Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?

[gang4]

Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?
You need tools to prove something and mathematics is widely accepted as a tool to prove all kinds of things...

6 apples = 2 x 3 apples

Mathematical operations like addition, multiplications etc usually are dealing with numbers or variables representing the quantification of units.
The type of units can be all kind of things like hours in time, feet or meter in space, lbs or kg in weights etc.
Notice, the process of quantification involves taking measurements in finite. One minute = 60 seconds like a stop watch we chop it off the starting time to the end of time measurements.

The distance between LA to NY is x miles. In other words, the measurements in finite = the end point - starting point.

All kinds of things in reality can be measured in finite way and has to be measured this way.

What is reality? It's just an event that exists in the space-time dimension. Bill Clinton as a president was a reality (time ref.point= between period of 1992-2000; space ref. point= in US) while Bush is a son of a ....(well, that's arguable)...

But, It's not realistic to say Blair is the president of United States (since time and space ref.points= nada). In other words, Blair as the president of United States is an imaginary event.

'Things' in reality by its very nature is limited. The unlimited thing or infinite only exists in mathematical mind or mindscape or whatever you want to call it.
Since human part of 'Things in reality' the way our mind works is limited or finite hence our logic does not build too well to deal with infinity.

The problem arises when our finite mind try to deal with infinity. In early 1600s Galileo nicely asserted: "When we attempt, with our finite minds, to discuss the infinite, assigning to it those properties which we give to the finite and limited; but this I think is wrong, for we cannot speak of infinite quantities as being the one greater or less than or equal to another"

This assertion is supported by an example called Galileo's paradox:
1->1; 2->4; 3->9; 4->16; 5->25; 6->36...

The paradoxical situation arises because, on the one hand, it seems evident that most natural numbers are not perfect squares (2,4,9 etc); so that the set of perfect squares is smaller than the set of all natural numbers; but, on the other hand, since every natural number is the square root of exactly one perfect square, it would seem that there are just as many perfect squares as natural numbers.

Galileo said:"We can only infer that the totality of all numbers is infinite, and that the number of squares is infinite...;neither is the number of squares less than the totality of all numbers, nor the latter greater than the former; and finally, the attributes 'equal', 'greater', and 'less' are not applicable to infinite, but only to finite quantities."

Note, Galileo himself did not really know how to deal with this situation; this was to be the task of Georg Cantor, some 250 years later. In other words, infinite has a different set of rules, a different arithmetics from finite numbers.

Everyone who has ever survived a first year calculus course knows, the formula:
(f(x+dt) - f(x)/dt)

The quantity dt is called an infinitesimal, and obeys many strange rules. if dt is added to a regular number, then it can be ignored, treated like zero. But, on the other hand, dt is regarded as being different enough from zero to be usable as the denominator of a fraction. So is dt zero or not? Adding finitely many infinitesimals together just gives another infinitesimal. But adding infinitely many of them together can give either an ordinary number, or an infinitely large quantity.

Why mentions mathematical mumble-bable?

If atheist believes there is no God unless it's proven otherwise then atheist still leaves the possibility remains open for the existency of God... atheist asks for proof.

If the proof of God is something related to 'human senses' or 'Things' atheist can see, touch, smell, and hear...The thing is, the process of human senses by its nature is limited or finite process, hence the problem arises since God by characteristical definition CAN NOT be FINITE! God is characterized by the absence of limit or INFINITE!

Says who?

Plotinus was the first thinker after Plato to adopt the belief that God or the Absolutely One, it has never known measure and stands outside of number, and so is under no limit either in regard to anything external or internal; for any such determination would bring something of the dual into it.

St. Augustine who believed not only that God was infinite but also that God could think infinite thoughts.

and many others, but one of the best is:
Georg Cantor who created a theory of the actual infinite which by its apparent consistency said:
"The actual infinite arises in three context:
first when it is realized in the most complete form, in a fully independent other-worldly being, in Deo, where I call it the Absolute Infinite or simply Abo****e;
second when it occurs in the contingent, created world;
third when the mind grasps it in abstracto as a mathematical magnitude, number or order type. I wish to make a sharp contrast between the Absolute and what I call the Transfinite, that is, the actual infinites of the last two sorts, which are clearly limited subject to further increase, and thus related to the finite"

Note: Cantor is one of the best infinite-mathematicians and he acknowledges the Absolute Infinite, if atheist knows better, try to have a theory that beats his...

To ask proof God existence based on direct empirical data (which is itself a result of finite measurement) is demanding to put infinite into rules of finite which only leads you to nowhere just like Galileo's paradox.

Based on direct empirical data, no human can prove God Existence but applying the same rule atheist also can not prove the inexistency of God either. Why not? because The Absolute Infinite is free from all kinds of influence, like Cantor said fully independent other-worldly being. Since the process to prove or disprove the existency of God is finite hence coercing infinite to finite would be an impossible task. Notice Cantor said only the Transfinite the last two sorts of the actual infinites related to the finite NOT the Absolute Infinite.

Is God only imagination or not realistic since there is no space and time ref.points to be found? Unless of course, if you believe in christian doctrines whereas God in human form visited Earth 2000 years ago in Bethlehem.

A Big If, If atheist for some reasons finally believe in God, would you believe in God who goes to the bathroom?


Back to the question, Is God only imagination or not realistic since there is no space and time ref.points to be found? Or if The unlimited thing or infinite only exists in mathematical mind or mindscape or whatever you want to call it, does it mean God exists only in our mind?

Again, this type of questioning or processing information of finite won't be applicable to the Absolute Infinite. Why not? Again, see Galileo's Paradox and Cantor's first context of actual infinite.

There is a limitation of human mind among others to answer specially this kind of questions. Where's the proof? Read Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Because you CAN NOT know what is God, the totality of truth that is the ultimate reality is inevitable some information (like this kind of questions) we simply can not know the answer. this is the fundamental result of modern logic established seventy years ago called godel's proof where godel pointed out that human mind reasons by starting with axioms and from axioms he builds theorems.

Kurt Godel pointed out in any system of axioms you must in order the system to be consistent is must have missing some axioms. You can not capture in any system of logic all of the truth without building a self-destructing mechanism. It's like a sound system that capables to produce any kind of sounds. It can produce a very sound that vibrates so hard that shakes and destroys itself to pieces. In other words, in every axiom-system eventually run into problems that it cannot solve at all hence called Incompleteness Theorem.

This is a mathematical result proven mathematically not some guess work!
If atheist still insists on asking this type of questions, try to disprove the Godel's theorem prior to ask.

To help us escaping from confusions, God sent His prophets to mankind.
christian believes God reveals Himself while muslim believes God reveals His Wills. God reveals what God wants us to know. Through oberservations of His creations relatively and indirectly we confirm the existency of God. 'Relatively' implies believers have confirmed and unbelievers still at lost and decided to become atheist.

The confirmation process peculiarly resembling variable dt or infinitesimal, and also seems to obey strange rules. if one ignores God in his or her daily's life then the existency of God tends to be nullified, treated like zero or God does not Exist. But, on the other hand, when God is highly regarded in his or her daily's life then not only God does Exist but also plays as a factor on his or her behaviors.

Nobody was born as an atheist. Atheist is the by product of one's own logical thinking. At least atheist got some portion right...."There is no God",

what atheist perhaps need is the remaining words, to complete the sentence
"There is no God, but He, most Gracious, most Merciful"

In contrast to christianity, the islamic position is in agreement with what it is known to be the facts of modern logic (in youtube.com, some videos of mathematician professors revert to Islam). Also, Muslim has the amazing Al-Qur'an.

Al-Qur'an, 004.082 (An-Nisa [Women])


004.082 أَفَلا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِنْدِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلافًا كَثِيرًا
004.082 Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.

It is not natural for human being to claim a book free of error. Al-Qur'an can not be made by human but rather must be revealed from Allah to our beloved prophet Muhammad S.A.W

For 1400 years, the unbelievers try to find mistakes in it to no avail. Sure you may find people who claim they found lots of errors in it (********************). But either they are too ignorance to hear the explanations of so-called errors by muslim experts or they only interested to shout errors and close the door.

Go ahead find one mistake, if you do, the vatican may love to hear from you and may even pay you millions of dollars. But the chances are, whatever you might find, the so-called mistake won't be new rather an old song being recycled again and again for 1400 years.

You won't find any contradictions in Al-Qur'an rather contra-distinctions.

Al-Qur'an, 002.023-024 (Al-Baqara [The Cow])

002.023 وَإِنْ كُنْتُمْ فِي رَيْبٍ مِمَّا نَزَّلْنَا عَلَى عَبْدِنَا فَأْتُوا بِسُورَةٍ مِنْ مِثْلِهِ وَادْعُوا شُهَدَاءَكُمْ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
002.023 And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.

002.024 فَإِنْ لَمْ تَفْعَلُوا وَلَنْ تَفْعَلُوا فَاتَّقُوا النَّارَ الَّتِي وَقُودُهَا النَّاسُ وَالْحِجَارَةُ أُعِدَّتْ لِلْكَافِرِينَ
002.024 But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith.


Millions of non-muslims speak/write and some are experts in Arabic language. For 1400 years, none has satisfied this challenge....like the ayah/verse said... of a surety ye cannot!


Of course, many unbelievers will never turn to Islam (based on their free will decision),

Al-Qur'an, 007.179 (Al-Araf [The Heights])
007.179 وَلَقَدْ ذَرَأْنَا لِجَهَنَّمَ كَثِيرًا مِنَ الْجِنِّ وَالإنْسِ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لا يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ لا يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ آذَانٌ لا يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا أُولَئِكَ كَالأنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ أُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْغَافِلُونَ
007.179 Many are the Jinns and men we have made for Hell: They have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith they hear not. They are like cattle,- nay more misguided: for they are heedless (of warning).


When you are at dinning table do you take those meals which you would not so much as look at? No, assuredly. So, you shall not receive that which you will not desire. If you desire to know God ask for guidance in your heart.

Human logic can err; most of the time they almost always err; It is certain that without Iman (Faith based on confirmation of logic) it is impossible to know God.

If you ask once and get no guidance. Well, Have you seen people who practice shooting at a mark? Assuredly they shoot many times in vain. they never wish to shoot in vain, but are always in hope to hit the mark. You who ever desire to know God, keep asking, if God wills, surely you will receive guidance.

The carnal eyes can only see things gross and external: But believers have spiritual eyesight which is the Iman/faith of God, wherefore we can see our God in every place (metaphorically speaking).

[silkworm]

One of the most far-reaching consequences of the rationalism of the Enlightenment was the undermining of basic Christian faith among the educated classes. The effect was unintended because the project of many Enlightenment philosophers was to prove the existence of God using reason: Descartes and Leibniz assumed that God's existence could be rationally proved, indeed God was a necessary part of their philosophy.

There are many traditional "proofs" for the existence of God, and we will look at three of them: The argument from design, the ontological argument and the cosmological argument.
Traditional "proofs" of God's Existence

1) The argument from Design.
If you found a clock and examined the mechanism within it, you would probably think that this intricate mechanism was not the outcome of mere chance, that it had been designed.
Now look at the universe; is it possible that such an intricate mechanism, from the orbits of planets round the sun to the cells in your fingernails could all have happened by chance? Surely, this enormously complex mechanism has been designed, and the being that designed it must be God.

2) The ontological argument
God is the perfect being. As He is most perfect, He must have all perfections. If God lacked existence He would not be perfect, as He is perfect he must exist.

3) The cosmological argument (God as "First cause")
Everything that exists has a cause. However, there must at some time have been a cause prior to all other causes. This 'prime mover' or first cause is necessary to explain existence. This first cause is God.


Pascal's Wager

The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.)
His argument goes something like this: God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures.
If we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face eternal ****ation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins will not be punished.
Would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal ****ation?

Kant

Kant attempted to show how philosophy could prove the existence of God. Unfortunately, for him his previous work showed that we could not know reality directly as thing-in-itself. What is real in itself is beyond our experience. Even if God exists, we can not know God as he really is.
For Kant the Christian could have faith in God, and this faith would be consonant with reason and the categorical imperative. Given that human beings have the autonomy to create moral values, it would not be irrational to believe in a God who gives purpose to the moral realm.

Hegel

Hegel thought that the God of religion was an intuition of Absolute Spirit or Geist. Hegel's Geist is not like the transcendent (outside of our consciousness) God of traditional Christianity. For Hegel God is immanent and when we have understood that history is the process of Geist coming to know itself it appears that we are all part of Geist, or God.

Feuerbach and Marx

For Feuerbach and Marx religion is seen as the projection of the human essence onto an ideal: God does not make man. Rather "God" is the invention of human consciousness. Marx also sees that religion is part of an ideological view that encourages the oppressed to accept their fate. As he says: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions."

Søren Kierkegaard

Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) agreed with Kant that the existence of God could not be proven by reason. However Kierkegaard did not think that it was rational to believe in God, rather one should have faith in God even if this seems to reason to be absurd. To put it another way reason has no place in faith. God is beyond reason.
Kierkegaard is regarded as the first existentialist.

Nietzsche: The Death of God

"Have you not heard the madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and cried incessantly, 'I seek God!, I seek God!' ... Why, did he get lost? Said one. Did he lose his way like a child? Said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Or emigrated?... The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his glances.
"'Whither is God'? He cried. 'I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers...'"
"...the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they to were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke and went out. 'I came too early,' he said then; 'my time has not come yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering -it has not yet reached the ears of man."

In these passages Nietzsche is showing the inevitable unfolding anthropocentrism (lit. putting man at the centre of the world) implicit in philosophy since Kant. If we view our existence through human categories, then our concept of God is itself a human creation.
Nietzsche is not simply asserting his atheism; he is suggesting that once we are aware that the concept of God is our own creation we can no longer base our religious and moral beliefs on any notion of a divine external reality.

In the period that Nietzsche was writing, the death of God was just beginning. Western thought was starting to face the prospect of a radical change in its orientation, and it wasn't quite ready to own up to it yet.

Kierkegaard and Nietzsche represent opposite reactions to the inability of rationality to give a rock solid theoretical proof of God's existence. Kierkegaard calls for us to embrace God even if it seems an absurdity, while Nietzsche says it is time for us to create a new mode of being, with human creativity at its centre.

The atheist existentialist Sartre accepted God's death and much of his writing is attempt to look at the human condition in a world that is without a prime mover who could have provided a basis and structure for the understanding of being.

The twentieth century
Anglo American analytic philosophers of the twentieth century have tended to agree that philosophy may help us clarify religious concepts, without giving us a secure foundation for religious belief.

Many people claim to have had a religious experience, to have experienced the divine directly. This experience is direct and is of a different quality to sensory experience or intellectual discovery, and therefore outside of the scope of philosophy.

The view that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved by philosophy has not stopped developments in modern theology. Theologians are attempting to balance the anthropocentric view of God presented by philosophers since the Enlightenment with the need to provide a spiritual path and a guide to an ethical and meaningful way of life.

[MTAFFI]

one of the most interesting threads I have ever had the pleasure of reading on this forum.. thank you :)

[Gator]

If atheist believes there is no God unless it's proven otherwise then atheist still leaves the possibility remains open for the existency of God... atheist asks for proof.

If the proof of God is something related to 'human senses' or 'Things' atheist can see, touch, smell, and hear...The thing is, the process of human senses by its nature is limited or finite process, hence the problem arises since God by characteristical definition CAN NOT be FINITE! God is characterized by the absence of limit or INFINITE!

Hi there. Here is where your line of arguement breaks down for me.

I am not an atheist because I don't have direct evidence of god. I don't ask for proof because as a philisophical matter proof is impossible.

I am an atheist because I have not seen a description of god that reasonably describe how things work based on my experience of the world and how my mind process it better than atheism.

I would be ok with indirect evidence or even a description that reasonable describes reality as I experience and process it. To date I have not encountered this.

So the rest of your argument doesn't really flow.

Interesting thread though.

Thanks.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[gang4]

Hi there. Here is where your line of arguement breaks down for me.

I am not an atheist because I don't have direct evidence of god. I don't ask for proof because as a philisophical matter proof is impossible.

I am an atheist because I have not seen a description of god that reasonably describe how things work based on my experience of the world and how my mind process it better than atheism.

I would be ok with indirect evidence or even a description that reasonable describes reality as I experience and process it. To date I have not encountered this.

So the rest of your argument doesn't really flow.

Interesting thread though.

Thanks.

To me Al-Qur'an is without errors. Of course for the unbelievers it does. If the unbelievers believe they can err Al-Qur'an, me a merely human who composed arguments for sure isn't infallible.

If my arguments break down according to your believe, of course your absolutely right.

To my personal believe, you have a solid arguments...You are absolutely right, and I am absolutely wrong.

and Your welcome... good luck with your life if you believe in luck of course... if you don't... well, have a nice day.

[Trumble]

If my arguments break down according to your believe, of course your absolutely right.

You present a reasonable case, independent of the readers belief, that the existence or otherwise of God could never be established using philosophical or mathematical means. It does not prove that not least because the whole thing is based on a MASSIVE assumption and consequently analogy that is highly dubious; that 'infinite' as a concept applied to part of the nature of God is the same (or at least close enough) to 'infinite' as a mathematical concept. If you describe those two things they are simply not the same and you need to justify how they can be equated. I rather suspect that is impossible, too!

However, even if your case is accepted that is no reason to stop being an atheist as Gator points out. Most atheists would accept the point; if the existence or non-existence of God could be proven in that way somebody would probably have done it by now. Your version of an atheist is something of a strawman.

I'm not really sure what the relevance of the last part (from "In contrast to Christianity" onwards) is supposed to be?

Many people claim to have had a religious experience, to have experienced the divine directly. This experience is direct and is of a different quality to sensory experience or intellectual discovery, and therefore outside of the scope of philosophy.

I'd certainly qualify the word 'philosophy' in that connection. It's certainly not outside the scope of most 'Eastern' philosophy; indeed it's pretty much at the heart of it. Even 'Western Philosophy' would be within a particular tradition. Much Jewish, Christian and Islamic philosophy (well worthy of that label, as opposed to 'theology') quite happily embraces those concepts as well.

[ranma1/2]

i think if god where to show up that might help. Darn guy likes to play hide and seek though. Rather unfair when he can go invisible and intangible and hides all evidence of him existing..

[AvarAllahNoor]

Why would you want to 'prove' God existed? they choose not to accept all proof that's available, then let them continue the way they are. They seem content and those that believe are too.

[AvarAllahNoor]

i think if god where to show up that might help. Darn guy likes to play hide and seek though. Rather unfair when he can go invisible and intangible and hides all evidence of him existing..

''Jis Nu Toon Janai, So Jun Jannai''

''To whom you choose to reveal, shall aknowledge you''

You're not worthy mate lol :D

[AntiKarateKid]

Why would you want to 'prove' God existed? they choose not to accept all proof that's available, then let them continue the way they are. They seem content and those that believe are too.

True that. Allah guides whom he wants and atheists can can ignore everything they want. Truth is already here, they choose to ignore it.

[AvarAllahNoor]

True that. Allah guides whom he wants and atheists can can ignore everything they want. Truth is already here, they choose to ignore it.

Yupity yip yap yup!

It's good to debate though. You get to understand the other side too.

[ranma1/2]

lol, got to love the fundie responce. Your same kind of evidedince is the same kind that every other religion uses to validify their own god. Why do you ignore thor? GFSM? or the others?

[AvarAllahNoor]

lol, got to love the fundie responce. Your same kind of evidedince is the same kind that every other religion uses to validify their own god. Why do you ignore thor? GFSM? or the others?

Does Thor have a Scripture?

[Muezzin]

lol, got to love the fundie responce. Your same kind of evidedince is the same kind that every other religion uses to validify their own god. Why do you ignore thor? GFSM? or the others?

That's not very tolerant. I thought you'd be above petty namecalling.

Does Thor have a Scripture?

That's, like, the modernised version.

[------]

i think if god where to show up that might help. Darn guy likes to play hide and seek though. Rather unfair when he can go invisible and intangible and hides all evidence of him existing..

