition of the people in front of Him at the time; a people who had so experience of self government and easily swayed by the surrounding pagan belief systems. The old law as it were was applied to them in an effort to knock them into shape much like you might very harshly prune back a fruit tree to encourage a good crop of fruit.
Once the old temple was demolished by the Babylonians the Jews had no real desire to go back to the old way of doing religion. The synagogue had superceded things as a much more intimate way, built on prayer and study, understanding the jaw rather than blind obedience. Israel had moved on, evolved, in their culture and understanding so all the sacrifices and 'horrible threats' no longer applied. Que the advent of the church and they picked il the baton and carried on inthe NT.
However, the church did appear to turn to sh*t in Rome and for the next 1600 years of Cathic oppression and the Protestant bodged attempts to put it right. The church today has an awful legacy and it still persists in intolerance and ignorance.
See your quote below.
"From what I understand from Reform Judaism today is that the sacrificial system and the 'horrible threats' that you are off to quote are to be understood in their cultural framework of the time. God has to work with the condition of the people in front of Him at the time; a people who had so experience of self government and easily swayed by the surrounding pagan belief systems. The old law as it were was applied to them in an effort to knock them into shape much like you might very harshly prune back a fruit tree to encourage a good crop of fruit."
I don't get how your god. (omniscient) was restricted by a bunch of bronze aged primitive people's "cultural framework" of their times.
Why would a god need to resort to lower human order emotions to deal with his creations? Psychotic responses to non worship alone give the game. away. Why would a god go through humanity knocking off the "bad fruit"
That sounds more like something a tyrant would come up with, not a god.
Some people like the bad parts, that's why they focus and fixate. Yeah, blood was spilled on the way here from way back when. Is today any different? Isn't it a little like the pot calling the kettle black? There are also love stories. No different than the Odyssey or the Iliad. Maybe we should get rid of such stuff. It hurts Earnest's eyes.
(although i can see why ignorance and atheism go hand in hand PARTICULARLY in hubpages)
If you make intelligent people study religion, they produce science, as in the case of Capernicus, Newton, Einstein or philosophers like JUNG, CAMPBELL, ME.
I think if you were to look at the greatest scientific and philosophical minds of today and look at whether they are religious you would find a fairly strong correlation with those people to atheism. In fact I don't think, I know.
Well, but a lot of them are philosophical and uses religious terms as metaphors to explain their ideas.
atheism is just a symptom of impending transcendence. but you cannot stop there. that is foolish.
Very true, but I guess religion is as much a part of the language now as terms coined by shakespeare. The King james bible, specifically.
I would never describe myself as atheist if given a choice, far more irreligious.
"If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we would know the mind of God."
it is one process at different stages of clarity. but all this is one exercise. we are trying to understand who we are and where we came from.
Yes, and now we have better ways of doing this than relying on bronze age myths. It sounds harsh, and we're thankful for some things the bible brought us, but we have to move on.
we are only beginning to understand why we hold on to these myths even if they defy logic. I don't know if you've seen my talk at TEDx here in New York.
Here I discussed the possible reasons why these stories resonate. It has something to do with the brains coding system. It uses symbology to describe its processes.
It was covered by BBC and was aired in Cornell and NYU and some other IVY league. Other speakers alluded to Joseph Campbell and actually said the same general thing about what resonates. So...
So... there is so much about myths that deserve to be studied because (like the proteins that biologists threw away for 50 years it is actually the key to understanding genes better--epigenetics) if its rampant, there's a good reason.
and also, I'm trying to hit 600 views.
I'd actually seen it before, so you've got a couple from me! Love a bit of TED, feels like I'm actually doing work watching them!
I agree we should study religions, I find them fascinating - but I'm afraid that's where it starts and ends. They aren't the moral givers that people suggest, in fact morality improves over time in spite of religion, not the other way round.
I don’t think Science is a function of Atheism or that the Atheists have a sole legitimate claim on Science.
I am so going to steal that line...
If you make intelligent people study religion, they produce science.
I love it!
In fact it is the Religion that can claim to have produced science; the atheists cannot rationally and formally exist before formal formation of the Scientific Method; before tnat there was only religion and no atheism.
not at all. When I was ignorant, I was a theist. When I wised up, I realised it was all myths
and did you ever ask why there are myths?
Have you ever asked why Harry Potter was written?
yes, it was a metaphor for j.K. rowlings battle against depression... have you ever asked why the bible was written?
