Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Stacey)
    There are many atheists who are not logical thinkers lol


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Unfortunately so, but the educated ones, which I presume s/he is, then it's alright.

    Could be worse, could be an American Christian from the Southern States!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toadie)
    Unfortunately so, but the educated ones, which I presume s/he is, then it's alright.

    Could be worse, could be an American Christian from the Southern States!
    To be educated, you must go through the whole process of education.
    Unfortunately, I've not been educated yet. I'm studying A-levels haha.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExMus)
    To be educated, you must go through the whole process of education.
    Unfortunately, I've not been educated yet. I'm studying A-levels haha.
    Well I didn't quite mean that, I mean you're not some Atheist who's just dumb and lazy and is generally a **** all round. You escaped a religion that's quite resistant to leavers. I assume you saw sense that when you die you die and you'd rather live the life you have than dedicating it to a guy who doesn't exist
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExMus)
    Why can't it? God's existence may very well be subject to empirical evidence. Of course we don't know. I think there is a substantial lack of evidence for the existence of God, empirical or otherwise, which makes a belief in him illogical. Regardless, there must be some sort of evidence supporting a higher power for one to believe in such a power, but of course there isn't.
    Why can't god be subject to scientific evidence? Let us attempt to conceive of something infinite. What empirical evidence can there be for capturing some infinite? If there are tools or some sort of way for a finite thing to discover empirical evidence of an infinite thing then it would be possible. However the bigger problem is not that there aren't any tools... But the fact that scientific evidence cannot be obtained for something infinite. Science deals with things which are finite, hence the empirical world, and so when you assume that the existence of god can be subject to scientist evidence, you are simply mistaking your understanding of the idea of God and dismissing the existence of god on the grounds of a criterion which does not apply to the verification of gods existence.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Velasco)
    Was it a gradual process, or was there a clean break (mentally, emotionally, spiritually) at some point?
    Were there any events along the way that pushed or prodded you along this way...ie, any kind of pain or disappointments or unanswered prayers?
    How was it adjusting to life post-Islam?
    Did you have to start from scratch making new friends, finding a new support base? Even if you still have family in your life, do you find it hard(er) to fully commit your feelings to relationships with Muslims now that you are no longer one (and know they would reject you if they knew)?

    How has your behaviour changed? Your daily routine, how you interact with people, what's the same and what is different? Are you more open to outsiders and new experiences now, or is it the same?
    I've said before: "When I was 13, I thought it was perfectly acceptable to stone gays, apostates and adulterers. By 15, I lost most of my faith in Islam for simply being more confident in my sense of morality (believing stoning shouldn't be acceptable and I wasn't homophobic anymore, which is also when I realised I cannot express my views for the sake of my safety) and thinking: "if allah's views aren't similar to mine, then I hate him" and they weren't similar. I soon had realised, regardless of whether it was doctrine, a good God shouldn't allow stoning to take place, stoning of young girls for being raped, allow child marriages, etc., and the whole "life is a test" thing really pissed me off to the point where I despised God but still had a bit of faith he existed - i believed he is just malevolent. A lot has changed in a few years evidently as I am now non-religious."

    It was a gradual year-long process filled with anger but mostly sadness. It came to a point where I had to ask myself if I want to support this religion - this type of thinking - and the answer was no and i was happiest I've ever been. There was this one specific event that I'd rather not talk about which sort of acted as a catalyst in me losing my faith. And I have great relationships with some muslims as well as my parents.

    My behaviour has changed a lot. I find it hard to tolerate disgusting homophobic and sexist behaviour so I try my best to stand up for it now. I am the same with new people. I don't think I judge people by their faith or orientation or sex and since losing religion i have become accepting of a lot of things. It was and is the best thing for my life and I feel way more secure and confident as a result.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Stacey)
    So when you observe or conceive of, let's say, a group of kids setting a cat in flames; what makes you decide that what you have observed or conceived is wrong?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Missed this question.

    My sense of empathy firstly would almost make me tear. They are clearly harming a cat immensely and I'd be driven, not only by empathy but also the age old teaching of treating human beings (cat in this case) the way you want to be treated, to help the cat. I firmly believe harming beings is wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExMus)
    Missed this question.

    My sense of empathy firstly would almost make me tear. They are clearly harming a cat immensely and I'd be driven, not only by empathy but also the age old teaching of treating human beings (cat in this case) the way you want to be treated, to help the cat. I firmly believe harming beings is wrong.
    So basically your emotions determine your morality


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Stacey)
    So basically your emotions determine your morality


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't think a sense of empathy is illogical. Empathy can be a result of reasoning and many times it is.