I think if you see common sense that might help. Darn guy is blind to the truth. Rather unfair that you choose to ignore the proofs presented to you and shun aside the evidence.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

a lot of atheists have gotten sufficient proof of Gods existence and thus embraced a religion.


to the ones still searching, we hope they too see it one day. It takes reflection, deep deep reflection and... most importantly sincerity


i think anyone who sincerely searches shall end up finding the one true God, as long as they search sincerely the whole journey. It wont help if you start off with good intentions and then your intentions become distorted along the way... and keeping intentions pure must be one of the hardest things ever...

[ranma1/2]

Does Thor have a Scripture?

i think marvel does the publishing

[ranma1/2]

I think if you see common sense that might help. Darn guy is blind to the truth. Rather unfair that you choose to ignore the proofs presented to you and shun aside the evidence.

ones mans "truth^tm" is another mans story. ill deal with facts thankyou. So why are you blinded to the truth of Thor, Jesus, FSM, Buddha.....

[ranma1/2]

a lot of atheists have gotten sufficient proof of Gods existence and thus embraced a religion.


to the ones still searching, we hope they too see it one day. It takes reflection, deep deep reflection and... most importantly sincerity


i think anyone who sincerely searches shall end up finding the one true God, as long as they search sincerely the whole journey. It wont help if you start off with good intentions and then your intentions become distorted along the way... and keeping intentions pure must be one of the hardest things ever...

true, many have gotten sufficent info to become a christian, jew, muslim, hindi, bahai, buddhists ect... its odd isnt it that they dont agree??

[------]

ones mans "truth^tm" is another mans story. ill deal with facts thankyou. So why are you blinded to the truth of Thor, Jesus, FSM, Buddha.....

:salamext:

Thor is a HUMAN character.

Jesus - we believe in him

who the hek is FSM

Buddha - yeh thats what we call old people.. ;D

[IbnAbdulHakim]

true, many have gotten sufficent info to become a christian, jew, muslim, hindi, bahai, buddhists ect... its odd isnt it that they dont agree??

most people do agree.

infact i find most people find the idea of One God creating everything most appealing and most comprehendable.



i dont know, i thnk some people find that their freedome is compromised if they enter into a faith thus remain atheistic. They dont want a theology or a set rule, they dont want anything organised, they want to live by their own idea's, whims and desires and thus find religion very restricting.



ranma, i think you will also claim to have no proof for the existence of God and in all honesty i cant see what more proof you require....

[ranma1/2]

most people do agree.

infact i find most people find the idea of One God creating everything most appealing and most comprehendable.

i dont know, i thnk some people find that their freedome is compromised if they enter into a faith thus remain atheistic. They dont want a theology or a set rule, they dont want anything organised, they want to live by their own idea's, whims and desires and thus find religion very restricting.

ranma, i think you will also claim to have no proof for the existence of God and in all honesty i cant see what more proof you require....

I thought i was clear, guess not. most people disagree on which religion is right or god for that matter, or is everyone christian? or some other religion?

as for one god, which one? jewish, christian, muslim? I know you may think they are the same but they certainly dont. And despite how good it maymake you feel thats no reason except emotion. It may make me feel better to think there is a santa claus, it doesnt make it so.
As for why be atheist? it varies, im sure some are that way. For me ist becuase i find no evidence for any god. (oh and you can be religious and an atheists. Ask a buddhists) Not to menthion that Atheistism deals only with a belief in god/s. it deals nothing with morals. Thats for each individual to decide. (including you.)

and what "proof" do you think exists? your book? what about the christians book? or bahai? or hindi.. ect...

[------]

:salamext:

For me is becuase i find no evidence for any god.

I feel sorry for you. I pray Allaah Guides you to the Straight Path. Ameen.

[AvarAllahNoor]

I thought i was clear, guess not. most people disagree on which religion is right or god for that matter, or is everyone christian? or some other religion?

as for one god, which one? jewish, christian, muslim? I know you may think they are the same but they certainly dont. And despite how good it maymake you feel thats no reason except emotion. It may make me feel better to think there is a santa claus, it doesnt make it so.
As for why be atheist? it varies, im sure some are that way. For me ist becuase i find no evidence for any god. (oh and you can be religious and an atheists. Ask a buddhists) Not to menthion that Atheistism deals only with a belief in god/s. it deals nothing with morals. Thats for each individual to decide. (including you.)

and what "proof" do you think exists? your book? what about the christians book? or bahai? or hindi.. ect...

You forgot the Sikhs, who believe in unity and the oneness of all humans and the oneness of God regardless of Religion.

I believe because I've read my Scriptures, and it's luring. It makes me wonder the creation of life, human and animal as well as plants. The thought that a Master has created it all, yes i ponder over what the purpose is. I don't know that and doubt I ever will. But, if it makes me a better person in following it and I treat my fellow humans in a respectful and amicable way. Is that so hard to fathom?

[ranma1/2]

:salamext:



I feel sorry for you. I pray Allaah Guides you to the Straight Path. Ameen.

may dawkins bless you ;)

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I thought i was clear, guess not. most people disagree on which religion is right or god for that matter, or is everyone christian? or some other religion?

as for one god, which one? jewish, christian, muslim? I know you may think they are the same but they certainly dont. And despite how good it maymake you feel thats no reason except emotion. It may make me feel better to think there is a santa claus, it doesnt make it so.
As for why be atheist? it varies, im sure some are that way. For me ist becuase i find no evidence for any god. (oh and you can be religious and an atheists. Ask a buddhists) Not to menthion that Atheistism deals only with a belief in god/s. it deals nothing with morals. Thats for each individual to decide. (including you.)

and what "proof" do you think exists? your book? what about the christians book? or bahai? or hindi.. ect...

your an old member here and im sure you've heard most of it by now.

all im saying to you is naturally emotions play a big part in it and whats wrong with that? BUT the ONLY reason i feel so emotionally strong about this is because it seems to be so clearly the truth! HOW can i feel emotionally strong about this if it didnt appear to be true to me? i NEVER felt emotionally strong about santa clause lolll or any other fake things out there ! so the comparison is ridiculous. ONE GOD exists, that to MOST is FACT, this God is PERFECT <-- again this to most is fact ! now all you have to do is look through the religions and see which one actually takes a God which is perfect in reality and not just all talk.


asking which religion to go for, every man has been given a brain, a way of life is REQUIRED, you cant expect a baby to find his way round london, in the same way a man cannot find his way through life without a guide! God gives us that guide.


i know everything ive said makes sense to you AND you've heard it before.



so i leave you with this...

MEH



peace

[------]

:salamext:

^ Nice advice bro.

[Trumble]

:salamext:

Thor is a HUMAN character.

Nope. Thor is/was a Norse god. Unless you are suggesting he is 'human' in the sense of being a fictitious creation by humans, in which case atheists think exactly the same is true of the Judeo/Christian/islamic God.

Does Thor have a Scripture?

It depends how you define 'scripture', but I would say "yes". The Norse myths easily predate the Qur'an. Thor was only one god of the pantheon, of course (with Odin, Loki, Freya, etc, etc). The comics don't count (although Thor was one of my favourites as a kid!)

[جوري]

I beg to differ with the title of the thread.. should read more like..
'Will atheists ever give proof of God's nonexistence'-- since they with the burden of proof of course to find a logical manner to explain all that is in existence.. preferably under one canopy considering they are often fond of the 'principle of parsimony'... In the end they too are subject to infractions resulting from the fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise... If at the inception is a non-demonstrable theory of their own making (panspermia) (abiogenesis) etc.. they too are illogical and are followers of a man made doctrine....

'Which God' and 'why' is much too advanced a topic for folks who don't believe in God or I should say believe in a lesser God being (palpable science) only.. there is no point discussing finite details on the flight manual when you can't distinguish a bird from a plane..


Ultimately you have folks who have replaced Thor, or odin for Darwin or Dawkin et al.

at the end we are all pretty evenly matched... except some of us like to take provisions for the road!


:w:

[ranma1/2]

I beg to differ with the title of the thread.. should read more like..
'Will atheists ever give proof of God's nonexistence'

silly Se, its not our job to prove a negative. Its yours to prove a positive.
Its not your job to prove im not god or I cant fly. If I make a positive claim then its my burnden.

-- since they with the burden of proof of course to find a logical manner to explain all that is in existence..

why? a simple honest answer of I dont know, or we are working on it is sufficent. Much better than a nonanswer like god did it. Can you tell us how god did it SE? or are you just saying god did it and leaving it at that?

....'Which God' and 'why' is much too advanced a topic for folks who don't believe in God or I should say believe in a lesser God being (palpable science) only.. there is no point discussing finite details on the flight manual when you can't distinguish a bird from a plane..

I think thats a very good topic. If you are discussing a gods existence you should determine which god.

Ultimately you have folks who have replaced Thor, or odin for Darwin or Dawkin et al.

may dawkins bless you.... ;)

seriously though, you can use your book to cure disease, and make advances and ill stay with the side that uses science.

[ranma1/2]

.. The comics don't count (although Thor was one of my favourites as a kid!)

How can you say they dont count??!!!

they are clearly inspired works and depict the works of thor in greater detail.

your lucky thor doesnt strike you down for that.

[جوري]

silly Se, its not our job to prove a negative. Its yours to prove a positive.

This is the sort of amphigouri that we are accustomed to from your person, and expresses nonesense.. Do you simply want to take up web space, or wish to bring every post down to a satirical cartoon for your own amusement?.. if the topic is well above you, which it is, why not skip it?

Its not your job to prove im not god or I cant fly. If I make a positive claim then its my burnden.

another sentence that makes no grammatical or philosophical sense..

why? a simple honest answer of I dont know,

I agree you don't!..

or we are working on it is sufficent.

Who are 'we' what are your qualifications and what methods are you employing to get there?

Much better than a nonanswer like god did it. Can you tell us how god did it SE? or are you just saying god did it and leaving it at that?

The none answer here is actually to 'believe' and especially on uncertain or tentative grounds and various surmises based otherwise on opinion and incomplete evidence.. albeit it a bit more coherent than what you are dishing out there!

I think thats a very good topic. If you are discussing a gods existence you should determine which god.

Indeed that is a topic for comparative religion to be shared amongest various theologians.. you don't meet minumum quota on any grounds.. I rather think it an insult to engage you.

may dawkins bless you.... ;)

May he take you to the abyss eternally with him...

seriously though, you can use your book to cure disease, and make advances and ill stay with the side that uses science.

So far even the science that you claim is your shibboleth hasn't done much to enhance your mental capacity so you can engage in a topic like an industrious adult!

cheers

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

There are no atheists on a sinking ship. :)

[Tornado]

Atheists will never get proof of God's existence unless a god is captured on video or speaks to each of us directly. Atheist have no faith :(

[root]

Atheists will never get proof of God's existence unless a god is captured on video or speaks to each of us directly. Atheist have no faith :(

You don't exactly strike me as being an atheist, and to this end I think you are a person of faith despite your pre-decleration as being a person without a belief in a god (of any description)

Consider, if an "atheist" did somehow (though I can't imagine how) obtain confirmation that God's existence was absolute, my question would be "would they accept it" or report it to the UN War Tribunial for crimes against humanity?

Personally this pie in the sky crap matters little.........

[Tornado]

You don't exactly strike me as being an atheist, and to this end I think you are a person of faith despite your pre-decleration as being a person without a belief in a god (of any description)

Consider, if an "atheist" did somehow (though I can't imagine how) obtain confirmation that God's existence was absolute, my question would be "would they accept it" or report it to the UN War Tribunial for crimes against humanity?

Personally this pie in the sky crap matters little.........

:) Atheists have no faith because if there is evidence, there is no need for faith. It's unlikely that such evidence will come forth and so that means we'll never get proof of his/her existence. If of course there is some god and a resurrection, then we'll find proof, but I guess that's a little too late.

[silkworm]

GOD EXISTS!
THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION!

The Humanists, those who believe in the Humanist religion, tells us that they find "insufficient evidence for a belief in the existence of a supernatural [meaning a God.]" They also proudly boast that "the time has passed for theism [a belief in a God.]"
John Dewey, "the father of progressive education," America's leading figure in public education, and a believer in the Humanist religion, wrote "There is no God, and there is no soul."

Yet the Humanists and John Dewey are dramatically wrong! You can know with scientific certainty that there is a God, and that there is no other option but knowledge that He is real!

A belief in God can now be based upon science, logic and reason! THERE IS A GOD!
THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION!

[Trumble]

Humanism is a belief system, not a religion.

Belief in God (and lack of it) has always been 'based on' reason and logic, to some extent or other. Unfortunately, while reason and logic are capable of proving most things they are only as good as the premises and assumptions that are fed into them. As atheists and theists will never accept each other's assumptions and, most of the time, are unable even to understand why their own assumptions are questionable (or even that they are making any assumptions at all), the exercise becomes one in total futility. There is no 'proof', only faith.

Of course there is another option; that there is no God.

[silkworm]

Yeah, humanism is ofcourse not a religion, but when it pumps "self-appreciation" into one's self and tells you that you are somehting very different and one of its kind, you are puffed up and your ego start to crawl inside of you.

Than, by doing this, you are actually segregatting yourself from society. Incidentally, the moment you start to work for your own benefit, you're sabotaging the "communal" feelings - Its another form of "Individualism".

During the period called Middle Ages, the words "personality" and "being" were used to mention God, after this scholarly genocide, these were dedicated to human traits, thus degrding God.

[Pygoscelis]

Incidentally, the moment you start to work for your own benefit, you're sabotaging the "communal" feelings - Its another form of "Individualism".

We Are Borg?

[Trumble]

Yeah, humanism is ofcourse not a religion, but when it pumps "self-appreciation" into one's self and tells you that you are somehting very different and one of its kind, you are puffed up and your ego start to crawl inside of you.

Rename 'self-appreciation' "self-respect" and few would have a problem with it.

[silkworm]

Yes, they say that Humanism is a religion, but a religion without scriptures and God, thats what they say and believe in.

[there there]

I think a more pressing question is whether people of faith will ever get empirical evidence of God.

[Tornado]

I think a more pressing question is whether people of faith will ever get empirical evidence of God.

If they got empirical evidence, they wouldn't need faith. If anyone got empirical evidence for a god and empirical evidence of Allah, then everyone would be muslim.

[Keltoi]

If they got empirical evidence, they wouldn't need faith. If anyone got empirical evidence for a god and empirical evidence of Allah, then everyone would be muslim.

Would they? I suppose they would if a divine being yelled down from the Heavens, "Call yourselves Muslims and call me Allah and live by the Qu'ran." However, if knowledge was gained suggesting a "being", outside of our human understanding, created and guides the universe, it would probably just reinforce theism of all creeds.

[Tornado]

Yea pretty much. Since I don't expect it to happen, then we atheist won't ever find proof of god's existence.

[AntiKarateKid]

its pretty obvious when atheists will get the message...


IN A FOXHOLE!!

When everything is about to be lost, you'll realize how all their talk and pomp vanishes and theyll be reduce to weeping for God.

A true theist on the other hand will not break down, they know the matter is in Allah's hands and if they have followed the Straight Path, they have nothing to worry about.

[AntiKarateKid]

Yea pretty much. Since I don't expect it to happen, then we atheist won't ever find proof of god's existence.

You have been exposed to the truth and have rejected it, hence your self proclaimed "atheism". Just because YOU refuse to recognize it doesnt mean it isnt there.

[Tornado]

You have been exposed to the truth and have rejected it, hence your self proclaimed "atheism". Just because YOU refuse to recognize it doesnt mean it isnt there.

A little tiresome, but what truth? I don't refuse, there's none there unless you wish to enlighten me.

[AntiKarateKid]

A little tiresome, but what truth? I don't refuse, there's none there unless you wish to enlighten me.

I know where that question is leading..hehe. Go find it, I am here to answer the topic of the thread and not to make you realize your destiny. You have already been enlightened numerous times probably, but refuse to accept it because it does not go along with your fancy.

[Tornado]

I know where that question is leading..hehe. Go find it, I am here to answer the topic of the thread and not to make you realize your destiny. You have already been enlightened numerous times probably, but refuse to accept it because it does not go along with your fancy.

Pushing me away? I'm being honest, I haven't been shown any.

[AntiKarateKid]

Pushing me away? I'm being honest, I haven't been shown any.

[2:6] As for those who disbelieve, it is the same for them; whether you warn them, or not warn them, they cannot believe.

[2:13] When they are told, "Believe like the people who believed," they say, "Shall we believe like the fools who believed?" In fact, it is they who are fools, but they do not know.

2:18] Deaf, dumb, and blind, they return not.



Peace sir, if you surf around Islamic sites, read some of the stuff, debated with Muslims and you still do not want to learn more or reject it outright, I cannot help you. Go debate with a scholar.

[Tornado]

Insulting me? That's not very nice :cry:. I'm not rejecting anything and the only reason I am here is to learn and what you think is sufficient proof is not.

Back on topic. Can you honestly say you will ever get proof of santa, bigfoot, etc.? For the same reason, atheists won't get proof of god's existence but if there is actual, real proof, obviously we wouldn't deny it.

[AntiKarateKid]

Insulting me? That's not very nice :cry:. I'm not rejecting anything and the only reason I am here is to learn and what you think is sufficient proof is not.

Back on topic. Can you honestly say you will ever get proof of santa, bigfoot, etc.? For the same reason, atheists won't get proof of god's existence but if there is actual, real proof, obviously we wouldn't deny it.

I didnt see any insult in there, simply quoting a few verses. I don't think santa or bigfoot ever sent Prophets or books down. Completely different things. it's not as obvious as you think, I get the feeling you want Allah to tap your shoulder or send an angel to hug you. No..just..no. There is " actual" proof and many many signs. You just choose not to CONSIDER them and then turn around and say that there is nothing. ANyways, I answered the thread and don't think I'm up to getting through to you. Go find a scholar or even a poor Muslim man, both will give you the same answer, you will reject both and continue saying that there is nothing. You gotta understand that there is truth and falsehood, Islam distinguishes itself from falsehood and provides clear instructions and I would like nothing more than to see you on your way to freedom and faith and free of any man gods or chosen people fairy tales. There is nothing else for me personally to say, sadly, peace and hope you open yours eyes and heart a bit.

[Tornado]

I didnt see any insult in there, simply quoting a few verses. I don't think santa or bigfoot ever sent Prophets or books down. Completely different things. it's not as obvious as you think, I get the feeling you want Allah to tap your shoulder or send an angel to hug you. No..just..no. There is " actual" proof and many many signs. You just choose not to CONSIDER them and then turn around and say that there is nothing.

I guess for you, calling a person deaf, dumb, and blind doesn't qualify as insults. Actually, the Santa, Bigfoot analogy works and it's obvious. Will I get proof of Santa? No, I don't think so since I don't think it exists. Will I get proof of god? No, I also don't think one exists. I'm completely willing to accept the proof if there is one. Saying there are many actual proof whilst providing none doesn't help your position. You haven't even provided one.. Saying so doesn't make it so.
Cheers.

[AntiKarateKid]

I guess for you, calling a person deaf, dumb, and blind doesn't qualify as insults. Actually, the Santa, Bigfoot analogy works and it's obvious. Will I get proof of Santa? No, I don't think so since I don't think it exists. Will I get proof of god? No, I also don't think one exists. I'm completely willing to accept the proof if there is one. Saying there are many actual proof whilst providing none doesn't help your position. You haven't even provided one.. Saying so doesn't make it so.
Cheers.

Search for it man, you are on an Islamic forum for petes sake. I am not gonna baby sit you on this. If I had to give directions to every person then walk them to their destination,... well it would be tiresome. Get up off the internet and go activiely find the truth, search the Mosques find people talk and debate. By the way reread my previous post, i edited it a bit.

[Tornado]

Search for it man, you are on an Islamic forum for petes sake. I am not gonna baby sit you on this. If I had to give directions to every person then walk them to their destination,... well it would be tiresome. Get up off the internet and go activiely find the truth, search the Mosques find people talk and debate. By the way reread my previous post, i edited it a bit.

I did, you keep repeating the same things over (while not adding anything). I've even started a thread a while back where I'd like some answers but people kind of just left that thread. FYI, the internet is a perfect place to find the truth and I gather people on this forum are actually very smart and knowledgeable about their religion so going to a scholar wouldn't actually help. My questions aren't about specifics parts of the religion where a scholar would help, but whether religion is valid, etc.