Yes, it was an (incorrect) attempt to explain the universe using parts of other religions, including Judaism and Paganism.
incorrect assumes you know what the correct is. We don't know what is the correct one yet. As a matter of fact just recently the big bang proved to be just an aspect of the beginning.
also you assume you have read the bible in its original language and assume once again that the translations were accurate when, if you only know at some point the teachings of the VEDAS and Judaism is comparable.
The bible,particularly the first five have different authors. The seven days of creation was written in pictographs that were more like egyptian ideograms. If you know how to read that, then you see that it is about an ancient understanding of how the earth came to be and it is not exactly superstitious. It is primitive but it is not superstitious.
apparently she borrowed ideas from ancient alchemy
actually, it wasn't deliberate, she didn't set off to write in those terms, but as she was writing them, the ideas unfolded as such. The myths are hardwired. Dawkins believe that we just copy each other. The unit is called meme. Mark Knowles wanted to kill a meme, but since the meme machine is not defined...meaning they cannot find the exact spot where a meme machine is located in the brain, he is doing it by just simply scrambling the person's memetic process. They are universal replicators. Mark can scramble the religious meme but then, that person will pick it up elsewhere but as something else like for instance..avatar.
i read she confessed to consulting some ancient alchemy books
yes like it used to be the Philosopher's Stone which is highly symbolic. But I read it was pretty spontaneous. she just strengthened it with research. the process was storyline first, research later. SO the hero's journey spontaneously emerged in her narrative.
the dementors are so descriptive of depression, you can almost believe that there are such things.
vol de mort is flight to death...which means the impulse to kill oneself.
the patronus charm is a happy thought that centers you. it's all metaphorical. literature is filled with symbols and metaphors. the bible is literature. you won't take harry potter right now as nonfiction but say, 3,000 years later. it was based on a real psychological event, harry potter. but it is hidden in symbols.
yes, but I don't have an answer for that...people trying to make sense of their world? People enjoying scaring each other with tales of dragons & devils?
Well Jung was trying to make sense of it in his work on archetypes, which was built upon by Campbell. My work relates the study of symbology with neurological functions.
"Man and his symbols" is also a good source of understanding, along with most of what he wrote. I think the methods employed by Jung and the post-Jungians has been very informative as it is never a closed shop. Jung simply put his thoughts supported by reams of empirical evidence for us to sift through and arrive at our own conclusions. Quite scientific really.
It is quite scientific, but as of yet there was no way to observe how the symbols are being transferred from parent to child. Memetics is an observation of the phenomenon but in no way does it say why.
The research I'm making is gaining some modest attention because it potentially offers a HOW to both memetics and jung's theories on passing on these recurring themes from parent to child.
now that we understand what dreams are and their real function in the brain, we now know that the visions in the dreams are coding of for filing purposes. dreaming is deep/body learning.
I would go further and claim that dreams are the high road to the subconscious. Good luck with your research, I did it for many years, and it is damn hard work ....... even when you love it!
Thanks Earnest, I would agree you there in that the subconscious is the body mechanized to perform frontal lobe learning. So once you learn it, it is transferred to the lower brain to free up the frontal brain. Essentially the thoughts are being chemically coded and since it is chemically arranged, the visual imprints that connect become rather strange. Like for instance your 1st grade teacher rubbing your thighs because a woman who triggered a biochemical that was first triggered by your first grade teacher made a come on.
What an intelligent thing to say, with so much thought and reasoning put into it. Or, is it?
Of course, you're not saying such a thing because you're Muslim, right? You would never cause conflict considering you always say you are peaceful, and your religion teaches you to be peaceful, even though your statement was only made to cause a fight.
Why is that, you say? Well, you actually don't "think" ignorance and atheism go hand in hand because you didn't offer any thoughts or explanation, but instead just made a public declaration, hence it must be something you believe. And if you believe it, then you must have gleaned it from your endless supply of Islamic propaganda, yes?
So, it's easy to conclude you are only trying to start a war of some kind, which would align quite respectively with your religious beliefs, despite the fact you would deny that.
Unless of course, you actually offered an explanation that wasn't lifted from your pool of Islamic propaganda.
Well, this thread alone shows chosen ignorance and a lack of knowledge.
"Does ignorance cause atheism or vice versa? Neither and my above statement is dead-on target.