    Edit: empathising could be reasoned but the tearing is a natural human response.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExMus)
    I don't think a sense of empathy is illogical. Empathy can be a result of reasoning and many times it is.
    I don't think empathy is logical or illogical. I believe empathy to be the capacity to recognise emotions being experienced by another thing, and from that there are emotions responding to it. Can empathy be a result of reasoning? When you observe the cat in flames do you then reason from that introducing empathy? I believe empathy does not require any reasoning because it does not involve any reasoning; therefore empathy must be an immediate thing which is experienced.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Stacey)
    Why can't god be subject to scientific evidence? Let us attempt to conceive of something infinite. What empirical evidence can there be for capturing some infinite? If there are tools or some sort of way for a finite thing to discover empirical evidence of an infinite thing then it would be possible. However the bigger problem is not that there aren't any tools... But the fact that scientific evidence cannot be obtained for something infinite. Science deals with things which are finite, hence the empirical world, and so when you assume that the existence of god can be subject to scientist evidence, you are simply mistaking your understanding of the idea of God and dismissing the existence of god on the grounds of a criterion which does not apply to the verification of gods existence.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I believe science tells us the universe is infinite and this notion explains what the universe is expanding into - itself, since infinite goes into infinite.
    My objective is not to verify the existence of god; I have said it time and time again. And you are assuming there is a god to verify, a god who is infinite which probably isn't true because the existence of god is as probably as a half-donkey whatever somewhere in neptune.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExMus)
    I believe science tells us the universe is infinite and this notion explains what the universe is expanding into - itself, since infinite goes into infinite.
    My objective is not to verify the existence of god; I have said it time and time again. And you are assuming there is a god to verify, a god who is infinite which probably isn't true because the existence of god is as probably as a half-donkey whatever somewhere in neptune.
    There have also been theories in science claiming that the universe is actually finite, rather than infinite. What I am saying is that the grounds on which you dismiss the existence of God is not reasonable as I have explained before. God by definition is infinite, and that is why dismissing Gods existence based on the absence of scientific evidence, which only captures finite data, does not offer any reason to accept the non-existence of God.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Stacey)
    I don't think empathy is logical or illogical. I believe empathy to be the capacity to recognise emotions being experienced by another thing, and from that there are emotions responding to it. Can empathy be a result of reasoning? When you observe the cat in flames do you then reason from that introducing empathy? I believe empathy does not require any reasoning, but because it does not involve any reasoning; therefore empathy must be an immediate thing which is experienced.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's easier to empathise with an innocent murdered victim rather than a murder simply because of logical reasoning such as: asking yourself "was it fair on the murdered victim?"; or simply thinking about the pain it caused the victim and whether he/she deserved it. Now let's make that innocent murdered victim stalin. Now you probably will find it hard to empathise: that is again because of reasoning. You would probably not feel sorry for murdered stalin because he probably deserved it since he caused pain to many around the word. The feeling of empathy is gone because or logic and reason. The fact that you feel empathy for some while not for other shows that empathy is a result of logic and reason.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExMus)
    It's easier to empathise with an innocent murdered victim rather than a murder simply because of logical reasoning such as: asking yourself "was it fair on the murdered victim?"; or simply thinking about the pain it caused the victim and whether he/she deserved it. Now let's make that innocent murdered victim stalin. Now you probably will find it hard to empathise: that is again because of reasoning. You would probably not feel sorry for murdered stalin because he probably deserved it since he caused pain to many around the word. The feeling of empathy is gone because or logic and reason. The fact that you feel empathy for some while not for other shows that empathy is a result of logic and reason.
    It is not necessarily the case that it is gained through reasoning. And again, logic does not come into play here. The deciding factor are your emotions,and not logic and reasoning. Let's take the case of Stalin for instance, it is true that I would not feel sorry for him because of my other overpowering emotions which are more sympathetic to those who he has killed. Notice the deciding factor here are my emotions, and not any reasoning. We can also apply it to the case of the innocent murdered victim and the not so innocent... I do not need to ask myself anything at all, and that is because the deciding factor is not due to reason.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatMuslimGuy)
    So its based on what you view will harm others?
    It sure as hell is a better basis than "because this book that I think is written by god says so."
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Stacey)
    There have also been theories in science claiming that the universe is actually finite, rather than infinite. What I am saying is that the grounds on which you dismiss the existence of God is not reasonable as I have explained before. God by definition is infinite, and that is why dismissing Gods existence based on the absence of scientific evidence, which only captures finite data, does not offer any reason to accept the non-existence of God.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I only trust empirical evidence on the basis that it is the evidence that can be observed and studied, which is how all evidence should be (observed and studied). The infinitude of God does interest me, though, since there is no evidence for it, empirical or otherwise (to my knowledge) i dismiss his existence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Stacey)
    I do not need to ask myself anything at all, and that is because the deciding factor is not due to reason.
    It seems that you have not thought this through or simply don't want to (seeing as you don't feel the need to ask yourself anything at all), so let's dig deeper into your "non-reasoning" for why you feel the way you do in your example...