Cheers.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I guess for you, calling a person deaf, dumb, and blind doesn't qualify as insults. Actually, the Santa, Bigfoot analogy works and it's obvious. Will I get proof of Santa? No, I don't think so since I don't think it exists. Will I get proof of god? No, I also don't think one exists. I'm completely willing to accept the proof if there is one. Saying there are many actual proof whilst providing none doesn't help your position. You haven't even provided one.. Saying so doesn't make it so.
Cheers.

thats where the *EEEEDITT!!!!* comes into play mr nado first name Tor

forget proof for a second and take signs into consideration

contemplate over your existence and how perfectly your existence is synchronised


i mean just thinking about stuff like the butterfly effect makes one really think "how can it be without a creator?"



eh :O

[Tornado]

Arrrg:D, Please not in this thread. What you brought up isn't that simple and is being discussed in other threads. Signs/proofs, show me them is all I'm asking. Please don't call me blind...imsad

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ HEY IM SRY!!!! seriously i feel like the biggest fish ever now! im editing my other post

i didnt mean ur blind in that way :|


you sound really sincere


the signs are as i stated mr nado first name tor

its in all of nature, the way the sun and moon works, the way the skies are so perfect, i mean just think of how everythings just works..

also think about yourself. Do you really think something such as humans can be created for no purpose?... how is it possible we just come to be :O




*goes to edit other post*

[Duncan Ferguson]

....'Things' in reality by its very nature is limited. The unlimited thing or infinite only exists in mathematical mind or mindscape or whatever you want to call it. Since human part of 'Things in reality' the way our mind works is limited or finite hence our logic does not build too well to deal with infinity...

..If atheist believes there is no God unless it's proven otherwise then atheist still leaves the possibility remains open for the existency of God... atheist asks for proof....

No, atheists can't disprove the existence of a god or gods. But as you said, the limited nature of humanity is a stumbling block. But everything we know is limited. Without limits how can anything be defined at all? There is even a limit to the definition of infinity.

If God has no limits then it is impossible for any us to recognise the existence of such a being, as such a being will not have a nature that we can recognise. And if such a being exists without limitations then it also exists outside the sphere of human knowledge. To say that you know and understand such a being is to say that you know it's limitations. God will therefore be a limited being and therefore subject to the same standard of proof as anything else.

[silkworm]

One Question to Atheists:

Why the sky is up there without the pillars, who is holding on to it, why its not falling down, every bridge needs pillars to stand on, why there is no pillars which are holding the sky???

You see, there is a God!!!

[suffiyan007]

why the sky rains? if there are no God...cause God sent water to the world for giving us food...cause we need to drink,we need to plant Foods,and we need waters everyday...so there is no God,we will have water....!

[Mukafi7]

:sl:

My humble opinion is that if one needs proof to believe in God, then it is useless to try to convince that person. In life we have things that we just have to accept as if, that is why it is called faith and also referred to as conviction. Anyway, I really don't think God cares much about proving his existance to anyone. Atheists will probably find their proof, but it may be a little late. I hope they start believing sooner rather than later.

[randome3889]

it's a long post, but ultimately comes to the same conclusion we've all heard before -- you can't prove or disprove gods existence. I think the analogy you are trying to draw between the mathematical "infinity" and god is weak at best... yes we can assume god is infinite but can you prove it? Secondly, what exactly does god being infinite mean? Nothing ... god is not a "number" or a metric space but a concept.

"Based on direct empirical data, no human can prove God Existence but applying the same rule atheist also can not prove the inexistency of God either. Why not? because The Absolute Infinite is free from all kinds of influence, like Cantor said fully independent other-worldly being. Since the process to prove or disprove the existency of God is finite hence coercing infinite to finite would be an impossible task. Notice Cantor said only the Transfinite the last two sorts of the actual infinites related to the finite NOT the Absolute Infinite."

"Since the process to prove or disprove the existency of God is finite hence coercing infinite to finite would be an impossible task"
Where exactly do you get this notion? Is this something you made up? ... and what are you talking about when you say coerce... "coercing" isn't really a mathematical term. Many people like to think that because mathematicians are really, really smart they must also be great philosophers ... this isn't always the case ... often is but not always.

I'm one to always believe that you cannot prove or disprove Gods existence directly, but rather you can prove an absolute necessity for a just god, i.e any rational existant being should logically believe in god -> one can argue that what is and isn't real is simply a by product of our thoughts ... even beyond that ... god "exists" in reality via the actions of humans influenced by his existence within their minds.

[randome3889]

I believe in god, but lately I cannot believe in some of the things the Quran says... it's kind of crazy stuff... I'm starting to fall away from Islam and towards just simple prayer and thanking god for life and existence. I don't want to follow arbitrary rules that seem to be so archaic. Can someone help me out via Private Message ... I want to regain islamic faith because my family is very religious... but there are some things I have heard of the quran that are really kind of disheartening to me... I've posted several times but the moderator still hasn't approved my post!!! :(

[suffiyan007]

I believe in god, but lately I cannot believe in some of the things the Quran says... it's kind of crazy stuff... I'm starting to fall away from Islam and towards just simple prayer and thanking god for life and existence. I don't want to follow arbitrary rules that seem to be so archaic. Can someone help me out via Private Message ... I want to regain islamic faith because my family is very religious... but there are some things I have heard of the quran that are really kind of disheartening to me... I've posted several times but the moderator still hasn't approved my post!!! :(

Hello,why you wanna deviate the truth in Quran...God had stated the truth for the people no one even follow....God is so kind to us,why we so cruel to God...

[Tornado]

One Question to Atheists:

Why the sky is up there without the pillars, who is holding on to it, why its not falling down, every bridge needs pillars to stand on, why there is no pillars which are holding the sky???

You see, there is a God!!!

Who holds a helium balloon up in the air? We know perfectly well how those things work. It's no proof of a god.

why the sky rains? if there are no God...cause God sent water to the world for giving us food...cause we need to drink,we need to plant Foods,and we need waters everyday...so there is no God,we will have water....!

Again, not proof of anything.

[suffiyan007]

God does not reciprocate in the world,but when the the of LasT day and the day of "R.I.P."..He reciprocate it.

[Skavau]

You have been exposed to the truth and have rejected it, hence your self proclaimed "atheism". Just because YOU refuse to recognize it doesnt mean it isnt there.

Do not presume what people do and do not believe or have or have not done.

When everything is about to be lost, you'll realize how all their talk and pomp vanishes and theyll be reduce to weeping for God.

A true theist on the other hand will not break down, they know the matter is in Allah's hands and if they have followed the Straight Path, they have nothing to worry about.

And you would know this... how?

Oh wait.

I know where that question is leading..hehe. Go find it, I am here to answer the topic of the thread and not to make you realize your destiny. You have already been enlightened numerous times probably, but refuse to accept it because it does not go along with your fancy.

Do not assume what people do or do not believe.

Your utter condescending attitude is absolutely disgusting. You do a great disservice to mature Muslims capable of a decent discussion.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ lol mr repetition



all i gotta say

[gang4]

No, atheists can't disprove the existence of a god or gods. But as you said, the limited nature of humanity is a stumbling block. But everything we know is limited. Without limits how can anything be defined at all? There is even a limit to the definition of infinity.

If God has no limits then it is impossible for any us to recognise the existence of such a being, as such a being will not have a nature that we can recognise. And if such a being exists without limitations then it also exists outside the sphere of human knowledge. To say that you know and understand such a being is to say that you know it's limitations. God will therefore be a limited being and therefore subject to the same standard of proof as anything else.

It's a matter of term-calling... the limited human nature is a stumbling block to you

while to me it's simply...natural. BUt I agree with you, limits are prerequisited for

definitions.

"A being" implies a creation..I prefer to use the term "The Creator".

It's a matter of P.O.V, since human is limited hence from human point of view, The

Creator becomes limited but our POv is like '2-d being' to explain the concept of

height, the third dimension... it goes nowhere.

The Creator has no limits but HE (needs a pronoun, no gender implication) does not

beyond recognition. And no...I don't claim to know, to understand The Creator but for

sure, HE tells us what we need to know by sending prophets (I said these before). For

example, Allah is One...and nothing is like unto HIM.
Also,

'THe truth is separated from falsehood' goes along nicely with "no compulsion in

religion".

It's a pick and choose with consequences at the day of judgement after the doomsday. Is

there a doomsday?

Increased-entropy is a second thermodynamic law (works like murphy's law) not to

mention 2 billion years from now, the Andromeda galaxy is heading toward ours for

head-to-head collision. The giant Black hole sits in dormant in the center of our

galaxy (according to discovery channel of course)


The 'When" part nobody knows not even Muhammad (S.A.W) nor Isa(Jesus) a.s.

Is there such thing like The day of judgement or the Last Day?
It's part of a believe system.


S.Al-Baqarah.177

Righteousness is not whether you face towards the east or the west. But righteousness

is to believe in Allah and the Last Day, in the angels and the Book, and the Prophets,

and to give wealth however cherished, to kinsmen, to the orphans, to the needy, to the

destitute traveler, and to the beggars, and to ransom the slave; who establish their

prayers and pay the obligatory charity; who are true to their promise when they have

promised. Who are patient in misfortune and hardship and during the time of courage.

Such are the truthful; such are the cautious.

I quote a verse from Al-Qur'an to proove:

I believe in Al-Qur'an. And Al-Qur'an says to believe in the Last Day. So, I believe in

the Last Day.

Unbeliever(a temporal state I hope) like you don't believe in Al-Qur'an, logically you

won't believe in the Last Day.

Hence, Last Day is part of a believe system. Some believe, and some don't.


There is a set of believe system and of course there is a set of logical system.

SOme set of believe system sometimes intersect with some part of the logical system

just like in the diagram Venn they blend in the common elements. But most of the time,

believe and logic complements each other or exclusively independent from one to

another.

Not everything is logical...DO I have a Proof? Not really, but I do have a question

posted some place here....a repeated question,
"The conservative law of energy states energy can't be created nor destroyed, but

merely transform from one form to the other"

I Keep asking: "How come energy exist in the first place?"

They say: Energy, space, time etc start to exist at the moment of bigbang. What is

before the big bang?

To know things, to logically know things we need to work some measurements in finite.

All the elements of measurements start to exist at the moment of bigbang. Before the

bigbang no information units of measurements CAN'T BE MEASURED hence we will NOT

KNOW...

like the energy question, moment prior to bigbang are the areas untouched by logical

system. So are the moment after the bigcrunch(doomsday) also untouched by logical

system. Hence not everything is logical.

Here is the set of believe system kicks in...

unbelievers too... use believe system (NOT logical system) to believe "Not to believe

in THE CREATOR"....whatever logic/reasons unbelievers use to justify his believe

...it's in the area of common elements of the diagram venn....but never exclusively in

the logical system(Believe complement).


"Doubt in everything" says the logic.
In our daily life, logic has much higher of success in terms of reliability compare to

believe system. How come to believe is the key to success for The Last Day?

I know it is the truth, but my logic longing for explanations. I've been struggling

with this.....

I heard about him for years...never bother to read his work. not till recently, I read

his written work.It's like a five years old learning to read Encyclopedia of

Mathematics's book...

Not fully understood what he wrote, only a handful snapshot of comprehension here and

there.
But, telescoping what he said using my own words:
"from believe comes the truth. Not only by knowing rather by experiencing beyond

reasonable doubt"

His work has been known For a thousand year, long enough to collect critics of his

work. The title is a bit cheesy "The Alchemy of Happiness"

But to experience a glimpse events for 3 to 5 seconds or longer of what he's talking

about.... enough to throw doubts into a garbage can...if you lucky enough to experience

this indescribable events.

The Creator EXISTS...HE is closer than your jugular vain. HE is everywhere. To believe

in HIM is a gift, ask for it.

If you believe in HIM, you make me happy.
if you won't believe in HIM....well, I am happy I am not one of you.

[Tornado]

No evidence provided, just an emphasis on belief/faith. What logic do I use to not believe in a god? The fact that there is no evidence and so how exactly is this a belief?...:uuh: You are trying to make a connection by somehow bringing up present science to give voice to your belief. There is so much we don't know and you are using what we don't know to justify god. How did things come to be? Face it, we human beings aren't smart enough to answer that question..

[Skavau]

Gang4, ignorance is not a form of evidence.

[gang4]

No evidence provided, just an emphasis on belief/faith. What logic do I use to not believe in a god? The fact that there is no evidence and so how exactly is this a belief?...:uuh: You are trying to make a connection by somehow bringing up present science to give voice to your belief. There is so much we don't know and you are using what we don't know to justify god. How did things come to be? Face it, we human beings aren't smart enough to answer that question..

If my first post as the opening thread has any meaning, it stated
"Based on direct empirical data, no human can prove God Existence but applying the same rule atheist also can not prove the inexistency of God either".

Most likely since the beginning of civilization, human asks this basic question. How long will we live? 50 or 100 years old top? 1/3 we use it for sleeping. Total of two years to attend business in the bathroom and about two weeks of our life time wasted to look for a remote control. Quite interesting they keep asking for evidence .. most likely till the end of time...

No evidence provided...
I won't provide you with evidence (direct empirical data) simply because to me no human can! Even among prophets experienced disbelievers. And you're expecting a regular person like you to provide evidence?

After Moses and the jews crossed the red sea, in no time the jews reverted back to idol-worshippers. Imagine that! After thousands in numbers seeing evidence like the miracles of the parted sea (I believe this story and you don't) quickly they have ignored the evidence and worship a golden calf. It is obvious to me seeing evidence does not guarantee many to believe in God.

There are always disbelievers among us. A quality to watch out for, is it me among them? I pray not.

You won't believe this, but I do believe you do want to follow the messengers. It 's a matter of when..this life or in the HereAfter.

014.044 So warn mankind of the Day when the Wrath will reach them: then will the wrong-doers say: "Our Lord! respite us (if only) for a short term: we will answer Thy call, and follow the messengers!" "What! were ye not wont to swear aforetime that ye should suffer no decline?

Al-Qur'an, 014.044 (Ibrahim [Abraham])

you asked: What logic do I use to not believe in a god?
You said it yourself: "The fact that there is no evidence "... Is it not logic you employed to derive to this conclusion? And according to you it is a FACT! Wow...

and so how exactly is this a belief?
Since you also fail to prove the inexistency of God, you believe and entitle to believe "The fact that there is no evidence"... Is this not a belief?

Not everything is logical.
The first to coin the phrase jesus f*****g christ was from christians, not from muslims nor from buddhist. It seems this term doesn't bother some christians since they do not protest. If they did, it's unheard of unlike Danish cartoons incidents where muslims protested and still are protesting.

But when the muslims say jesus is not son of God in the literary sense, he's just son of a man concise with what he claimed to be, some christians jump out from their seats like it was a derogatory statement. Is it really the term son of a man worst than the f word? Where is the logic of that? Likewise, muslims also have their short coming. You may sample better than I do perhaps.



You are trying to make a connection by somehow bringing up present science to give voice to your belief....
I am and it increases my belief and... so are others, maybe even you by bring in "The fact that there is no evidence"... it increases your disbelieve.

Prof. Mathematics Garry Miller said: "more things (science included) come in islamic way ".

For example:

103.001 By (the Token of) Time (through the ages),

103.002 Verily Man is in loss,

103.003 Except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy.

Al-Qur'an, 103.001-003 (Al-Asr [The Declining Day, Eventide, The Epoch])

The thermodynamics Token of Time always moves forward. Verily Man is in loss or in the state of gradual decline. And is it not any degrade from state of uniformity entropy increases?
Except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy. Do the right thing does reduce the level of entropy.

If there are any functions of a forum like this one of them is to compare notes. You and I take what we like and dismiss we dislike. I could easily become a disbeliever like you, but so far I am not (something to thank Allah for for HIS Mercy upon me). I try to pray for a guidance to HIM at least 17 times a day and request to die as a believer whom HE pleases. Likewise, there is probably a slim chance you may become a believer like me... or not, who knows?

There is so much we don't know...
True.

and you are using what we don't know to justify god.
Did I? I try to be more careful....and BTW, you know for a fact "The fact that there is no evidence"?

How did things come to be? Face it, we human beings aren't smart enough to answer that question..
True. But it doesn't stop us to make an attempt since it's difficult to stop asking questions....like where is the provided evidence?


skavau said:
Gang4, ignorance is not a form of evidence...
Not always True!
Your ignorance to me is a form of evidence: There are always disbelievers among human race....likewise you could say: me is a form of evidence to you how ignorant I am as a believer.

[Tornado]

The fact that there is no evidence YET.. What evidence is there? The REASON I don't believe in a god is the SAME reason I don't believe in Santa and the like. It's not my job to disprove your claim. If you say that something perfect, magic is out there, it's up to you to provide evidence. Remember, I also can not disprove Santa. You said so yourself that you can't provide evidence. That answers the thread's question. The proof we want is the evidence you say can't be provided.

[suffiyan007]

The fact that there is no evidence YET.. What evidence is there? The REASON I don't believe in a god is the SAME reason I don't believe in Santa and the like. It's not my job to disprove your claim. If you say that something perfect, magic is out there, it's up to you to provide evidence. Remember, I also can not disprove Santa. You said so yourself that you can't provide evidence. That answers the thread's question. The proof we want is the evidence you say can't be provided.

Find out why Tornado,siclone,hurricane,twister and etc....why the such huge wind can destroyed New Orlean,and lotsa places....! if there no God....why should have lotsa mystical thing happens...and etc? beyond of our thinking!

[Tornado]

Find out why Tornado,siclone,hurricane,twister and etc....why the such huge wind can destroyed New Orlean,and lotsa places....! if there no God....why should have lotsa mystical thing happens...and etc? beyond of our thinking!

Check out post #68 of this thread. Mystical things beyond our thinking? :muddlehea What mystical things?

[coddles76]

Hi there. Here is where your line of arguement breaks down for me.

I am not an atheist because I don't have direct evidence of god. I don't ask for proof because as a philisophical matter proof is impossible.

I am an atheist because I have not seen a description of god that reasonably describe how things work based on my experience of the world and how my mind process it better than atheism.

I would be ok with indirect evidence or even a description that reasonable describes reality as I experience and process it. To date I have not encountered this.

So the rest of your argument doesn't really flow.

Interesting thread though.

Thanks.

Quran 2:118
Say those without knowledge: "Why speaketh not Allah unto us? Or why cometh not unto us a Sign?" So said the people before them words of similar import. Their hearts are alike. We have indeed made clear the Signs unto any people who hold firmly to Faith (in their hearts).

[Tornado]

Quran 2:118
Say those without knowledge: "Why speaketh not Allah unto us? Or why cometh not unto us a Sign?" So said the people before them words of similar import. Their hearts are alike. We have indeed made clear the Signs unto any people who hold firmly to Faith (in their hearts).

And these clear signs being?

[coddles76]

And these clear signs being?

Quran 2:164

Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the Night and the Day; in the sailing of the ships through the Ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds and the clouds which they trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth, (here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise.

[Tornado]

Quran 2:164

Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the Night and the Day; in the sailing of the ships through the Ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds and the clouds which they trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth, (here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise.

Clear sign of what?

[coddles76]

Clear sign of what?

Is creation itself not a clear enough sign for you??

(Surat al-Mulk: 3-4) He Who created the seven heavens in layers. You will not find any flaw in the creation of the All-Merciful. Look again-do you see any gaps? Then look again and again. Your sight will return to you dazzled and exhausted!

The human body for example, Inside us is an incredibly complicated and comprehensively co-ordinated network that operates without stopping at all. The purpose is the continuance of living. This co-ordination is particularly visible in the locomotive system of the body, because, for even the smallest movement, skeletal system, muscles and nervous system must work in perfect collaboration.

Quran 2:242
Thus doth Allah make clear His Signs to you: in order that ye may understand.

[Tornado]

You are wrong, the human body is plenty flawed. Again, clear sign of what exactly? You'd be surprised evolution explains quite a bit. We know very well how many things happen and we certainly do not need a god. Anyways, this thread is pointless. For an atheist, whether god exists or not is of no concern. What we want to know is what evidence is there that YOUR religion is right?