Wow, you really are a glutton for punishment, huh? Can I ask you something? Are you honestly being serious with this question, or is this some type of sick joke? I hope for your sake this is a sick joke. However, I will say this. Ignorance isn't restricted to one particular group, as everyone is ignorant in different ways. Some are just more so than others. At least, that's my thoughts anyway, as most people will often believe and/or hear only what they want to anyway.
Incorrect Understanding, of The Truth, leads to Denial ...
Thus, it is not Ignorance, but an angular Perception of Reality, that leads to Denial, thus, to Non-Belief.
It is hence, the duty of those, who understand correctly, to help the abberant minds, understand Correctly..
Incorrect understanding of the truth huh?
You understand the theory of evolution then do you? How about radiometric dating? How about all the facts that show humans evolved over millions of years and were not created on the spot by a magician?
I do not think you can make that correlation. Not believing in God does not mean that you do not have a grasp of the natural world.
Interestingly enough there are recent studies that show a connection between atheism and a rise in superstitious belief. Evangelical athiesm, specifically the kind endorsed by Sam Harris, Dawkins and the like have given rise to these findings.
Strange you should say that. My husband was a born-again Christian as a teenager. Then one day he decided he would study the Bible thoroughly, from cover to cover.
By the end, he had changed his mind and become an atheist.
So I'd say your statement is bunkum.
Hello Marissa. Of all the atheists I have met that debate religion, I would say about 90% of them have more knowledge of the scripture then the theists that they debate.
I find it ironic that paarsurrey calls atheists ignorant.
I also find it amusing the way Paarsurrey ignores posts he has no answer to, including mine.
I tried debating on religious youtube videos but after a while I realised the average age of posters was a little low so I came here to discuss with "intellectuals?".
Apparently some of them are so intellectual that religious debate is beneath them.
Ignorance is rife on this site.
I am sorry if I did not respond to your question.
Please repeat your question.
I will try to answer; though I am not a scholar; I never claimed to be one.
I am an ordinary man in the street, is search of Truth.
I didn't have a question, I made a statement. My husband was a devout Christian until he decided to do a thorough study of the Bible. After that study he became an atheist.
Earnestshub has told a similar story - the more he researched Christianity, the less he could believe in it.
Mommyneal has posted the same experience.
Clearly, in those cases, it was knowledge that led to atheism - not ignorance. Don't you have a comment to make on that?
Different people could have different experiences; those are not binding on others.
They are ignorant of the Truthful Word Revealed.
No, you will never learn anything by making bald flat statements of "fact" that are opinion, your mind is a closed shop.
So if the Truthful Word Revealed is not in the Bible, which my three examples have read cover to cover, where is it?
The Word Revealed is in the original language it was revealed; it is secure and protected in many methods; it gives claims and reasons on every issue ethical, moral and spiritual; provides guidance for life to all human beings; is very rational and reasonable. It is authored by the Creator-God; who has taken a guarantee for protecting it literally and in the meanings in a system. It is peaceful and peace promoting.
So you agree the Word Revealed can't be found in the Bible? Why do you bother with it then?
The accounts and thoughts in the Bible have been corrected in Quran; the only pristine and secure Word Revealed in the original word it was revealed and authored by the Creator-God Allah YHWH.
[5:49] And We have revealed unto thee the Book comprising the truth and fulfilling that which was revealed before it in the Book, and as a guardian over it. Judge, therefore, between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their evil inclinations, turning away from the truth which has come to thee. For each of you We prescribed a clear spiritual Law and a manifest way in secular matters. And if Allah had enforced His will, He would have made you all one people, but He wishes to try you by that which He has given you. Vie, then, with one another in good works. To Allah shall you all return; then will He inform you of that wherein you differed.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=48
Geez, I'm glad you cleared that up for us!
Is it any more ignorant to kill ijn the name of Alla, than to just be a non believer? Take this self serving BS some wheres else paar, no place here for this?
I've heard Richard Dawkins speaking publicly about the correlation between one's religiosity and general IQ, but I never expected it to be so obvious!
I find this scatter graph to be ironic, to say the least, judging the place it had to be posted to make much difference (in a page dedicated to trick anyone into answering at all, seeing as how it's a trapdoor question).
Paar, you might want to try reading another book other than that so called 'holy' one, assuming you're one of the few religious people who actually have tried to leaf through it. You would benefit greatly, as emphasized by the above graph. lol
ps. THAT's what I call a linear relation!