    Let's take the case of Stalin for instance, it is true that I would not feel sorry for him because of my other overpowering emotions which are more sympathetic to those who he has killed.
    Why do you think that your emotions are "more sympathetic to those who he has killed"? A great number of people are killed. Do you perceive that your emotions are equally sympathetic to each case of killing? If not, why not?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Stacey)
    It is not necessarily the case that it is gained through reasoning. And again, logic does not come into play here. The deciding factor are your emotions,and not logic and reasoning. Let's take the case of Stalin for instance, it is true that I would not feel sorry for him because of my other overpowering emotions which are more sympathetic to those who he has killed. Notice the deciding factor here are my emotions, and not any reasoning. We can also apply it to the case of the innocent murdered victim and the not so innocent... I do not need to ask myself anything at all, and that is because the deciding factor is not due to reason.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm getting a strong feeling we both empathise in different ways. I've always empathised and felt sad after reasoning and much thinking. It is the way I think and base much of what I do on and perhaps you do stuff your way. For me, it is very clear you can empathise through reasoning as I have explained earlier.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExMus)
    I've said before: "When I was 13, I thought it was perfectly acceptable to stone gays, apostates and adulterers. By 15, I lost most of my faith in Islam for simply being more confident in my sense of morality (believing stoning shouldn't be acceptable and I wasn't homophobic anymore, which is also when I realised I cannot express my views for the sake of my safety) and thinking: "if allah's views aren't similar to mine, then I hate him" and they weren't similar. I soon had realised, regardless of whether it was doctrine, a good God shouldn't allow stoning to take place, stoning of young girls for being raped, allow child marriages, etc., and the whole "life is a test" thing really pissed me off to the point where I despised God but still had a bit of faith he existed - i believed he is just malevolent. A lot has changed in a few years evidently as I am now non-religious."

    It was a gradual year-long process filled with anger but mostly sadness. It came to a point where I had to ask myself if I want to support this religion - this type of thinking - and the answer was no and i was happiest I've ever been. There was this one specific event that I'd rather not talk about which sort of acted as a catalyst in me losing my faith. And I have great relationships with some muslims as well as my parents.

    My behaviour has changed a lot. I find it hard to tolerate disgusting homophobic and sexist behaviour so I try my best to stand up for it now. I am the same with new people. I don't think I judge people by their faith or orientation or sex and since losing religion i have become accepting of a lot of things. It was and is the best thing for my life and I feel way more secure and confident as a result.
    My apologies, I read through but missed that. Thanks for the answers, very interesting.

    Did you come into contact with apostates, and gays, and adulterers (or maybe just sexually active teens) at that time, that influenced your thought process? Or did it just dawn on you as you grew older?

    Have you ever experienced anything one might deem supernatural or a miracle?

    Do you think the people around you have noticed those changes? Even the Muslim people around you (ie, the family) have they noted you becoming more open and tolerant?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeLite)
    It seems that you have not thought this through or simply don't want to (seeing as you don't feel the need to ask yourself anything at all), so let's dig deeper into your "non-reasoning" for why you feel the way you do in your example...


    Why do you think that your emotions are "more sympathetic to those who he has killed"? A great number of people are killed. Do you perceive that your emotions are equally sympathetic to each case of killing? If not, why not?
    Maybe I haven't thought this through so let's discover why I feel the way I do.

    Why do you think that your emotions are "more sympathetic to those who he has killed"?
    Hmm maybe I think that my emotions are more sympathetic to those who he has killed because of the thought of the act which I conceive, the act of mass murder arouses intense emotions of disgust and of disapproval etc.

    Do you perceive that your emotions are equally sympathetic to each case of killing?
    I'm not too sure, I would have to research into each case of the killing, for different scenarios will determine how sympathetic my emotions are.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Velasco)
    My apologies, I read through but missed that. Thanks for the answers, very interesting.

    Did you come into contact with apostates, and gays, and adulterers (or maybe just sexually active teens) at that time, that influenced your thought process? Or did it just dawn on you as you grew older?

    Have you ever experienced anything one might deem supernatural or a miracle?

    Do you think the people around you have noticed those changes? Even the Muslim people around you (ie, the family) have they noted you becoming more open and tolerant?
    I came into contact with gays and sexually active teens, but the biggest factor certainly was that it dawned on me as I grew older.

    No I haven't. Well, come to think of it, while half conscious i saw this 5 ft pale lady walk in through my door and then just vanish. I think it was my head playing games. But what I am more sure of is that you are referring to a religious experience rather than an odd supernatural one haha.

    My mum certainly has noticed me being a bit more relaxed - she noticed i don't do friday prayers or fast at all anymore, though I am sure it doesn't cross her mind much. My friends have tried and asked me to go pray with them on fridays and they used to ask why I don't go anymore to which i used to reply, I am not so practicing (which sufficed after some persistence). They have since gave up with trying.
    As regard to openness, yes. I argue with my parents against arranged marriage usually and how it is damaging to certain parties involved and stuff and they kinda started agreeing with me, which was quite surprising.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.