[arabianprincess]

they r the hardest ppl to convert. since they dont believe in a god. thats wat i heard heres a interview with a guy who used to be atheist n now became a muslim ... listen to his story maybe u ll see the light.. i just ask just give it a shot before its too late... peace

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2z73ohM_Rjw&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=a5P6iwgbey4&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=21Ak-mNpF3Q&feature=related
n plenty of other videos check out there stories .. just search.
n go read the quran . n see how perfect it is ... a prefect god must have a prefect book. n one of the challenges in the quran allah tells them who say this book isnt from allah is try to produce something like it. or a a fly n put a soul in it.. believe me living in arrogance wont take u anymore. .i just ask for u to think about it.. look at how everything is created when u see a building do u say oh it was there or u be like deep inside someone for sure have built it. so when u see the sun the moon if u dont wanna look at that ... look at your self .. dont u honestly believe someone created u. life is short... n u never know when ur gonna die.. may allah guide me n u too.

[coddles76]

You are wrong, the human body is plenty flawed. Again, clear sign of what exactly? You'd be surprised evolution explains quite a bit. We know very well how many things happen and we certainly do not need a god. Anyways, this thread is pointless. For an atheist, whether god exists or not is of no concern. What we want to know is what evidence is there that YOUR religion is right?

God Almighty created our body perfect and without flaws, how you treat your body is whats flawed. Though God will do what he wills to test a person. He may create the body in which ever form he wants to test a person will. Obviously the body doesn't last forever and is only a garment for our everlasting body which is our soul.

We know very well how many things happen and we certainly do not need a god. Anyways, this thread is pointless. For an atheist, whether god exists or not is of no concern.

There will come a day when you will no other helper then Allah. When that day comes remember your quote above and be assured that day will come without a doubt.

May Allah guide you!

[Tornado]

they r the hardest ppl to convert. since they dont believe in a god. thats wat i heard heres a interview with a guy who used to be atheist n now became a muslim ... listen to his story maybe u ll see the light.. i just ask just give it a shot before its too late... peace


n plenty of other videos check out there stories .. just search.
n go read the quran . n see how perfect it is ... a prefect god must have a prefect book. n one of the challenges in the quran allah tells them who say this book isnt from allah is try to produce something like it. or a a fly n put a soul in it.. believe me living in arrogance wont take u anymore. .i just ask for u to think about it.. look at how everything is created when u see a building do u say oh it was there or u be like deep inside someone for sure have built it. so when u see the sun the moon if u dont wanna look at that ... look at your self .. dont u honestly believe someone created u. life is short... n u never know when ur gonna die.. may allah guide me n u too.

I watched the entire video. It was about a professor (I liked him) who accepted islam and that's really it. Why did he do it? What evidence made him do it? It was lacking that. He liked the literary style or something, I don't know exactly what questions he was seeking for. The quran being a perfect book? It's your opinion and of course you are going to be biased. Argument from design is not convincing.

God Almighty created our body perfect and without flaws, how you treat your body is whats flawed. Though God will do what he wills to test a person. He may create the body in which ever form he wants to test a person will. Obviously the body doesn't last forever and is only a garment for our everlasting body which is our soul.



There will come a day when you will no other helper then Allah. When that day comes remember your quote above and be assured that day will come without a doubt.

May Allah guide you!

Body hair, back pain, appendix (I think) are just from top of my head the imperfections (what's your definition of perfect?). The last part didn't make sense.

[coddles76]

Body hair, back pain, appendix (I think) are just from top of my head the imperfections (what's your definition of perfect?). The last part didn't make sense.

Body hair is not an imperfection, Actually Hair has alot of necessary functions. Back Pain comes through the works of life and there are many pains we will go through until the end of life. Old age is one of them and its a fact that the body will get old and will age though like I said this body is only a garment for our inner body (Our Soul).

There will come a day when you will HAVE no other helper then Allah. When that day comes remember your quote above and be assured that day will come without a doubt.

May Allah guide you!

[arabianprincess]

[QUOTE=Tornado;979540]I watched the entire video. It was about a professor (I liked him) who accepted islam and that's really it. Why did he do it? What evidence made him do it? It was lacking that. He liked the literary style or something, I don't know exactly what questions he was seeking for. The quran being a perfect book? It's your opinion and of course you are going to be biased. Argument from design is not convincing.

since u dont believe its prefect go n read it... just try to find one mistake but before u do ... keep an open mind about it.
so thats ur answer .... its just simply a design .. would u explain y its not convincing to u. wat else do u need to open ur eyes.. not to be rude but i did my best n its on u. take care

by the way i posted the short version.
my bad

http://youtube.com/watch?v=21Ak-mNpF3Q&feature=related
it has 17 parts to it i believe...

[coddles76]

Tornado,

Here is an article for you to read.

http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/7...ism_sci34.html

I hope it may be of benefit for you. Maybe you should just make a simple prayer for Allah to open you heart and then read it.
You will be surprised of how powerful prayer can be. Just try it!

[Pygoscelis]

If my first post as the opening thread has any meaning, it stated
"Based on direct empirical data, no human can prove God Existence but applying the same rule atheist also can not prove the inexistency of God either".

This is true. But it doesn't make belief and lack of belief equally rational.

To see this, notice that you can say the same for pretty much any other nonprovable claim. You can not prove that there are no invisible space aliens sitting on your shoulder. That isn't any reason to believe that there are.

[gang4]

The fact that there is no evidence YET.. What evidence is there? The REASON I don't believe in a god is the SAME reason I don't believe in Santa and the like. It's not my job to disprove your claim. If you say that something perfect, magic is out there, it's up to you to provide evidence. Remember, I also can not disprove Santa. You said so yourself that you can't provide evidence. That answers the thread's question. The proof we want is the evidence you say can't be provided.

002.256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

Al-Qur'an, 002.256 (Al-Baqara [The Cow])

Our job is to convey the message even just one verse. I dare not breaking the rules of no compulsion in religion.

Speaking about the rules, there are sets of rules in any given systems.
In a game of basket ball there are rules. Playing golf also have some rules.

The empiral evidence you're asking is like insisting to play basket ball with the rules of playing golf. You could do it if you want to, but you may try to avoid convincing others it's logical.

if the rule of evidence applicable to other systems (crime, science etc) why not to God?

The rule to obtain any evidences is by collecting finite or measurable information. How do you deal with infinite? True, there is a process called renormalisation to cancel out infinite from each other in the equation. But like Greg Cantor said it's only applicable to the Transfinite and won't work to Deo he called the absolute infinite.

One of the best infinite-mathematician said it can not be done and you insist the rule of evidence is applicable to the absolute infinite by keep asking where's the evidence.

Either you have more knowledge than Greg Cantor by saying it can be done or what you are really trying to say: "Let's play basket ball using 9-iron."
You could do it.... Some may say it's the smart way to play others may utter different words.

empirical evidence is NOT the tool to approach God but believe is.

Notice translated Al-Qur'an uses the word 'believe'

002.006 As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.

Al-Qur'an, 002.006 (Al-Baqara [The Cow])


One last thing, The algorithm you are using

if God Exists then
there is evidence some place or
else
God does not exist
endif

if NoEvidence( cause) then ABSOLUTELY ThereIsNoGod (effect).

Notice you are using causality law (cause-effect). meaning the cause first followed by the effect in this order. Do you think this classical law is absolute? well, in Quantum Mechanics the effect sometimes comes first followed by the cause, sometimes both occur at the same time or the way we accustom to, cause followed by effect... weird, isn't it?

Do you think relying on causality law alone is enough arsenal to challenge the existency of God?

what I am saying is: I would be careful in the way my logic works. If you have some doubts about the existency of God then to be at par is it not also logical to place some doubt in the way our inner-thought works? Is it really our logic infallible?

[Pygoscelis]

Find out why Tornado,siclone,hurricane,twister and etc....why the such huge wind can destroyed New Orlean,and lotsa places....! if there no God....why should have lotsa mystical thing happens...and etc? beyond of our thinking!

You are correct that without a God to explain everything for you, you are forced to admit you don't know all the answers. I don't know all the answers about everything and I'm comfortable with that. I feel no need to invent a God to fill the gaps.

[Uthman]

To see this, notice that you can say the same for pretty much any other nonprovable claim. You can not prove that there are no invisible space aliens sitting on your shoulder. That isn't any reason to believe that there are.

Good point, but there is a lot more evidence for God's existence than there is for other unprovable claims.

[Skavau]

Find out why Tornado,siclone,hurricane,twister and etc....why the such huge wind can destroyed New Orlean,and lotsa places....! if there no God....why should have lotsa mystical thing happens...and etc? beyond of our thinking!

None of anything listed above is at all 'mystical' or unexplainable. We have satisfactory natural explanations for them all.

God Almighty created our body perfect and without flaws, how you treat your body is whats flawed.

Lol, what?

So if our body is without flaw, why do people get Parkinson's disease? Why do people get Alzheimer's Disease? Why are people born with Stickler's Syndrome? What about Sickle-cell disease? How on earth can you consider our body so perfect when people can inherent so many disorders and pick up diseases through no fault of their own?

[جوري]

None of anything listed above is at all 'mystical' or unexplainable. We have satisfactory natural explanations for them all.

Greetings Skavau
' Natural' denotes existing in conformity of some defined laws, when a special abstraction or aberration happens from what we define as 'natural' we recognize it as a deviance.. Does it not strike you at all that there is a pattern here that favors life, sentience, and to top it all aesthetics?
Why does 'natural' go for instance beyond the seed to a flowering plant of different colors to please the senses?

All atheists, have failed to define 'why natural?' if they took care of the how, which you'll forgive me, they don't often do with dexterity but I digress..

So if our body is without flaw, why do people get Parkinson's disease? Why do people get Alzheimer's Disease? Why are people born with Stickler's Syndrome? What about Sickle-cell disease? How on earth can you consider our body so perfect when people can inherent so many disorders and pick up diseases through no fault of their own?

Any disorder in any 'body' should really channelize your attention to what goes right all the time for you and millions of others that you take for granted and in fact you notice it as an aberrancy. The mere act of breathing, your extra ocular movements, every enzymatic and biochemical pathway in your body.. any enzyme deficiency would render someone dead depending on how high up in its perspective pathway, yet yours are working round the clock on their own volition.. somehow 'natural' through trial and error got billions of enzymes to work around the clock correctly for billions of people with the exception of 3 or 4 in 6 billion, who if anything should have you agasp at how much could potentially go wrong that goes right, yet you'd not find that anymore remarkable than you'd the orbiting planets and would prefer to deny humanity the very basics of the human condition..

What is your idea of perfection then? Where would your baseline be? it is again the human condition that so seeks contrast to impart a deeper meaning to an opposite emotion.. it is in death and disease that we are rendered more humanistic, more conditioned on the meta-index of existence.

Sometimes when I reflect deep enough, I think eternal punishment for people being so ungrateful is hardly even adequate...


peace

[Tornado]

Skye Ephémérine, imo, the most important aspect of evolution is the incredibly long time over which things occurred. Have you ever folded a sheet of paper in half, then in half, again and again. You can fold only 7 or 8 times (I think) and the reason being is the power of numbers. 2 to the power of just 20 (kind of like generations) is quickly one million. If you compare 20 to say 20 million, the numbers get unfathomably huge. I would expect everything to look incredibly designed and incredibly complex over such a long time and the same can be said about the cosmos. When I look at something beautiful, I tend to appreciate time than I guess I do a god.

[coddles76]

None of anything listed above is at all 'mystical' or unexplainable. We have satisfactory natural explanations for them all.


Lol, what?

So if our body is without flaw, why do people get Parkinson's disease? Why do people get Alzheimer's Disease? Why are people born with Stickler's Syndrome? What about Sickle-cell disease? How on earth can you consider our body so perfect when people can inherent so many disorders and pick up diseases through no fault of their own?

Please try to understand this point..........
I'm not talking about the diseases that the body can establish, This is only for a trial and test for the person. I'm talking about the actual creation of the body. Please try to absorb this with an open mind, its the creation of the perfectly created bodily functions in which I refer to.
Try to create anything of the like and I'm sure you or nobody in this world can. That is whats perfect.
I hope you understand now.

[Aurora]

Please try to understand this point..........
I'm not talking about the diseases that the body can establish, This is only for a trial and test for the person. I'm talking about the actual creation of the body. Please try to absorb this with an open mind, its the creation of the perfectly created bodily functions in which I refer to.
Try to create anything of the like and I'm sure you or nobody in this world can. That is whats perfect.
I hope you understand now.

Even if we assume the bodily functions of a human being are perfect, why does this necessitate the existence of a creator/designer? God is more 'perfect' than the bodily functions of the human, so by using your logic, who created/designed God?

[coddles76]

Even if we assume the bodily functions of a human being are perfect, why does this necessitate the existence of a creator/designer? God is more 'perfect' than the bodily functions of the human, so by using your logic, who created/designed God?

Thankyou Aurora for your comments.....
Your answer is in your question. God is perfect so hence would only create things proportiate to that.
Your mind has been created to only latch onto what has been taught to us from our creator. He has informed us of his creation, only what he wants us know, from this life and in the hereafter. Its your choice whether you want to believe in that or not.

who created/designed God?

If you allow your minds imagination to get into the cycle you it would be endless. If you do find an answer to the question you then have the question of who created that creation and then who created that creation so on and so forth. This cycle is only created by the Shaytaan (Devil) who loves to whisper doubts in your mind.

[BoredAgnostic]

Sometimes when I reflect deep enough, I think eternal punishment for people being so ungrateful is hardly even adequate...


I usually don't comment on this forum at all, I've been content with being a lurker and allowing people with better literary skills and knowledge discuss these topics [Although I might start adding my 2cents in here or there]....but I felt prompted to log on and respond to this statement because I find it incredibly callous. I believe any person with a shred of compassion for their fellow human being would be utterly devastated to watch people being tortured even for just a minute.. But it seems for you some people being tortured for eternity isn't enough, what would be satisfactory-you personally torturing them? It may seem ungrateful to you for someone to question our body's imperfections and our susceptibility to tens of thousands of debilitating diseases/abnormalities.. but I think it's pretty human to want to know why a perfect Creator would allow these flaws. Also, I don't think anyone here is really denying how intricate, complex and awe inspiring the body is.
I really do enjoy some of your posts, you are extremely intelligent, but I believe that just went way too far, and frankly it's frightening that so many people have that exact same mentality.

/waits to get served heh.

[Aurora]

Thankyou Aurora for your comments.....
Your answer is in your question. God is perfect so hence would only create things proportiate to that.
Your mind has been created to only latch onto what has been taught to us from our creator. He has informed us of his creation, only what he wants us know, from this life and in the hereafter. Its your choice whether you want to believe in that or not.

If you allow your minds imagination to get into the cycle you it would be endless. If you do find an answer to the question you then have the question of who created that creation and then who created that creation so on and so forth. This cycle is only created by the Shaytaan (Devil) who loves to whisper doubts in your mind.

You began this "cycle".
You suggested that the supposed perfection of the bodily functions of a human being required a designer to design it. Such an argument is flawed because the same can be said of the designer.

[gang4]

This is true. But it doesn't make belief and lack of belief equally rational.

To see this, notice that you can say the same for pretty much any other nonprovable claim. You can not prove that there are no invisible space aliens sitting on your shoulder. That isn't any reason to believe that there are.

You forget to add one more line...

...That isn't any reason to DISbelieve that they are not there either since to disbelieve is also non-provable claim.

So basically you are saying, Not to believe in God apparently is also a form of a believe. If some atheists say we are ignorant because we believe in God.... then it can be said the same...

Atheists are more ignorant than us...

Why more? because...
1. You have no God to turn to for spiritual guidance
2. you have no scriptures to guide you
3. you have no prophets as your role model
4. unclear codes of ethics how to behave


Interesting part, you may eventually select among you as your "prophet", eventually write your own scriptures and worship a created object money, babes, power... stuff like that...

and some atheists call themselves: modern, intellectual more civilized and more advance than believers who follow people of the old.

Amazing claims!

[Pygoscelis]

You forget to add one more line...

...That isn't any reason to DISbelieve that they are not there either since to disbelieve is also non-provable claim.

Do you disbelieve in the invisible space aliens sitting on your shoulder? Do you have any reason to disbelieve it? The analogy really is apt from the atheist point of view.

Atheists are more ignorant than us...

Why more? because...
1. You have no God to turn to for spiritual guidance
2. you have no scriptures to guide you
3. you have no prophets as your role model

True. We have to look to our own moral compas, and not bury it beneath obedience to religious doctrine. We are forced to actually think on these matters instead of simply accepting whatever others tell us our authority figure says is right.

4. unclear codes of ethics how to behave

More clear than you may think. It is true that we may differ in opinion on certain things but we tend to agree much more than we disagree on items of morality. This is because we all have empathy (seeing yourself in others). I say that this is the core of morality, even religious morality, just religion dresses it up and attributes it to an authority figure. And then some things are added that are not so moral but still seen as such because its supposedly from the same authority figure.

I say that religious "morality" is not morality at all, but simply obedience to the perceived authority. Its authoritarianism at its purest.

and some atheists call themselves: modern, intellectual more civilized and more advance than believers who follow people of the old.

Oh I dunno. Scientology is pretty modern.

[gang4]

True. We have to look to our own moral compas, and not bury it beneath obedience to religious doctrine. We are forced to actually think on these matters instead of simply accepting whatever others tell us our authority figure says is right.

More clear than you may think. It is true that we may differ in opinion on certain things but we tend to agree much more than we disagree on items of morality. This is because we all have empathy (seeing yourself in others). I say that this is the core of morality, even religious morality, just religion dresses it up and attributes it to an authority figure. And then some things are added that are not so moral but still seen as such because its supposedly from the same authority figure.

I say that religious "morality" is not morality at all, but simply obedience to the perceived authority. Its authoritarianism at its purest.

Oh I dunno. Scientology is pretty modern.

I wouldn't be surprise if the actual thinking of moral compas will take long time to shape. I would even less surprise if eventually the final moral compas is a downgrade version what the moral scriptures taught us.

say you have 300 millions atheist in the world, everybody think their own moral compas... how many millions different types do you suppose they have? True some moral idea will be similar, but you've been around meeting different people...I am sure you have noticed the uniqueness of each individual....

Now suppose they disagree to one another about what the moral codes..do you suppose violence won't be included to force one will to the others in the resolution?

if no violence so everybody has a freedom to their own set of moral codes.

Let say you are a married man, and an atheist say to you: since you do not use your wive this afternoon, I'd like to borrow your wive for an afternoon sex. Since logically, he needs a woman and he has none at the moment. you have her and you don't use her that afternoon...so why not?

say if you have no wive but have a 3 years old daughter...would you give her to him?

Can you imagine how dangerous and ridiculous your world would be?

you said that religious "morality" is not morality at all, but simply obedience to the perceived authority. Its authoritarianism at its purest

now let see your imaginary world...,. will it have order?... if it doesn't then chaos is the word... no need to go further...

if it does...then how the order is established? Can it really be done without authoritarianism involved?


You start from scratch this moral codes...with the characteristics of human error and the immaturity of human emotions.

After thousands of years of civilisation...we still resort to violence sometimes merely event less than a penny worth.

so how perfect this moral codes would be?


at least the moral codes the believers have is God given who created human and all things...it's been used for thousands of years...true we have our short coming...but not because the scriptures but we the human who messed up.


Scientology ...I know little... based words science + Logy....
Like I said before science has the incomplete theorem...

A believe ought to be about the truth and time-invariant not about modern or old...to me, it isn't a fashion show...

[Azy]

I wouldn't be surprise if the actual thinking of moral compas will take long time to shape. I would even less surprise if eventually the final moral compas is a downgrade version what the moral scriptures taught us.

I think you misunderstand, the 'moral compass' is a name for a group of emotional responses that determines how people feel under circumstances that would require morals.
For example, you walk along the riverbank and suddenly hear a woman screaming as her young child falls into the water. Would you stand and laugh while throwing stones at the child? Would an atheist?