What was the IQ of Newton?You might be kwnoing or anybody else from the atheist friends.
Form a legible sentence and I'll respond. Thanks.
As you know English is not my mother-tongue; I formed it as best as I could; we are friends here; I think you have understood; you may correct it if you like and respond it.
Friends I think not. I would actually be your friend, but the thing standing in the way isn't your religion, but the way you ask the question. It is phrased as if under every circumstance an atheist is ignorant when it's you who doesn't look at the evidence presented. The difference between interpreting a book religiously and interpreting research data is that you're open minded about the results. Not so open minded that you will believe anything simply because it is written in a book and believed by many others but because the evidence reveals it.
In science you don't make things up because you believe it to be true or you'd be kicked right out. You have to prove that all the relevent and available evidence points to a conclusion.
Just because it's in a glorified old book doesn't mean you have to take it literally.
And do you really think that the single act of not believing something that someone told you because it sounds made up is worthy enough of eternal damnation? By its very own definition then the finite crime is punished infinitely more heinous than the crime would even be punishable for! This is a fallacy!
Please understand that atheism isn't about not believing something because it's unpleasant or pleasing to one's self but because the evidence points to fact. When you solve a crime you collect evidence to see how it happened; this is reality and we have no reason to believe otherwise because by the very meaning of reality we cannot reach that which is not reality, or else it would exist! There is no evidence for your argument, and in fact it is the religious who ignore the facts.
Man up and face the world for what it really is.
Actually, studies have found that IQ and numeric and literary ability are higher in atheists than in religious people.
"Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God."
Perhaps not, but it defeats the argument put forward by our mate Paar in the first place.
Perhaps intelligent people know they don't need to be "saved"?!
Don't know about you but I'd rather side with the intelligent people.
I don't think my IQ is low.
A lot of experts recon that EQ is of more value that IQ.
I know my score is high on that. Me happy.
That's great, but EQ isn't a measure of intelligence.
it was just a term coined by the author, there is not even a test that tests it.
but social intelligence is a form of intelligence.
No test? What about the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Certification?
EQ is important as a measure of ones ability to deal with reality, IQ is a bit flaky as the means of measuring IQ can be quite complex and at times inaccurate.
For example I have three different measurements of my IQ received from three differing methods.
Online tests are often very amateurish for both. Off to bed, enjoy the debates.
wait should I be dressing up to take my daughter to school? ok... bye folks, lemme know who cracks first.
God hasn't bothered to show up.
I think ignorance might be defined as posting a foolish question simply to elicit negative response. The OP being a prime example. Somehow, the question seems void of any quest for knowledge, but more of a knee jerk reaction to a question that had some merit. Just an opinion.
The need some 'religious' people to committ unholy acts in the name of God, and others to ignore or justify these acts, has a lot to do with it.
Many of the spokespeople, are not that effective, in other words.
For a group of people who don't think God is real or that religion is a crutch you spend an awful lot of time talking about it and defending your position against it. If it doesn't exist, what do have to defend it against?? Hmmm... :-)
2000 years of wars and conflict caused?
Sorry you think that is OK - Innit. I see you like war and religion. Any particular order to that?
nonbelievers are people who do not belief. when they begin to call themselves something other than nonbelievers then they no longer define themselves by what they don't want to believe, but by what they do.
"Atheists are ignorant" is such a broad, sweeping comment that's it's basically meaningless. Ignorant of WHAT? Your religious theologies? Since you're equally ignorant of the doctrines and theologies of thousands of other religions, do you consider yourself equally ignorant? I think it was Richard Dawkins who said (and I paraphrase), "When you understand why you don't believe in any of the other gods out there, then you will understand why I don't believe in yours."
Cut it out!
This is no place to be spouting logic and common sense!
Well, If you use the definition of the word only...Atheist means without believe in a god or gods. (paraphrased)
Technically, unless you believe in all gods, you are an atheist to all gods, but your own.
And most atheists have more religious knowledge, than those who actually claim it. (according to recent studies and polls)
Word of the Creator-God has been the source of knowledge; He taught us humans to talk and to write without which there would have been no science and no atheists; science is a part of Religion; it does not belong to Atheists, exclusively.
[96:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[96:2] Convey thou in the name of thy Lord Who created,
[96:3] Created man from a clot of blood.