I am sure you have noticed the uniqueness of each individual....

Now suppose they disagree to one another about what the moral codes..do you suppose violence won't be included to force one will to the others in the resolution?

You could be forgiven for thinking like that since that is how it seems to work in the middle east.
No one said that the human 'internal morality' would create world peace, it clearly wouldn't as there are other emotions at work. There are many religious groups, sects and nations that are violent despite the moral teachings of their religion.

Let say you are a married man, and an atheist say to you: since you do not use your wive this afternoon, I'd like to borrow your wive for an afternoon sex. Since logically, he needs a woman and he has none at the moment. you have her and you don't use her that afternoon...so why not?

I don't think this argument is about atheists but about people who do not follow one of your preferred religions. You could believe in god but not believe the teachings of judaism/islam etc are correct.

Anyway, back to the point, why not lend someone your wife (ignoring the interesting moral view of yours that women do not have any say in their status as property to be traded).
Atheists do not have a problem with this situation because grown-ups don't need people to hold their hand and tell them when something might upset someone, they can work it out for themselves.

say if you have no wive but have a 3 years old daughter...would you give her to him?

See above, but maybe it's time to revive the thread with the Pakistan child rape statistics.

Can you imagine how dangerous and ridiculous your world would be?
now let see your imaginary world...,. will it have order?... if it doesn't then chaos is the word... no need to go further...

My household and many of my friends do not have any religion, I have yet to see any of them rampaging around town murdering and raping old women.
Essentially what it boils down to is whether a person is smart enough to realise that in the long-term cooperation is more beneficial than self-interest (unless you have your own private army).

if it does...then how the order is established? Can it really be done without authoritarianism involved?

It's called communal decision making, something similar to the democracy some of us have now but with more consideration for everyone's viewpoint rather than just the majority.

Scientology ...I know little... based words science + Logy....
Like I said before science has the incomplete theorem...

Scientology is a religion, I think that's all I'm going to say as it's a bit weird.

A believe ought to be about the truth and time-invariant not about modern or old...to me, it isn't a fashion show...

Strange then that I hear a lot of excuses about some Quranic passages being intended for a different people in a different time.

[Skavau]

I'm not talking about the diseases that the body can establish, This is only for a trial and test for the person. I'm talking about the actual creation of the body. Please try to absorb this with an open mind, its the creation of the perfectly created bodily functions in which I refer to.

You have insufficiently demonstrated how anything of the human body is perfect, much less all of it being perfect. The fact that there are so many flaws render it imperfect.

Try to create anything of the like and I'm sure you or nobody in this world can. That is whats perfect.
I hope you understand now.

Being unable to create something does not make it perfect.

[Skavau]

You forget to add one more line...

...That isn't any reason to DISbelieve that they are not there either since to disbelieve is also non-provable claim.

Well, not true. Absence of evidence is not a conclusion I would like to make here, but ultimately it is valid. Absence of evidence is sufficient reason to not believe or to disbelieve in something. There is an absence of evidence pertaining to the existence of God, and consequently there is little reason to presume the existence of God.

Atheists are more ignorant than us...

I shall criticise this whilst keeping in mind the primary importance of the definition of 'ignorant'.

Why more? because... 1. You have no God to turn to for spiritual guidance

If Atheists are right, neither do you.

Moreover, how does not having a God constitute ignorance precisely?

2. you have no scriptures to guide you

If Atheists are right, your scriptures are meaningless.

Moreover, how does not having any scriptures to follow necessitate ignorance?

3. you have no prophets as your role model

How does this imply or assert our ignorance, precisely?

4. unclear codes of ethics how to behave

Untrue. I have very clear ethics personally and I have accepted principles which I endeavour to follow in my life. Moreover, 'clarity' or consistency in moral codes does not make them virtuous. I suspect the Nazi's were consistent in their moral beliefs, but they were not what any sane person would consider ethical.

Regrettably, it is just one my specific beliefs that theistic morality is a farce intrinsically linked with obedience. There is no virtue in following orders, but it is praised upon in theistic circles as the greatest, most objective moral system you can find.

Interesting part, you may eventually select among you as your "prophet", eventually write your own scriptures and worship a created object money, babes, power... stuff like that...

Or... we won't.

[Skavau]

say you have 300 millions atheist in the world, everybody think their own moral compas... how many millions different types do you suppose they have? True some moral idea will be similar, but you've been around meeting different people...I am sure you have noticed the uniqueness of each individual....

We have more than 300 million atheists in the world. Most of them reside in Western countries where they make up significant minorities or slight majorities. We know of that the Western countries that most atheists live in, that they are modern, civilised, liberal and progressive. Your example isn't the most scary by modern standards at all.

Everyone disagrees on ethical assertions. Moral confusion is present within religious individuals just as in non-religious individuals. No-one objectively appears to be able to decide what God's message is to the world. This itself leads to moral confusion if the argument against Atheism and morality is accepted. Why should any religious ethical scripture be accepted over another one? Should it be accepted on the basis that one is specifically true or just? Then which one is true and/or just? The inevitable result is that each time you declare a religious ideology to be perfect morally then you lead yourself to having to defend the ideologies supposed perfections. The argument that claims that religion offers a set of moral principles in which people should follow. These deontological principles offer nothing more than assertions in how we should act. There is no justification given for the assertions within scripture other than God proclaimed it.

Now suppose they disagree to one another about what the moral codes..do you suppose violence won't be included to force one will to the others in the resolution?

Well, in most Western Secular states you find many times, that the population is split on many ethical decisions. We have not resorted to a state of chaos as of yet.

Let say you are a married man, and an atheist say to you: since you do not use your wive this afternoon, I'd like to borrow your wive for an afternoon sex. Since logically, he needs a woman and he has none at the moment. you have her and you don't use her that afternoon...so why not?

Your moral compass is skewed.

Although rather ironically, as long as all parties were in consent (the married man, the atheist and the wife) there would be nothing wrong with the event whatsoever.

say if you have no wive but have a 3 years old daughter...would you give her to him?

Are you familiar with 'unwanted children'?

Can you imagine how dangerous and ridiculous your world would be?

You could have used worse examples that I would have explained away.

you said that religious "morality" is not morality at all, but simply obedience to the perceived authority. Its authoritarianism at its purest

Correct.

now let see your imaginary world...,. will it have order?... if it doesn't then chaos is the word... no need to go further...

It does have order.

I live in a non-religious society.

You start from scratch this moral codes...with the characteristics of human error and the immaturity of human emotions.

Strawman.

We do not start from scratch.

at least the moral codes the believers have is God given who created human and all things...it's been used for thousands of years...true we have our short coming...but not because the scriptures but we the human who messed up.

Not quite.

There are some aspects of Islamic scripture that I believe to be morally wrong and believe I should not be obliged to follow or observe.

[gang4]

Instead of taken as an extreme example of moral case which are needed to present a case... boom!

somehow it became my skewed moral compass
and it became my personal point of view seeing woman as a traded property which you ignored....LOL

Skavau, I got the word ignorance from you...now, you want a definition? :)

[Skavau]

Instead of taken as an extreme example of moral case which are needed to present a case... boom!

somehow it became my skewed moral compass

For you even to assume or believe that Atheists think as you do implies your moral compass is indeed, skewed.

and it became my personal point of view seeing woman as a traded property which you ignored....LOL

Not at all. If I recall, I directly answered that.

Skavau, I got the word ignorance from you...now, you want a definition?

Is this a personal insult?

[جوري]

Skye Ephémérine, imo, the most important aspect of evolution is the incredibly long time over which things occurred. Have you ever folded a sheet of paper in half, then in half, again and again. You can fold only 7 or 8 times (I think) and the reason being is the power of numbers.

I don't know what a 'really long time' does to anything? Perhaps you can demonstrate that for me?.. has your pet rock changed in the last 30 years? developed sentience, organs, and a higher reticular system?
You can fold a paprt higher than 7-8 times, I know because I have tried it, you see I too get the same silly emails that everyone has as fwd.. Shouldn't you be a little critical of what you read? perhaps experiment?

2 to the power of just 20 (kind of like generations) is quickly one million. If you compare 20 to say 20 million, the numbers get unfathomably huge. I would expect everything to look incredibly designed and incredibly complex over such a long time and the same can be said about the cosmos. When I look at something beautiful, I tend to appreciate time than I guess I do a god.

Interesting, time is an attribute of God!

Allah (swt ), says:

" And they say: "There is nothing but our life in this world: We die and we live and nothing destroys us except time." And they have no knowledge of it, they only conjecture" (Qur'an 45:24)

Allah (swt ), Most Glorified, Most High, informs us in this verse about the disbelieving dahris1 from among the Arabs and others, who do not believe in any life, save the life of this world, nor in the Rabb and Creator, Allah (swt ), Most High. They believe that nothing causes death except the passage of time. Then Allah (swt ), Most Glorified, Most High, refutes their claims, saying that they have absolutely no evidence for what they claim, but instead, depend upon surmise and their own vain opinions.

Benefits Derived From This Verse

1. That attributing good or evil to the passage of time is a sign of atheism.

2. Confirmation of a life after death for mankind.

3. That ad-dahr (time) is not one of Allah's Names.

Relevance of This Verse to the Subject of the Chapter

That the verse rejects those who attribute events to time, for they commit a great wrong against Allah (swt ).

Relevance of This Verse to the Subject of Tawheed

That it rejects those who attribute events to time, because in so doing, they are ascribing a partner to Allah (swt ), for it is He, Alone Who decrees what will be and what will not be.

..ooOOoo..

It is authentically reported on the authority of Abu Hurairah (ra ) that the Prophet (saas ) said: "Allah (swt ), Most Blessed, Most High, says: "The son of Adam wrongs Me: He curses time, though I am time: In My Hands are all things and I cause the night to follow the day." 2 In another narration, He (saas ) says: "Do not curse time, for verily, time is Allah (swt )."

Allah (swt ), Most Glorified, Most High informs us in this Hadith Qudsi, that man commits a great wrong against Allah (swt ) when he curses time and attributes the occurrence of events to it, for Allah (swt ) is the Rabb of time and the Disposer of affairs and it is by His Qadr that events take place. Therefore to curse time is to curse the Owner of time.

In the second narration, the Prophet (saas ) forbids us from cursing time, saying that Allah (swt ) is the Owner of time and the Disposer of it and all events and affairs, and this is confirmation of what was reported in the preceding Hadith Qudsi.

Benefits Derived From This Hadith

1. The forbiddance of cursing time.

2. That no actions may be attributed to time.

Relevance of This Hadith to the Subject of the Chapter

That it proves that to curse time is to commit a great wrong against Allah (swt ).

anyhow, you'll forgive that I don't see anything logical about what you are writing.. you are entitled to your opinion though weak and preposterous as it is!

peace

[Tornado]

A rock doesn't reproduce though. When something reproduces over and over again for such a long time, you would think things could become very complex. My point is that beauty, complexity doesn't have to come from a god. If a god created energy, I have no trouble imagining that just that energy and without a god's guidance (and of course there could have been one) could lead to everything we see today because 13.7 billions years is an incredibly long time.

[جوري]

Sometimes when I reflect deep enough, I think eternal punishment for people being so ungrateful is hardly even adequate...


I usually don't comment on this forum at all, I've been content with being a lurker and allowing people with better literary skills and knowledge discuss these topics [Although I might start adding my 2cents in here or there]....but I felt prompted to log on and respond to this statement because I find it incredibly callous. I believe any person with a shred of compassion for their fellow human being would be utterly devastated to watch people being tortured even for just a minute.. But it seems for you some people being tortured for eternity isn't enough, what would be satisfactory-you personally torturing them? It may seem ungrateful to you for someone to question our body's imperfections and our susceptibility to tens of thousands of debilitating diseases/abnormalities.. but I think it's pretty human to want to know why a perfect Creator would allow these flaws. Also, I don't think anyone here is really denying how intricate, complex and awe inspiring the body is.
I really do enjoy some of your posts, you are extremely intelligent, but I believe that just went way too far, and frankly it's frightening that so many people have that exact same mentality.

/waits to get served heh.

I don't see what eternal torture for deserving folks is callous? I believe in justice, and everyone will get exactly what they deserve for what they have earned. Allah isn't unjust, so he tells us in the Quran..

[Pickthal 99:1] When Earth is shaken with her (final) earthquake
[Pickthal 99:2] And Earth yieldeth up her burdens,
[Pickthal 99:3] And man saith: What aileth her?
[Pickthal 99:4] That day she will relate her chronicles,
[Pickthal 99:5] Because thy Lord inspireth her.
[Pickthal 99:6] That day mankind will issue forth in scattered groups to be shown their deeds.
[Pickthal 99:7] And whoso doeth good an atom's weight will see it then,
[Pickthal 99:8] And whoso doeth ill an atom's weight will see it then.

Frankly, it is I who is amused by your mentality, the sort that finds compassion for criminals and would deny justice to victims simply because it appears 'callous' to dispense with justice!

cheers

[جوري]

A rock doesn't reproduce though. When something reproduces over and over again for such a long time, you would think things could become very complex. My point is that beauty, complexity doesn't have to come from a god. If a god created energy, I have no trouble imagining that just that energy and without a god's guidance (and of course there could have been one) could lead to everything we see today because 13.7 billions years is an incredibly long time.

Ever heard of abiogenesis? it is scientific like the theory of evolution, so the burden of proof is on you to make it data-based rather than hot air?

Either way, I don't see how evolution over billions and billions and billions and billions of years disproves God?

Tell you what, seeing that I am out of time and don't want to be baited into an asinine debate, when you come up with something solid and apprehensible, do reply.. until then just spare me the recycled rhetoric..


cheers

[gang4]

For you even to assume or believe that Atheists think as you do implies your moral compass is indeed, skewed.


Not at all. If I recall, I directly answered that.


Is this a personal insult?

I could say it was never my intention to insult anybody, but of course you have your freedom to draw your own conclusion.

And if you are interested to play word-boxing to exercise self-pride... I am not.
It seems to me one of us or both incapacitate to have a fruitful discussion. I see no reason to continue.

Of course , any last words you have to reply this message, I 'll try not to respond. So, you can have the last word..... (and no personal insult was intended... I didn't know I need to place this line on the previous post.... my bad :) )

[Pygoscelis]

I would even less surprise if eventually the final moral compas is a downgrade version what the moral scriptures taught us.

And I wouldn't be at all suprised if a religion when being created incorporated moral values of the day, many of which would be moral values common amongst most humans. The holy books don't say "thou shalt not steal" because god arbitrarily decided he wanted us not to steal, the books say that because the people already had this moral value and so they attributed it to the God that they created. This is also why people assign genders to gods (we say he and she, not it) and attribute characteristics to them and personal interests.

say you have 300 millions atheist in the world, everybody think their own moral compas... how many millions different types do you suppose they have?

Many. But most would be very similar. Why? Because they all come from common origins. Human empathy is a biological response that we have as a species. We all have it (well except for sociopaths) but some of us manage to bury it beneath religions and other ideologies.

Now suppose they disagree to one another about what the moral codes..do you suppose violence won't be included to force one will to the others in the resolution?

Quite possibly violence could errupt from time to time. But now take that same example and dress it up in religion. Add a ton of authoritarianism and tribalism (both of which are fostered greatly by religion) attached to each differing view and that same minor disagreement above becomes a major world event. Then just for flavour, add in a bunch of nonsense morals to further fight over (arbitrary things like "don't work on a particular day" or "wear a particular garment" or "mutilate your genitals")

Let say you are a married man, and an atheist say to you: since you do not use your wive this afternoon, I'd like to borrow your wive for an afternoon sex. Since logically, he needs a woman and he has none at the moment. you have her and you don't use her that afternoon...so why not?

Given that both men and the woman (or both women and the man if a woman wants to borrow another woman's man) consent, then why not indeed? The three of them are not hurting anyone. Let them do what they want. Its not my business. I'm not going to judge them. I'm not going to scream at them that they deserve eternal punishment. I'm certainly not going to do violence to them because they offended some god I made up.

now let see your imaginary world...,. will it have order?... if it doesn't then chaos is the word... no need to go further...

Do you think religious authoritarianism is the only way we can have order in the world?

Can it really be done without authoritarianism involved?

Certainly. Democracy doesn't need authoritarianism. In fact authoritarianism erodes democracy, as we see in the current US administration. When people stop thinking for themselves, fear voicing dissenting opinions, and agree to whatever leader wants, trouble is not far behind.

You start from scratch this moral codes...with the characteristics of human error and the immaturity of human emotions.

No, not start from scratch. Morality existed before religion, and I think most religious folks realize this. Do christians really believe that the ancient jews found it good to murder before Moses told them otherwise? Do muslims really believe that before the quran the arab people thought it a virtue to rape and steal?

[Pygoscelis]

double post. delete.

[Tornado]

Ever heard of abiogenesis? it is scientific like the theory of evolution, so the burden of proof is on you to make it data-based rather than hot air?

Either way, I don't see how evolution over billions and billions and billions and billions of years disproves God?

Tell you what, seeing that I am out of time and don't want to be baited into an asinine debate, when you come up with something solid and apprehensible, do reply.. until then just spare me the recycled rhetoric..


cheers

:? I never said it disproved god, I said it doesn't need god because time can account for the complexity, meaning that if you want to convince an atheist, don't offer that as evidence. It's not. I don't know much about abiogenesis but if it's actual science, I doubt it's just hot air.

As I've said before, this thread isn't doing much. Whether there is a god or not doesn't matter. If there was proof of a god, then I'd be a deist. The only question I as an atheist is concerned with is what evidence is there that a certain religion is right? (not looking for answers in this thread). As far as lifestyle goes, atheists, agnostics, deists or anyone who doesn't believe in a personal god are pretty much the same in that we don't know believe in a religious god so it's confusing why atheists seem to be looked down upon, perhaps we speak louder?

[Tornado]

Only a mentally deluded fool would believe in god, jinni, iblees, flying buraq, prophets, life after death, heaven and hell and all that nonsense.

You make it sound as if it's their fault. When you were religious, would you not have agreed with them? You should know how it feels to be in their shoes.

[gang4]

And I wouldn't be at all suprised if a religion when being created incorporated moral values of the day, many of which would be moral values common amongst most humans. The holy books don't say "thou shalt not steal" because god arbitrarily decided he wanted us not to steal, the books say that because the people already had this moral value and so they attributed it to the God that they created. This is also why people assign genders to gods (we say he and she, not it) and attribute characteristics to them and personal interests.



Many. But most would be very similar. Why?

I must admit except taking a class or or two back in the college days, I do not know much about Humanities historical background.

What I do know, bad things are abandon in terms of quantity that's why good things has better quality to balance it out.

Human tends to cater savage behavior than toward civilized one. high degree of knowledge, or set of beliefs religious or cultural may help reduce bad behavior though no guarantee.

my logical side of me says it's like a chicken-egg question, is it a religion got the moral values or the other way around. Of course, my belief side (in this case more dominant) says: Religion, definitely.

That is the beauty of Islam I found, the word Allah has no gender nor plural.


The reason I asked since there are no moral-stopper (no fear of the aftermath in the hereafter etc)... the moral values easily extends beyond religious moral values...

moral values falls into the area of like and dislike of one's ambition/lust/drive (I couldn't find a proper word on this).

Some would agree on one's moral values some won't. COnflicts will easily arises. Moral values will be politicized to achieve one's ambition. So most likely, the strong wil conquer the weak, not much different than dictatorships we've had in the history.


why I assume in the negative direction... because that's the easiest or the first thing human does... (this sentence is a good example, same thing when you are talking about authoritarianism)


It doesn't mean, with religion these things won't happening (God, we saw religious reasons contributed to the caused of war many times)...it always caused by the people not the teaching...


but like someone said: Democracy has lots of weak spots, but that is the best we got...

To me (subjective on this as a sharing note - you don't have to read it), religion is the best tool we got to establish peace among billions of people... and if you see it imperfect... I say other options will be worst....

I believe the first couple (Adam&Eve) disobeyed God so did Iblis (Saytan).. the difference is the couple repented, iblis refused to do so...


God gave the descendant of Adam easy set of rules...If they follow the rules, the good stuff like peace, no suffering, no hunger etc will be achieved but human nature tends to keep disobeying God...

After thousands of years, billions of people things get complicated in maximum ways we can think of...


all the bad stuff, war, hunger, no world peace etc gotten worst... since it's very difficult to blame oneself...then the descendant of Adam blames God.....

All bad things in the world history, to me if we are honest it was caused by human disobeying God rules... not because of God!

How about earthquakes stuff that casuing people to die and not from deforestations stuff like that? Is it not God fault? No. TO us, dying has a bad connotation, but to God, every creatures has their time...He will raise us just like that...

Not everything is logical, even the why energy exists is a mystery to us which I doubt will be solved...

For example where were we when we are sleeping or unconciouss? you can go psychological on this by explaining 4 different sleep stages (I forgot I think is four)...You may find explanations about biochemistry working at our brain... bu does it really explain about soul?

so many unknown, the anthropic principle, the entropy's law, murphy's law, bad stuff in much bigger volumes than the good stuff... does it really the evolution can explain from a single cell amino acids developped into a humand being or other creatures?

I am giving random thoughts here.... you have other points, I got no chance to touch....

but I do receive some input from you....

[gang4]

I would have thought Atheists have better morals and ethics than their religious counterparts. Athests base their morality and ethics on what the soceity finds acceptable. We evaluate what is best in the interest of society and individual and act accofrdigly. What have the deluded faithheads got. They have the primitive and barbaric bronze age texts which they believe is sent by some creature living in the sky through jinns and jibreels, supernatural creatures that fly through space to reach earth. Its all rubbish and doesnt make any sense. How can anybody be anything other than an atheist, that is what I do not understand.

Only a mentally deluded fool would believe in god, jinni, iblees, flying buraq, prophets, life after death, heaven and hell and all that nonsense.

Likewise it's an idiotic statement...
Not even a word of intelligence...
I am requesting a ban for this account...

[gang4]

Brother, you are just too lazy. Too lazy to think. Which is why you want me banned, so that you would not have to think about these questions.

And what I said about faith is true. Religious faith is irrational. It is a belief held in spite of firm evidence against the claims made. That makes religious beliefs "delusional". And people who believe in it are foolish to do so when so much information refuting their beliefs is readily available to us today. That makes them "deluded fools".

I am sorry if I have offended anyone, I can apologise for that. But I stand by my arguments made in this regard.

You are jawing about morals and ethis...and jump into conclusion that
we are mentally deluded fool by believing in God... are there any correlations?

then you call me too lazy to think...and concluded I would not have to think abou these questions... are you a mind reader now? anything you say is always in agreement with reality?

You gave us only few lines and concluded we are fools... and gave an impression you are the only one who can have arguments.. others who differ are mentally deluded and fool?

Is it not an idiotic statement...? Can you not tell who is mentally deluded and a fool?

If you can't then look into the mirror....

[Trumble]

And what I said about faith is true. Religious faith is irrational. It is a belief held in spite of firm evidence against the claims made. That makes religious beliefs "delusional". And people who believe in it are foolish to do so when so much information refuting their beliefs is readily available to us today. That makes them "deluded fools".

Even as a religious atheist (not a contradiction in terms for a Buddhist) I'm puzzled by that - I am not aware of any 'firm evidence' whatsoever in that context? About the one thing most here agree on is that there is no 'firm evidence' either way, and the fact the debate continues at full force several thousand years after it started rather supports that view.

However, I fear your stay here will be short. You really can't just turn up on a religious forum and then insult everybody already there for being religious. You disagree with them, fine, but there is no need to be rude. Instead, there are some fine theist debators here when they come out to play; you never know, you might just learn something if you engage constructively.

[Duncan Ferguson]

Brother, there is no such thing as a religious atheist. You are either with us, on the side of reason, logic and rationality, or you are not. Simple as that.

You are a Buddhist. I have no problem with that. As a vegetarian atheist, I have a lot of respect for Buddhists, but please dont call yourself an atheist if you belong to an organised religion. We try to keep our group an elite one and limit our numbers if we have to. There is admission to Atheism only for the intellectual elites because we focus on quality rather than quantity.

An absurd post which belies the idea of an elite group which would have SundriedAtheist as a member. Atheism is a belief that no gods exist and is therefore not umbilically connected with rationalism.

Trumble, is there anywhere that you know that offers someone like me the opportunity to address Buddhism? I've tried in the past but I find it very difficult - possibly due to my own limitations - because they are so difficult to pin down, metaphorically-speaking.

[Skavau]

And if you are interested to play word-boxing to exercise self-pride... I am not.
It seems to me one of us or both incapacitate to have a fruitful discussion. I see no reason to continue.

Okay.

But remember this is an open-forum. If you begin make erroneous and ignorant assertions about Atheists again, I will respond again. It is entirely up to you if you wish to respond further. Never let just one side of the argument lay.

[جوري]

:? I never said it disproved god, I said it doesn't need god because time can account for the complexity,

Time accounts for the complexity because you have said so? Don't you need to give scientific support to your claims? Further I have already stated time as an attribute of God, if you'd actually bother read, which in fact still puts a second dent in your claim, 'things happening due to time', since time is ascribed to him!

meaning that if you want to convince an atheist, don't offer that as evidence. It's not. I don't know much about abiogenesis but if it's actual science, I doubt it's just hot air.

1- I don't need to convince an atheist of anything!
2-Shouldn't you be well read on the atheist pronunciamento before engaging in a topic that asserts a universal negative so you can handle yourself with some dexterity?

As I've said before, this thread isn't doing much. Whether there is a god or not doesn't matter. If there was proof of a god, then I'd be a deist. The only question I as an atheist is concerned with is what evidence is there that a certain religion is right? (not looking for answers in this thread). As far as lifestyle goes, atheists, agnostics, deists or anyone who doesn't believe in a personal god are pretty much the same in that we don't know believe in a religious god so it's confusing why atheists seem to be looked down upon, perhaps we speak louder?

No! the majority of atheists just speak without any abstract thought or intellectual acuity, which makes them duller...
I don't look down on anyone, if I wanted to, I'd spend my time looking for your forums stressing my stands.. as it so happens, it is you who is frequenting a religious forum, peddling non-scientific drivel and hoping somehow it will take!

cheers

[Trumble]

Trumble, is there anywhere that you know that offers someone like me the opportunity to address Buddhism? I've tried in the past but I find it very difficult - possibly due to my own limitations - because they are so difficult to pin down, metaphorically-speaking.

Sent you a p.m.

[Skavau]

Time accounts for the complexity because you have said so? Don't you need to give scientific support to your claims? Further I have already stated time as an attribute of God, if you'd actually bother read, which in fact still puts a second dent in your claim, 'things happening due to time', since time is ascribed to him!

Circular arguments work because circular arguments work because circular arguments work because circular arguments work.

Just because you have stated time as an attribute of God does not at all give us any reason to believe it is actually true.

[Eeman]

Sent you a p.m.

brother trumble peace

can i ask you a question since you are a buddhist,,, sorry guys off topic i know but ummm you know the main belief of buddhism wha is it?
i mean from my understanding of buddhism correct me if i am wrong you guys belief that depending on the piety, as in ummm i dunno ranking of the person through meditation etc one can reach the status of being god? is that true?

[Trumble]

brother trumble peace

can i ask you a question since you are a buddhist,,, sorry guys off topic i know but ummm you know the main belief of buddhism wha is it?

In a nutshell, Buddhism explains the nature of suffering and how it can be ended. I suppose its 'main belief' is that suffering can be ended by following the path set out by the Buddha.

i mean from my understanding of buddhism correct me if i am wrong you guys belief that depending on the piety, as in ummm i dunno ranking of the person through meditation etc one can reach the status of being god? is that true?

No. The condition Buddhists ultimately seek is nirvana, the supreme state free from suffering and individual existence. There is no suggestion nirvana equates to 'becoming God'; indeed Buddhists do not believe God exists. Nirvana is the ultimate human state, not a divine one.

Anyway, as you say this is off topic. Try THIS thread.

[Tornado]

No! the majority of atheists just speak without any abstract thought or intellectual acuity, which makes them duller...
I don't look down on anyone, if I wanted to, I'd spend my time looking for your forums stressing my stands.. as it so happens, it is you who is frequenting a religious forum, peddling non-scientific drivel and hoping somehow it will take!

cheers

The real reason I am an atheist is that I can't comprehend how something magical/perfect can exists since I don't believe in magic.

If there is evidence for a god, it could be a deist's god or a theist's god. As I've said, then my only concern is what evidence is there for a certain religion to be right? Anyways, I'm not sure why you are on this thread if you don't want to convince atheists. There are many on here who would gladly do that while it seems to me you wouldn't mind seeing atheists burn in hell for eternity, and worse.

[جوري]

Circular arguments work because circular arguments work because circular arguments work because circular arguments work.

Just because you have stated time as an attribute of God does not at all give us any reason to believe it is actually true.

Aha.. does that work both ways? Just because 'you' plural state, Rocks become folks on the account of the passage of a long loooong looooong time, does not at all give us any reason to believe it is true.. fact is, when you (plural) make a statement as such and claim it 'scientific', the burden of proof dwells in your court to be prove it!..

Otherwise we are all wasting each others' time and I so hate for my time to be wasted!


cheers

[جوري]

The real reason I am an atheist is that I can't comprehend how something magical/perfect can exists since I don't believe in magic.

What is magical about God, that is more of a stretch from autogeny?

If there is evidence for a god, it could be a deist's god or a theist's god. As I've said, then my only concern is what evidence is there for a certain religion to be right? Anyways, I'm not sure why you are on this thread if you don't want to convince atheists. There are many on here who would gladly do that while it seems to me you wouldn't mind seeing atheists burn in hell for eternity, and worse.

You can't investigate the minor nuances of religion(s), when you don't believe in the fulcrum tenet (God)--- The majority believe the proposition Of God, is not susceptible to proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident... the way you assume (x) to equal 1 if someone proposes 3+x= 4... we need not see God, as everything in existence is proof of him..

I don't think most folks here are trying to convince you of anything, again, if we were looking to pass da3wa we'd visit your forums to spread it.. what kind of logic do you employ when you write?

I am here because I enjoy two things!
1- Islam
2- pointing out the drivel of raving lunatics!

cheers

[Tornado]

What is magical about God, that is more of a stretch from autogeny?

Everything? God has no explanation. An entity with infinite powers, I find it hard to believe.

You can't investigate the minor nuances of religion(s), when you don't believe in the fulcrum tenet (God)--- The majority believe the proposition Of God, is not susceptible to proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident... the way you assume (x) to equal 1 if someone proposes 3+x= 4... we need not see God, as everything in existence is proof of him..

I don't think most folks here are trying to convince you of anything, again, if we were looking to pass da3wa we'd visit your forums to spread it.. what kind of logic do you employ when you write?

I am here because I enjoy two things!
1- Islam
2- pointing out the drivel of raving lunatics!

cheers

Having proof of a god doesn't mean anything as I already said, I am only interested in evidence for religions to be right. Of course I don't believe in a god because there is no evidence. What you see as evidence (complexities/beauties) is not evidence for a god. That's why you have to turn to actual evidence in the holy books.
I actually do see Muslims here that are very helpful while some, like yourself, who insult when it comes to talking to atheists.

[جوري]

Everything?

What is everything, I don't understand fragments!

God has no explanation. An entity with infinite powers, I find it hard to believe.

This concerns me how?

Having proof of a god doesn't mean anything as I already said, I am only interested in evidence for religions to be right.

And I have already stated, you can't explore an option before you accept the basic tenets!
You can't speak of nucleophilic substitution if you don't understand a transamination reaction!

Of course I don't believe in a god because there is no evidence. What you see as evidence (complexities/beauties) is not evidence for a god. That's why you have to turn to actual evidence in the holy books.
I actually do see Muslims here that are very helpful while some, like yourself, who insult when it comes to talking to atheists.

Finding God is a solo journey! and I didn't personally arrive to that clause based on a holy book.. any holy book. As stated before, you have to logically arrive to that port before deciding where to dock.. so if I were I'd refrain from assuming for me why I am one way or the other.

As for your last statement, again, so?

cheers

[Duncan Ferguson]

Time accounts for the complexity because you have said so? Don't you need to give scientific support to your claims?

I can never quite understand the problems that theists have with time. Time is a component of any process. If something is possible, then given time it will happen. Some things have a higher probability than others and this is often expressed as a timescale.

[جوري]

I can never quite understand the problems that theists have with time. Time is a component of any process. If something is possible, then given time it will happen. Some things have a higher probability than others and this is often expressed as a timescale.

You'll forgive me with being particular.. this is how I like to work! systematically
for instance:
5609586958 BC hard consolidated mineral matter which came from God knows where acquired a new base pair from God knows where and incorporated it into itself to make perinephric fat.. 5609586959 BC the same consolidated mineral matter now with perinephric fat decided to take unto itself another few base pairs from God knows where to proliferate into Gerotals Facia.. Do you catch my drift? I'd like for you to validate that scientifically and establish why it happened in that fashion so that they fall into a properly working system not a glob of green goo.. and to do it for every organ system until it reaches complex form, then for every plant, for every life form, for every ocean for every fruit for every planet..

Until then 'time component' is really not very telling is it?


cheers

[Skavau]

Aha.. does that work both ways? Just because 'you' plural state, Rocks become folks on the account of the passage of a long loooong looooong time

The hell?

Rocks don't evolve.

, does not at all give us any reason to believe it is true.. fact is, when you (plural) make a statement as such and claim it 'scientific', the burden of proof dwells in your court to be prove it!..

I see what you are saying here. And yes, it is true. Simply claiming something does not make it true. However, I have not actually made any claims without having evidence and/or reason to back it up.

[Skavau]

This concerns me how?

I'm sorry, I just had to draw attention to this comment I saw from Skye.

It doesn't concern you at all you if you don't find it interesting but lest you appear to forget that you and Tornado are having a discussion. Making rather rude statements like that when he states his own beliefs on the matter of God is completely out of place and over the top.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
To me, God is an emotion:
* some people have felt that emotion and call it God.
* some people have felt the emotion but refuse to call it God.
* some people haven't felt it so won't ever call it God.

[جوري]

The hell?

Rocks don't evolve.

How true.. perhaps now we can throw out abiogenesis along with other theories inviting nothing but ridicule?

I see what you are saying here. And yes, it is true. Simply claiming something does not make it true. However, I have not actually made any claims without having evidence and/or reason to back it up.

Hence the you 'plural' I'll have to assume though, that if you jump to the defense of someone that you share his convictions?!

cheers

[جوري]

I'm sorry, I just had to draw attention to this comment I saw from Skye.

It doesn't concern you at all you if you don't find it interesting but lest you appear to forget that you and Tornado are having a discussion. Making rather rude statements like that when he states his own beliefs on the matter of God is completely out of place and over the top.

A belief is a belief.. I reserve the right to meet inane observations with like charm!


cheers

[Skavau]

How true.. perhaps now we can throw out abiogenesis along with other theories inviting nothing but ridicule?

What does rocks not evolving have to do with abiogenesis?

[Skavau]

A belief is a belief.. I reserve the right to meet inane observations with like charm!


cheers

It was not an 'inane observation'. He was expressing his belief. Your attitude concerning it I found immature and rude. Consider from a personal perspective. Let us imagine you and a friend are in a discussion and he has just told you about his beliefs. Would you honestly reply: "Do I care?!"

[Tornado]

:cry: Civil please. I don't want insults thrown back and forth. Perhaps she has a reason for being rude and insulting or maybe it's just her nature.

[Makky]

Salam be upon those who follow the truth.

We have a number of atheists here in this forum, I'd like to focus on one of the main problems in Athiesm by asking Athiests this Question..

How can you define an evidence?

[جوري]

What does rocks not evolving have to do with abiogenesis?

?? Perhaps you can express yourself better, or seek a dictionary to aid you.. I don't understand fragments!
cheers

[جوري]

It was not an 'inane observation'. He was expressing his belief. Your attitude concerning it I found immature and rude. Consider from a personal perspective. Let us imagine you and a friend are in a discussion and he has just told you about his beliefs. Would you honestly reply: "Do I care?!"

He is not a friend. As for friends that express opinions that I don't care for, I simply tell them so and state my reasons!

cheers

[جوري]

:cry: Civil please. I don't want insults thrown back and forth. Perhaps she has a reason for being rude and insulting or maybe it's just her nature.

Yeah that is it!

[gang4]

Originally Posted by SundriedAtheist View Post
... You are either with us, on the side of reason, logic and rationality...

That my original presumption was...atheist based on reason, logic etc
But,

An absurd post which belies the idea of an elite group which would have SundriedAtheist as a member. Atheism is a belief that no gods exist and is therefore not umbilically connected with rationalism.

Thanks to this piece of information.


I must admit I was wrong or mislead by having presumption reason or logic is the driving force behind atheist. It seems I need to rewrite my understanding.


- Monotheistic believe system is received from God through HIS prophets and HIS Scriptures.
- Polytheistic believe system is received from their fathers of old developped culturally for so many centuries.
- Atheist is a self-proclaimed believe system.

A quick rewrite version of my understanding:

A Believer Praises God.
An atheist praises one-self.... how they are more self-aproclaimed superior morally and intelectually than the believer.

A Believer's attitude is taught and tends to be humble. Though not all, some may behave the opposite (you could say myself for example).
An atheist' attitude tends to be more self-proclaimed superior morally and intelectually than the believer. Though not all some do have the capacity to be objective and humble. So it depends on statistics or your own experience.

A Believer is required to perform do and don't to achieve PIETY.
Atheist to achieve moral and intellectual superiority needs not to go trough 6-year Ph.D program. One can do it maybe in minutes by self-proclaimed as an atheist and memorizing few lines:
"Where is the proof the existency of God"
"Ignorance is not a form of evidence" etc...

And equppied with those memorized lines, one can do the da'wah if one wants to by going to the religous sites and telling the believers how they are mentally deluded and a fool by believing in God..

A Believer believes in miracles performed by their prophets.
Atheist doesn't believe in miracles, but may miraculously believes one can acheive moral and intellectual supremacy not by years of a systematic doing and learning but just an atheistic self-proclaimed would be sufficient enough. In the count of five fingers...voila! Self-congratulations, you are above others!

It seems atheist set of believes are hardly related to being right or being righteous rather it's a matter of superiority.... and yes, these believes IS definitely much superior... given if-and-only-if it's a self-proclaimed believe dettached from reason and evidence.

Though it was never my intention, if you feel this is a personal insult...Notice the intentional chose-word 'one' that functions ambiguously as a pronoun and also as a number. One (number) has shown most of these symptoms (SundriedAtheist).

Or You can request to ban my account...

Since atheist is a personal belief and not a new method of reasoning and everybody has a freedom to choose their own set of a belief... No need to discuss further.

Only after one's own death one will know who has the right set of belief....and of course if God Wills to change one set of belief.

Think I am done here...I have conveyed few verses.
If I am not ban, I'll be around the section of my brothers and sisters to learn more about Islam.

Have a good day...
To my brothers and sisters... Assallamu-Allaikum.

[Trumble]

-A quick rewrite version of my understanding:

A Believer Praises God.
An atheist praises one-self.... how they are more self-aproclaimed superior morally and intelectually than the believer.

Try again. You are hopelessly confusing an intellectual position with your own ridiculous generalized caricature of those that hold it. You are doing exactly what you accuse 'atheists' of doing!

[Skavau]

- Monotheistic believe system is received from God through HIS prophets and HIS Scriptures.
- Polytheistic believe system is received from their fathers of old developped culturally for so many centuries.
- Atheist is a self-proclaimed believe system.

An Atheist is just someone who does not believe in a God or Gods. It is not a "self-proclaimed belief system".

A Believer Praises God.
An atheist praises one-self.... how they are more self-aproclaimed superior morally and intelectually than the believer.

No they don't. These are prejudiced generalisations. How accurate would you consider it if I accused all Muslims of being inherently totalitarian in nature?

A Believer's attitude is taught and tends to be humble. Though not all, some may behave the opposite (you could say myself for example).
An atheist' attitude tends to be more self-proclaimed superior morally and intelectually than the believer. Though not all some do have the capacity to be objective and humble. So it depends on statistics or your own experience.