[96:4] Convey! And thy Lord is Most Generous,
[96:5] Who taught man by the pen,
[96:6] Taught man what he knew not.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … mp;verse=0
[55:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[55:2] It is God, the Gracious
[55:3] Who has taught the Qur’an.
[55:4] He has created man.
[55:5] He has taught him plain speech.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … mp;verse=0
Religion is a sign of knowledge; atheism of ignorance.
You must have a special calendar or something. Mine doesn't say it's Opposite Day.
from a clot of blood?? that's one I hadn't heard before!
A better question would be, do the hubpages forums cause ignorance, or vice versa, cause this place is really crazy.
Funny enough, I actually stopped believing in god after I learned about religion. I even went as far as learning about other religions outside of the one I was raised to believe in, so ignorance and atheism do not go hand in hand. I would never push my nonbeliefs onto anyone or think of them differently because of what they believe in. Most religious people are quick to dislike an atheist and try to turn them to their beliefs. I know the issues with religion and nonreligion will never go away, so it's always a good topic to talk about.
To the question: Does ignorance cause atheism or vice versa? I will say definitely it does not.
In my opinion, the atheists can be divided in two groups, one group (and this is the large group) is formed by very learned and intelligent people, whom do not believe in God just because they have learned in their lives that God as is described in the Bible cannot exist because things do not add up.
The second group (this is only a small minority) is formed of people who are of very bad character, so for them God does not exist, because it is convenient to them when they do nasty deeds. There might be a few more in between, but this is what I believe atheists are.
I struggle to understand how one can beleive what is convenient for them.
I never thought belief was an option. I know I cant force myself to believe or disbelieve in anything. Can you?
ignorance can be a birth defect, or a defective upbringing, or it can simply be used as a shield. Some people are scared to death of learning something that they will fight tooth and nail. Bad comprehension can be the reason behind ignorance, and it can also account for Atheism.
Actually, dear sirs, religion cause ignorance, one persuit for the truth and not believing in old miths never caused ignorance, so the real question is, does religion cause ignorance or vice versa?
Truthful Religion brings knowledge; it is for this that Quran/Islam/Muhammad has taught us a prayer for it:
[20:115] Exalted then is Allah, the True King! And be not impatient for the Qur’an ere its revelation is completed unto thee, but only say, ‘O my Lord, increase me in knowledge.’
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … ;verse=114
Does ignorance cause atheism or vice versa?
I think ignorance and atheism both go hand in hand.
Your individual problem Paar is you have false thinking, which isn't something new.
I think you are ignorant. You are ignorant of Jesus. You are ignorant of Vishnu and you are ignorant of the fact that the koran is nonsense.
You are probably the most ignorant person on the entire internet.
The atheists are ignorant of the moral and spiritual realm and the Word revealed by the Creator-God; so ignorance and atheism go together.
They should try to learn something from Quran; out of their own free will and without compulsion.
One of our atheist, non-believing friends here has written that atheisms got its name in the eighteenth century and it is still a tiny minority.
They should improve their knowledge; no harm
Non belief requires knowledge, something that was almost buried under religious myth for centuries.
Today many of us read other than some threatening religious crud and we know better than to base our lives on the ramblings of a few psychotics.
As the internet spreads and libraries are built, the hate and loathing for others expressed in these horrible tomes will be exposed by the simple process of education.
Good times are a comin!
by Dattaraj 3 years ago
I have read some articles that suggest Atheists are generally smarter than Theists. Someone shared a link in an Indian Facebook group and Atheists were like; "Theists are dumber because their minds are occupied with fear all the time, and they can't concentrate on studies......." These...
by PaulStaley1 2 years ago
Is a college degree a measure of intelligence?I don't have a degree. Because of that I think I have a chip on my shoulder. I see so many people out there with degrees that are just plain morons. I think, nowadays more then ever, it is more about money, and showing your...
by pisean282311 6 years ago
guys christianity is slowly and gradually on decline...Islam is growing religion but at same time no of agnostics , atheist are increasing...so what do you think would replace christianity?...islam or atheism/agnosticism?
by kdawson 24 months ago
Do smart people scare you?Do you think "average" people are frightened by "intelligent" people. I don't consider myself that intelligent, but apparently come across that way and it seems to put some people off.
by Michael Valencia 5 years ago
Is it better to be attractive with average intelligence, or intelligent with average looks?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
that other people must believe as THEY do?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|