Provide evidence for your analysis.

A Believer is required to perform do and don't to achieve PIETY.
Atheist to achieve moral and intellectual superiority needs not to go trough 6-year Ph.D program. One can do it maybe in minutes by self-proclaimed as an atheist and memorizing few lines:

Absolutely nothing regarding an Atheist there is true in the slightest.

Perhaps you need to hear the definition of Atheist again: An Atheist is someone who simply does not believe in the existence of a God/s. It has nothing to with a moral compass whatsoever.

And equppied with those memorized lines, one can do the da'wah if one wants to by going to the religous sites and telling the believers how they are mentally deluded and a fool by believing in God..

Just so this is on record, this thread was started by a Muslim criticising Atheists. In fact, in a rather large irony - it was started in fact, by gang4 himself! There is also another thread on here which criticises Atheists started by a Muslim. Essentially every single Atheist on here defends themselves. No-one from the atheist camp here has claimed that anyone is mentally deluded or a fool for believing in God. (actually, one person did and he was banned).

Your analysis, gang4 - could not be further from reality.

A Believer believes in miracles performed by their prophets.
Atheist doesn't believe in miracles, but may miraculously believes one can acheive moral and intellectual supremacy not by years of a systematic doing and learning but just an atheistic self-proclaimed would be sufficient enough.

Utter drivel.

I as an Atheist, do not believe this. Stop telling me what I do and do not believe.

It seems atheist set of believes are hardly related to being right or being righteous rather it's a matter of superiority.... and yes, these believes IS definitely much superior... given if-and-only-if it's a self-proclaimed believe dettached from reason and evidence.

Well, since there is no and never was any "atheist set of believes" in the first place - actually, it seems like your entire is one massive insulting and misleading strawman.

Though it was never my intention, if you feel this is a personal insult...Notice the intentional chose-word 'one' that functions ambiguously as a pronoun and also as a number. One (number) has shown most of these symptoms (SundriedAtheist).

So what?

One Atheist does not define others. On Gawaher, I got insulted many times over by a specific Muslim user who referred me to a cancer and someone who is wicked. I do not define all other Muslims by that individual Muslim. I understand instead that the individual Muslim I was conversing with then indeed was himself defined by his own ignorance and prejudice - much like yourself.

(Although he was worse).

Or You can request to ban my account...

Your ignorance does not insult me.

Since atheist is a personal belief and not a new method of reasoning and everybody has a freedom to choose their own set of a belief... No need to discuss further.

I will address posts that mislead people about what Atheism is. Including yours.

[Skavau]

?? Perhaps you can express yourself better, or seek a dictionary to aid you.. I don't understand fragments!
cheers

I cannot present that any more clearer:

What does the fact that rocks do not evolve have to do with our understanding of abiogenesis?

[جوري]

I cannot present that any more clearer:

What does the fact that rocks do not evolve have to do with our understanding of abiogenesis?

What is your understanding of abiogenesis?

[energy_22]

To me, God is an emotion:
* some people have felt that emotion and call it God.
* some people have felt the emotion but refuse to call it God.
* some people haven't felt it so won't ever call it God.

I have much the same view.

Which means that Moses heard the voice of emotion coming from the burning bush.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

God is far more then any emotion, he is constantly there maintaining order

otherwise the whole world would be like gotham city and we'd have thousands of psycho's running around writing "why-so-serious" in blood :|

[Azy]

You'll forgive me with being particular.. this is how I like to work! systematically
for instance:
5609586958 BC hard consolidated mineral matter which came from God knows where acquired a new base pair from God knows where and incorporated it into itself to make perinephric fat.. 5609586959 BC the same consolidated mineral matter now with perinephric fat decided to take unto itself another few base pairs from God knows where to proliferate into Gerotals (Gerota's) Facia.. Do you catch my drift? I'd like for you to validate that scientifically and establish why it happened in that fashion so that they fall into a properly working system not a glob of green goo.. and to do it for every organ system until it reaches complex form, then for every plant, for every life form, for every ocean for every fruit for every planet.

I think most here would prefer you being honest over systematic. It's doubtful that anyone who considers abiogenesis to be a realistic proposition is of the opinion that rocks spontaneously sprout human kidneys.
You can see from fossils that 3+ billion years ago there were only primitive bacteria on earth, Evolution is your target if you wish to dispute the rise of complexity, not abiogenesis.

Mineral-rich warm seas and simple self-replicating or co-replicating molecules are a good bet for the beginnings of life, not talking rocks. Such systems have been demonstrated, these things are not as fanciful as one might think.

[Muhammad]

:sl: and Greetings,

May I remind members to please remain on topic and avoid offensive comments, as this does not aid the discussion in any way and will lead to thread closure.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[جوري]

I think most here would prefer you being honest over systematic. It's doubtful that anyone who considers abiogenesis to be a realistic proposition is of the opinion that rocks spontaneously sprout human kidneys.
You can see from fossils that 3+ billion years ago there were only primitive bacteria on earth, Evolution is your target if you wish to dispute the rise of complexity, not abiogenesis.

Mineral-rich warm seas and simple self-replicating or co-replicating molecules are a good bet for the beginnings of life, not talking rocks. Such systems have been demonstrated, these things are not as fanciful as one might think.

Honest, systematic, problematic, abio-matic, evolu-matic 'such demonstrated' isn't evidence!.. it is filler, of the boring variety? I have made my proposition in one of the above posts, if you know enough about molecular bio, go ahead and prove it, bring me the earliest known fossil whose mere exitence denotes correlated event or events have taken place to set the cascade of all else in motion! A theory is as good as its cogency of evidence not the smoothness of the speaker, and I contend even that escapes you!

cheers

[gang4]

Try again. You are hopelessly confusing an intellectual position with your own ridiculous generalized caricature of those that hold it. You are doing exactly what you accuse 'atheists' of doing!

Try again you say...?
Since Atheist is a belief... any logical or intellectual approach is very likely hopeless...but, I give one more shot....(a spin what you actually meant)

The indirect proof (not the impossible-empirical direct data) the atheist keep asking.....may lie linguistically in your own language...

Al-Qur'an, 087.001-002 (Al-Ala [The Most High, Glory to your Lord in The Highest])
087.001 Glorify the name of thy Guardian-Lord Most High,
087.002 Who hath created, and further, given order and proportion;


Al-Qur'an, 007.054 (Al-Araf [The Heights])
Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): He draweth the night as a veil over the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!

There's your indirect proof!




For unbelievers who say: "??!"

Look at the keywords.....

We know the celestial bodies (Sun, moon, stars etc) governed by laws move in orderly fashion. In the case of our solar system the planets orbit in order or proper arrangement in agreement to Keppler's law (Keppler only discovered not created the law). And this has been known for hundred of years... any disagreed claim you have... it is not intellectually correct!
(since the rest of my arguments won't work but you can't refute this scientific fact)

You are an English man...meaning most of you come from English speaking countries: UK, Canada, U.S etc...Your English knowledge I am sure better than mine.

Notice the keyword "Order" which according to wordweb dictionary
Order -. A condition of regular or proper arrangement...
Order -. A command given by a superior that must be obeyed

It has more than two definitions but it's gonna be addressed later on...

Here comes the interesting parts, try to check the French, Spanish, Italian, German languages...the word "Order" on the other side of a coin always pops-up the word :"COMMAND"!

English/Spanish
Order - el orden
Command - el orden

English/French
Order - l'ordre
Command - l'ordre

English/Italian
Order - ordine
Command - comando
Note : if you reverse the process from Italian "comando" To English the word "Order" neatly appears.

English/German
Order - Reihenfolge
Command - Befehl
Note: again both words Reihenfolge and Befehl if you reverse the process to English the word "Order" also shows up.

Hence:
In any system that has characteristics of ORDER: cells in our body, government office, university, your mental activities etc must have the tight-knit word "COMMAND"!

...since to achieve proper arrangement (Order) it's impossible to absence from the word "command"...hence, both words are tightly connected or inseparable!

If you insist the word "Order" has nothing to do with the word "Command" then you need to rewrite at least five language dictionaries (English included).

if you argue sure because those languages has the same language root - Latin.... Well,

Here is Arabic which HAS NOTHING TO DO with the root-Latin!

English/Arabic
Order - نِظام
Command - نِظام

Also found in,
English/Malay-Indonesian
Order - Perintah
Command - Perintah


Now it becomes seven dictionaries you need to change...

If you say only seven languages out of thousands of human languages... it's your homework not mine to check them out.... I won't be surprise if this coin-words (Order, Command) will keep popping up in any human languages.

Now, The word "Command" according to the dictionary
- The power or authority to command
- An authoritative direction or instruction to do something
- A position of highest authority

In a way like double-helix DNA system, any ORDER intertwines with a COMMAND which inseparable with an AUTHORITATIVE command (the word authority appears on each definitions)

Last check on the word "Authority" on dictionary
- The power or right to give orders or make decisions

The connection among the word "ODER","COMMAND","AUTHORITY" have been established they are tightly-knit connected. Now....

Like stated In the earlier paragraph, the planets orbit in order or proper arrangement ...Who do you think behind the AUTHORITATIVE COMMAND that must be obeyed for the earth in ORDER to orbit the sun....? Your primer minister?

if you say the earth moves in order to obey natural law of gravity, Keppler etc....notice that any system even in the chaotic state (i.e.: fractal - chaos theory) has to follow "Order" (gravity, keppler etc) intertwines with the word "Command" then it must have an authoritative command...

One more time:
Who do you think give the AUTHORITATIVE COMMAND that must be obeyed for the moon in ORDER to orbit the earth....? president Bush?


Now you may try the other-definitions of the word "ORDER" found also in the dictionary:
-A legally binding command or decision entered on the court record
- Established customary state (especially of society)
"order ruled in the streets"; "law and order"
- A commercial*document used*to request someone to supply something in*return for payment and providing specifications and quantities

These definitions.. Are they applicable to be used for the movement of celestial body? For the earth to orbit the sun... does it need a commercial documents or a legal binding command on the court record? ...Definitely NOT!

nor the establish customary state law and order....so these other-definitions can be easily dismissed as irrelevant!


The other-definitions of the word "COMMAND" found also in the dictionary:
- a line of code written as part of a computer*program
- A military*unit or region under the control of a single officer

same here... the celestial body movements has nothing to do with C++ or java programming nor any four star general command...

Other dismissible definitions of Authority:
- An expert whose views are taken as definitive
- persons who exercise (administrative) control over others
- An administrative*unit of government

None has anything to do with the celestial body movements.

If you forgot the definition of the word "Authority" on dictionary
- The power or right to give orders or make decisions

By "authority" definition.... natural laws can NOT give orders or make decisions. Sure, human can give orders but not to give order to the celestial body movements (earth, moon etc) nor making decisions for them.

The remaining options we have:
- The Creator exists who has the Authority to give order or command that must be obeyed by celestial bodies since they move in proper arrangement (order)
- or you are claiming dictionaries are incorrect
- or the word ORDER has nothing to do with the word COMMAND and has nothing to do with the word AUTHORITY....that means you need to redefine seven dictionaries or more.
- or even more absurd: there is no order in celestial body movements.

Take an intellectual guess...(Hint: first option)


If one wants to argue (like the previous post):
Why not an invisible alien who sits on your shoulder who governs the celestial bodies?
The farthest galaxies we know of is about 164 Billion light years away...and they too move in orderly fashion....What kind of alien do you think has the capability to command all things in orderly fashion?

Do you think an alien who sits on your shoulder has the power covering galaxies
155,157,1200,000,000,000,000,000 Kilometer away from us?

If you say 'No' then it's not the alien...
If you say 'yes' then 'the intellectual opinion' you keep talking about for sure was absent...



Note: if you want to argue about the six days - the transliterated word Ayyamin also means period of time but you may argue with brother/sister who has more theological knowledge about this.

[Trumble]

Try again you say...?

You need to re-read my post; I quoted the passage I was referring to. Your understanding of atheism is incorrect, and I explained why.

Since Atheist is a belief... any logical or intellectual approach is very likely hopeless...but, I give one more shot....(a spin what you actually meant)

One way any belief is arrived it, be it belief in God, disbelief in God, belief that the earth revolves around the sun or belief that Arsenal will win their next game, is through a "logical and intellectual" approach. Many, and you can pick your own examples, also involve faith, wishful thinking, or both.

The indirect proof (not the impossible-empirical direct data) the atheist keep asking.....may lie linguistically in your own language...

I don't think so, the argument is hopelessly flawed. The laws of the universe are not dictated by dictionary definitions. Neither does the human adoption and use of words to represent particular concepts originate from dictionary definitions; it is the other way around. The origin of all language is based around concepts, or mental pictures if you prefer. Find enough things in common, up pops a word or words that link them in some way, get others to both understand that link (which may be very indirect, at times - imagine pointing to an elephant and a mouse and persuading your cave-dwelling friend new to language that both are 'animals'!) and bingo - a new word.

If you insist the word "Order" has nothing to do with the word "Command" then you need to rewrite at least five language dictionaries

Why on earth would I 'insist' that? Are you familiar with what a 'strawman' is? The connection between 'order' (in the sense of structure) and 'command' as concepts is obvious, if indirect, and I would be surprised not to find it relected in any language, or at least any language formulated by a people with any concept of the notion of authority. To our ancient ancestors things generally only became ordered in a generally chaotic world because somebody arranged for things to work out that way (I am referring to the everyday, physical world, not metaphysical or religious speculation).

[Skavau]

Gang4, that is the most hilarious argument I have ever read for the existence of God.

[Azy]

Honest, systematic, problematic, abio-matic, evolu-matic 'such demonstrated' isn't evidence!.. it is filler, of the boring variety? I have made my proposition in one of the above posts, if you know enough about molecular bio, go ahead and prove it, bring me the earliest known fossil whose mere exitence denotes correlated event or events have taken place to set the cascade of all else in motion! A theory is as good as its cogency of evidence not the smoothness of the speaker, and I contend even that escapes you!

I didn't claim that I am aware of any evidence for abiogenesis, merely that you were making an obvious strawman argument against it.

My other point was that you seem to be ridiculing abiogenesis by suggesting it couldn't possibly generate the sort of complex molecules required for human organ function, but that is the domain of evolution, not abiogenesis. No one ever said that DNA just popped out of nowhere without any sort of precursor.

You regularly castigate forum members for presenting arguments against your faith which are based on ignorance or misrepresentation, but it seems you can be the same way when the mood takes you.

[جوري]

I didn't claim that I am aware of any evidence for abiogenesis, merely that you were making an obvious strawman argument against it.

what is the strawman, or is that the word of the month?

My other point was that you seem to be ridiculing abiogenesis by suggesting it couldn't possibly generate the sort of complex molecules required for human organ function, but that is the domain of evolution, not abiogenesis. No one ever said that DNA just popped out of nowhere without any sort of precursor.

care to discuss the process in details or just content with a poor mention by way of passing fancy?

You regularly castigate forum members for presenting arguments against your faith which are based on ignorance or misrepresentation, but it seems you can be the same way when the mood takes you.

You and yours have never presented an argument 'of substance' against my faith, just space wasting bull. I'd think the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of he presenting any argument? That would be my attack should I opt that royalist approach sequent to signing up to the dawkins et al. forums!

You should espouse yourself to your convictions so when you write of them, there is some sort of fluidity? and I am not left to decipher what I may from your vague references to a mysterious site where such and such has been proven.. a shame the secrets of the universe decoded by a group of elite atheists isn't all over the ten o'clock news..

cheers

[gang4]

[QUOTE=Trumble;983166] You need to re-read my post;..../QUOTE]
It is you who is in need to re-read words of my post at first parenthesis

The interesting parts...
from...
"We know the celestial bodies (Sun, moon, stars etc) governed by laws move in orderly fashion. In the case of our solar system the planets orbit in order or proper arrangement in agreement to Keppler's law..."

miraculously twisted into
[QUOTE=Trumble;983166]
I don't think so, the argument is hopelessly flawed. The laws of the universe are not dictated by dictionary definitions.../QUOTE]

Using Skavau's words:
Do you even realize it it becomes the most hilarious argument?

You are right...It is hopelessly flawed beyond hope to have this as an argument

the arguments I have are orbiting around:
"Who do you think give the AUTHORITATIVE COMMAND that must be obeyed for the moon in ORDER to orbit the earth....?"

[QUOTE=Trumble;983166]
The connection between 'order' (in the sense of structure) and 'command' as concepts is obvious..../QUOTE]

I could say you are actually admitting the Authoritative command has been given and obeyed

But I got the impression you are not interested in that...what you want is to shape whatever words I wrote and twisted to discredit the meaning.

Yes, theist is in deep, deep trouble when atheists keep twisted the meaning....

(The "deep,deep trouble.." part no longer found... you have edited this part...a good sign to have a second thought that quick....)


Skavau... you want some arguments more hilarious?

Here are some basis of atheist arguments gathered so far just from this single thread alone:

"Thor of marvel comics book"
"Invisible alien sitting on your shoulder"
"mentally deluded fool"
"Ignorance is not a form of evidence"
"The most hilarious arguments"

And based on these arguments, Atheists supposedly have positioned their intellectual superiority.....?
......of course...none can argue...


From all the potent enemies atheist could engage to (mafia's boss, Homie from the hood, political figures etc), they willingly choose to against God's Will.... wow!

You could say I am maybe too naive to make an effort to escape a fellow human race from the day of judgment or naively make an attempt to place a doubt of their disbelief...

It is sooo hard hence it increases my respect to our prophet Muhammad S.A.W who has messaged the light of God to over billions people for many generations....and it seems some are always blinded to see.

To avoid fall into devil's advocates who has denied God's Will and instead chose to nurse self-pride ...

how about I say atheists have better arguments (who could beat Thor?)....


and I did a poor job terribly...
since the discussion instead of having objective arguments about the topic...tends to word-boxing....it goes nowhere...

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Gang4, that is the most hilarious argument I have ever read for the existence of God.

Agreed. Utterly breathtaking.

Peace

[Skavau]

Since gang4 is yet to grasp the quotation feature of this website, I'll do my best:

the arguments I have are orbiting around:
"Who do you think give the AUTHORITATIVE COMMAND that must be obeyed for the moon in ORDER to orbit the earth....?"

No-one.

There is no 'command' necessary. Trumble can respond to the rest of the first part.

Skavau... you want some arguments more hilarious?

Here are some basis of atheist arguments gathered so far just from this single thread alone:

Go for it.

"Thor of marvel comics book"

Thor is only referenced when it comes to analogies demonstrating the unfalsifiability of God. It is easily replaceable by essentially anything you can think of if 'Thor' specifically is giving you problems. What would you prefer?

"Invisible alien sitting on your shoulder"

See above.

"mentally deluded fool"

The user that used that as an argument has been banned. I consider also your complaint about Atheists using insults as an argument rather ironic considering that you went into a tirade against Atheism and Atheists assuming it would get you banned.

"Ignorance is not a form of evidence"

It isn't.

Moreover, "Ignorance is not a form of evidence" is not an argument, more of a factual statement.

"The most hilarious arguments"

That is not and never was an argument.

Is that it for the strawmen?

And based on these arguments, Atheists supposedly have positioned their intellectual superiority.....?
......of course...none can argue...

Of course not!

Two more strawmen enter the foray. First of all, I do not consider myself intellectually superior to anyone based on disbelief in the existence of a God/s. I consider it the height of arrogance to assume that an individual's personal beliefs or convictions is somewhat powerful enough to assume intellectual victory over someone who believes otherwise or contrary.

Secondly, none of anything you cited is an argument for anything. You are fighting with a strawman.

From all the potent enemies atheist could engage to (mafia's boss, Homie from the hood, political figures etc), they willingly choose to against God's Will.... wow!

I do not "willingly choose to go against God's Will". I don't believe in the existence of God.

To avoid fall into devil's advocates who has denied God's Will and instead chose to nurse self-pride ...

Again, I don't believe in God and I do not disbelieve in God to "nurse self-pride".

You do not know me, so stop assuming you do.

[Trumble]

Yes, theist is in deep, deep trouble when atheists keep twisted the meaning....

(The "deep,deep trouble.." part no longer found... you have edited this part...a good sign to have a second thought that quick....)

I didn't have second thoughts regarding the strength of your argument, but the comment was unnecessary, hence I deleted it.

[
But I got the impression you are not interested in that...what you want is to shape whatever words I wrote and twisted to discredit the meaning.

Not at all. I'm afraid it isn't even necessary to do that.. they manage to discredit themselves without any intervention from me. I don't mean to be unkind but the argument you presented really is absolute rubbish. The simple fact is that both camps have much better arguments to present and to counter than those we have seen in this thread. There are plenty of threads here in which they have been discussed.

[Azy]

what is the strawman, or is that the word of the month?

It does tend to crop up quite often around here, doesn't it?

5609586958 BC hard consolidated mineral matter which came from God knows where acquired a new base pair from God knows where and incorporated it into itself to make perinephric fat...

This seems to suggest that abiogenesis would begin by creating complex cells of the sort found in humans. You're playing the "how could all this appear by chance" game, and you're right because it's a pretty safe bet that it didn't happen like that at all. This isn't a problem for abiogenesis though, just for your idea of abiogenesis, nobody else who thinks it might be possible actually believes your proposed version.

care to discuss the process in details or just content with a poor mention by way of passing fancy?

I didn't post these to provide evidence for anything or explain anything besides the fact that you are deliberately creating a nonsense version of events.

You and yours have never presented an argument 'of substance' against my faith, just space wasting bull. I'd think the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of he presenting any argument? That would be my attack should I opt that royalist approach sequent to signing up to the dawkins et al. forums!

You should espouse yourself to your convictions so when you write of them, there is some sort of fluidity? and I am not left to decipher what I may from your vague references to a mysterious site where such and such has been proven.. a shame the secrets of the universe decoded by a group of elite atheists isn't all over the ten o'clock news..

So far noone has provided us with anything you could call evidence of a God's existence, or that it acted in a way consistent with any scripture known to humankind.
As you say, burden of proof is with the claimant, if Adam was made from dust in Paradise or some such as all these religious 'scholars' believe then show me the evidence and let's finish with the matter. Unfortunately, no takers thus far.

What I'm left with then is a world in which geological evidence shows us that the world was ruled by microbes for more than a billion years, and before that not much was happening life-wise.
I'm not afraid to say "I don't know what happened", and I don't have any evidence for abiogenesis or specifically how it happened on Earth (which would probably be near impossible to find due to it's nature) and I don't believe that it is necessarily the truth but we have two conflicting explanations and one of them has already shown itself to be inconsistent with the evidence we have about previous life on earth.

For the time being I'm left with the other option and listening to all the people tearing down their own homemade scenarios in order to 'prove' how they are unlikely.

[جوري]

It does tend to crop up quite often around here, doesn't it?

You are best suited to answer your own rhetoric!

This seems to suggest that abiogenesis would begin by creating complex cells of the sort found in humans. You're playing the "how could all this appear by chance" game, and you're right because it's a pretty safe bet that it didn't happen like that at all. This isn't a problem for abiogenesis though, just for your idea of abiogenesis, nobody else who thinks it might be possible actually believes your proposed version.

Since you have such a profound understanding of how it actually took place, perhaps you can do better? I am sure we're all awaiting your version of events with passionate fervor!

I didn't post these to provide evidence for anything or explain anything besides the fact that you are deliberately creating a nonsense version of events.

Again, if you know how the events actually took place, why not shed light on it in lieu of being deliberately ambiguous and paltering.. I don't enjoy having my time wasted, when you have us under the illusion of you being abreast of the latest developments!

So far noone has provided us with anything you could call evidence of a God's existence, or that it acted in a way consistent with any scripture known to humankind.

So far none of you have provided us evidence that anything in existence is due to anything other than God's existence, or that it is acted as described in your 'New science magazine'... Amazing, how everything is capable of being interpreted in two usually contradictory ways!

As you say, burden of proof is with the claimant, if Adam was made from dust in Paradise or some such as all these religious 'scholars' believe then show me the evidence and let's finish with the matter. Unfortunately, no takers thus far.

Evidence of is our existence here... on the other hand, you are unwilling to accept that version of events, yet seem handicapped at best in demonstrating the alternate route with some dexterity!

What I'm left with then is a world in which geological evidence shows us that the world was ruled by microbes for more than a billion years, and before that not much was happening life-wise.

Where did the microbes come from? and how did they sprout reticular matter and devlop sentience? by large leaps of faith? you are hilarious!

I'm not afraid to say "I don't know what happened", and I don't have any evidence for abiogenesis or specifically how it happened on Earth (which would probably be near impossible to find due to it's nature) and I don't believe that it is necessarily the truth but we have two conflicting explanations and one of them has already shown itself to be inconsistent with the evidence we have about previous life on earth.

Yeah.. You don't know indeed.. but have quite a large trap telling people what they believe is false yet can't support your own uproarious stories... I don't see anything in MY religion that doesn't support or contradicts science!

For the time being I'm left with the other option and listening to all the people tearing down their own homemade scenarios in order to 'prove' how they are unlikely.

Indeed and in the process you come across as an effete self-professed intellectual... I am yet to read something of substance of yours.. It is always a matter of saving face with you than admittance of defeat!

cheers

[Skavau]

I just noticed this post by Skye:

I don't see what eternal torture for deserving folks is callous? I believe in justice, and everyone will get exactly what they deserve for what they have earned. Allah isn't unjust, so he tells us in the Quran..

You are so close and yet so far. For me, the claim that Allah is infinitely just and merciful is outright contradicted by any assertion that "deserving folks" will be tortured for eternity in hell. Infinite torture for finite crimes is completely disproportionate and therefore unjust. Any damage or oppression that is mustered in a finite lifetime is outweighed by the punishment in this instance.

Secondly, saying that God is just because the Qu'ran claims God is just is a circular argument.

[Muhammad]

Thread Approved.

Not sure if it's been discussed specifically before - if so, this thread can be merged with the relevant thread(s).

[Trumble]

Acc. Wiki;

"anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion".

"Philosophically, evidence can include propositions which are presumed to be true used in support of other propositions that are presumed to be falsifiable"

I don't have an issue with either of those. Quite how this relates to a 'problem in atheism' I'm not sure. In the first instance it will always be open to question what is sufficient to 'determine or demonstrate the truth'. In the second instance you can always question the truth of those propositions presumed to be true. That's no different if you are a theist or an atheist.

[MSalman]

^for me to claim that my teacher is evil, not just and not merciful because he doesn't give same marks to all the students is outrageous. Are you fully aware of the consequences or outcomes of the finite crimes people commit? So, you are ok with finite torture?

To say that God is not just because the scriptures say that He punishes people is also a circular argument because the scriptures are the only source of your argument. His kindness is shown as He created us and gave us life when we were nothing. His justice is shown as He sent down His message and promised us the life of joy and happiness.

[Pygoscelis]

Whoever was asking what a straw man argumen is, if the question was serious, it means an argument where you mis-state somebody else's point in order to defeat what you claim it was (completely avoiding their actual point). It is a common fallacy done by folks on internet boards.

[جوري]

I just noticed this post by Skye:


You are so close and yet so far. For me, the claim that Allah is infinitely just and merciful is outright contradicted by any assertion that "deserving folks" will be tortured for eternity in hell. Infinite torture for finite crimes is completely disproportionate and therefore unjust. Any damage or oppression that is mustered in a finite lifetime is outweighed by the punishment in this instance.

Secondly, saying that God is just because the Qu'ran claims God is just is a circular argument.

That is actually not true at all.. Any system works with checks and balances..

your body functions well, you put in it an under cooked hamburger, and you'll be in hell, and that is actually your body's way of dealing with the stress you have placed upon it.

You want to be in great health, you need to work in the gym, do some strenous excericse which might appear as torture so you are not dropping dead at 40 because you are a tub of lard..

You want to have a nice vacation, you work hard all year in a job you might not like, you save up some money and you get to relax for a couple of weeks out of the year..

You warn your kids about eating from the cookie jar before dindin, they do it anyway, they end up constipated and fat with saturated fat and have no desire to eat their spinache, you punish them or look the other way so they keep doing it, it is really up to you but the way everything works is in a system of checks and balances..

And so in the Quran it states

Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it! (99.7)
And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it. (99.8)

certainly Allah isn't unjust....

I'd love to take away your breath for five minutes see how much of your fortune you'd spend to regain it for starters!

cheers

[Skavau]

^for me to claim that my teacher is evil, not just and not merciful because he doesn't give same marks to all the students is outrageous.

Absolutely.

That is because teachers mark given answers to questions correctly based upon their conformity with the actual answer. The marks that people receive in examinations have absolutely nothing to do with punishment or reward. Your analogy is invalid.

Are you fully aware of the consequences or outcomes of the finite crimes people commit?

Probably not. I know enough to know that none of them command infinite torture.

So, you are ok with finite torture?

I am against torture, finite or otherwise.

To say that God is not just because the scriptures say that He punishes people is also a circular argument because the scriptures are the only source of your argument.

I am responding to the assertion that God tortures or allows people to be tortured in the hellfire for eternity based on the crimes that they have committed in a finite lifetime. I am not using my premise to justify my conclusion, I am making my moral standpoint on this issue clear from information that I am receiving. It is the same if someone told me that a trespasser got six years in jail. I would consider that absurdly disproportionate and unjust.

His kindness is shown as He created us and gave us life when we were nothing. His justice is shown as He sent down His message and promised us the life of joy and happiness.

This is all outweighed by the infinite torture that so many think he will bring to those who have crimes.

[Skavau]

That is actually not true at all.. Any system works with checks and balances..

your body functions well, you put in it an under cooked hamburger, and you'll be in hell, and that is actually your body's way of dealing with the stress you have placed upon it.

You want to be in great health, you need to work in the gym, do some strenous excericse which might appear as torture so you are not dropping dead at 40 because you are a tub of lard..

You want to have a nice vacation, you work hard all year in a job you might not like, you save up some money and you get to relax for a couple of weeks out of the year..

You warn your kids about eating from the cookie jar before dindin, they do it anyway, they end up constipated and fat with saturated fat and have no desire to eat their spinache, you punish them or look the other way so they keep doing it, it is really up to you but the way everything works is in a system of checks and balances..

I am not seeing the point to any of this here. Yes, the human body is not perfect and what we do with it effects how it is - but this has nothing to do with my point. Did you even read my argument?

And so in the Quran it states

Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it! (99.7)
And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it. (99.8)

certainly Allah isn't unjust....

My argument had nothing to do with that.

I'd love to take away your breath for five minutes see how much of your fortune you'd spend to regain it for starters!

All of it.

What is your point?

[جوري]

I am not seeing the point to any of this here. Yes, the human body is not perfect and what we do with it effects how it is - but this has nothing to do with my point. Did you even read my argument?

You don't know enough about the human body to know what perfection is, and when challenged most of you are content to give the usual sophmoric examples which is intellectually stultifying at best .. I don't want to waste my time on just one chapter on cell physiology with you, let alone everything else..


p.s from previous post.

I never said God is just because it states so in the Quran, I don't discuss Quranic contents with folks who don't even believe in God, it is purpose defeating! It will be like discussing with you the thromboprophylaxis of Dabigatran, when you have no understanding whatsoever of the coagulation pathway normal physiology let alone the pathology of it and why this particular med is superior to others already out on the market.

I deal with folks to their basic level of understanding. Religiosity, jurisprudence etc. is far too advanced so stop making up contents of things I never introduced to a topic!

cheers

[Skavau]

You don't know enough about the human body to know what perfection is, and when challenged most of you are content to give the usual sophmoric examples which is intellectually stultifying at best .. I don't want to waste my time on just one chapter on cell physiology with you, let alone everything else..

Fine.

Fortunately since the contents of the human body had absolutely nothing to do with my argument that eternal torture in hell for finite crimes is unjust, I remain unconcerned.

I never said God is just because it states so in the Quran, I don't discuss Quranic contents with folks who don't even believe in God, it is purpose defeating!

Apparently you don't discuss anything with people who disbelieve in a God, you just seem to sit here ridiculing them, typing scornfully at them and generally looking down on them.

I deal with folks to their basic level of understanding. Religiosity, jurisprudence etc. is far too advanced so stop making up contents of things I never introduced to a topic!

You demonstrated how the human body was imperfect in your post by pointing out the problems with it. You did not however, which is my point now actually address the post you originally quoted. I was talking about torture in hell.

[جوري]

Fine.

Fortunately since the contents of the human body had absolutely nothing to do with my argument that eternal torture in hell for finite crimes is unjust, I remain unconcerned.

was it not you who brought up imperfection of the human body just a post ago? Again, I can only work with what you write!

Apparently you don't discuss anything with people who disbelieve in a God, you just seem to sit here ridiculing them, typing scornfully at them and generally looking down on them.

I merely mirror their own attitudes toward theists. It is my privilege!

You demonstrated how the human body was imperfect in your post by pointing out the problems with it. You did not however, which is my point now actually address the post you originally quoted. I was talking about torture in hell.

Any aberrancy should direct our attention to what goes right all the time that we take for granted, and for the most part responsible for!

cheers

[Azy]

The answers are so predictable and meaningless I'm honestly beginning to think that Skye is actually one of those language mimicry programs.

So far none of you have provided us evidence that anything in existence is due to anything other than God's existence

Nice try, but that's just another way of saying your view "I'd think the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of he presenting any argument?" only applies when you feel like it.

The claims of creation in the manner of Ibrahimic tradition predate any claims I've made by at least 3 millennia, I'm not an impatient man but it's about time somebody came up with the evidence.

Evidence of is our existence here...

Erm, every creation story be it Quranic, Hindu or Spaghetti Flying Monsterism all end with us here.
That doesn't tell us about anything except your continued reliance on circular logic.
"We are here because creation happened because we are here"

Where did the microbes come from? and how did they sprout reticular matter and devlop sentience? by large leaps of faith? you are hilarious!

For the first, I've said I don't know but there are more plausible explanations than special Creation, for the second, evolution over the intervening 3.5 billion years as shown in the fossil record.

I don't see anything in MY religion that doesn't support or contradicts science!

Self contradiction in 32:4 vs 41:9-12, creation in 6 and 8 days or aeons.
Instantiation of mankind from dust, not supported.
One pair of humans to populate the earth, not supported.

41:12 And He [it is who] decreed that they become seven heavens in two aeons, and imparted unto each heaven its function.
And We adorned the skies nearest to the earth with lights, and made them secure:
such is the ordaining of the Almighty, the All-Knowing.

Seven heavens? Each with a function? Secure lights to the skies nearest the Earth? Heavens and stars created after the Earth?
No contradictions you say? Pull the other one.

Oh and you still haven't answered Skavau regarding how Allah could be seen as Just and Merciful when applying an infinite punishment for a finite transgression by a finite being.

[جوري]

The answers are so predictable and meaningless I'm honestly beginning to think that Skye is actually one of those language mimicry programs.

IS that something you failed to enroll for on your way to basic vocational training to foster self-esteem?

Nice try, but that's just another way of saying your view "I'd think the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of he presenting any argument?" only applies when you feel like it.

This ping pong game is getting tiresome, if you can't do what is asked of you, don't propel the ball back, it is pitiable. I have already stated in my previous post, religion is faith based on observed natural phenomenon in the known world, none which you have accounted for scientifcally! If you can't or won't then give it a rest, I am not amused by your oh so noetic come backs!

The claims of creation in the manner of Ibrahimic tradition predate any claims I've made by at least 3 millennia, I'm not an impatient man but it's about time somebody came up with the evidence.
Erm, every creation story be it Quranic, Hindu or Spaghetti Flying Monsterism all end with us here.
That doesn't tell us about anything except your continued reliance on circular logic.
"We are here because creation happened because we are here"

I have no idea what you are trying to assert here? What claims, what do you want? further who cares whether you are patient or not, like we have to honor your self-aggrandizing fest on an Islamic forum. Once you advance yourself beyond food articles as dieties can we engage in adult conversation, otherwise you put it best, conversation ends here!

For the first, I've said I don't know but there are more plausible explanations than special Creation, for the second, evolution over the intervening 3.5 billion years as shown in the fossil record.

shown what in fossil record? you have jumping genes, and framshift mutations in fossil records at work? further how does evolution disprove a God, I really fail to see your point, again because you have failed to demonstrate or prove it!

Self contradiction in 32:4 vs 41:9-12, creation in 6 and 8 days or aeons.
Instantiation of mankind from dust, not supported.
One pair of humans to populate the earth, not supported.

how is creation of six days a contradiction? how are two humans populating the earth a contradiction, further what is your alternative, I mean you contend we came from single-celled or noncellular organisms that lack even mitochondria, and that propelled itself to higher life organisms, further split into male and female and you find that less absured than two humans copulating? and you want to speak of unsupported? are you for real?

Ansar Al' Adl
What Was Man Created From?

Concerning the thirteenth alleged contradiction,

Quote:
What was man created from? A blood clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45, 25:54], "sounding" (i.e. burned) clay [15:26], dust [3:59, 30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then denied in 52:35, earth [11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37]

The obvious explanation to this question is that these references describe different aspects or stages in man's creation. This has always been the understanding of such verses.

We will give a brief explanation of each verse, while presenting them in chronological order.

Most of the references refer to two different aspects of creation: Original creation and Embryological development.

Original creation
19:67 Does not man remember that We created him before, and he was nothing?
The phrase and he was nothing is the translation of the arabic wa lam yaku shay. Some confusion may have resulted because Yusuf Ali's translation renders it as out of nothing, which is not very accurate at all. The phrase literally means, and he was nothing.

Hence, this verse states that human beings were nothing, and Allah brought us into existence. This is a tremendous favour bestowed upon us, that we may be thankful to Allah swt.

This is allegedly in contradiction to the following verse:

52:35 Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d.1372CE) has explained this verse as follows in his renowned Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-Azim:
Allah asks them, were they created without a maker or did they create themselves Neither is true. Allah is the One Who created them and brought them into existence after they were nothing.(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 9, p. 297)
Hence, this verse is not in contradiction to the previous verse at all, after closer examination. Even if we choose to translate verse 52:35 as "Were they created from nothing..." it would also be correct as Allah swt developed the human being from previously created substances.

20:55 Thereof (the earth) We created you, and into it We shall return you, and from it We shall bring you out once again

The original creation of Adam pbuh was from the dust of the earth.

30:20 Among His Signs is this, that He created you from dust; and then,- behold, ye are men scattered (far and wide)!

This dust was then mixed with water to produce what is mentioned in the following verse:
15:26 And indeed, We created man from dried (sounding) clay of altered mud [min hama’in masnoon]

An interesting commentary on these verses has been provided here:
http://harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_p1_08.php#1

Sheikh Muhammad Mutwalli Ash-Sha`rawi also comments:
If we take dust and add water to it, it will be mud. If it is left for some time, it will turn into clay. These are simply the stages of the creation of man. Man thus comes from dust, turned into clay after the addition of water. If we scrutinize this issue, we will find out that man, in his daily life, needs earth and depends on it in so many aspects. It is this earthy soil where we grow the plants upon which we live. Thus, preserving the materials of man depends on the source from which these materials are created.


Scientists have analyzed the human body and found that it is composed of 16 substances including oxygen and manganese. These elements are no more than the elements of the earth?s crust. This experiment was not meant for proving the credibility of the Qur'an; rather, it was solely for scientific research purposes.


In addition, death itself serves as a proof of creation. When we try to demolish a building, we follow the reverse order of building it; we start with the last floor. By the same token, since we have not eye-witnessed the creation of man, then we shall see how death occurs. Actually, we witness several deaths everyday. When man dies, his soul leaves his body, then the decline starts; his body becomes dry (which is similar to the stage of clay) and then decays and turns finally into dust which was his original substance. Life is given to man through the soul that is blown into his body. When the soul departs, man dies and starts his way back to his original form going through the stages of his first creation. Thus, death stands as a living proof for creation (SOURCE)
21:30...We made of water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
This verse explains that all living things are composed of water.

Dr. Zakir Naik has commented on the above verse by saying:
Only after advances have been made in science, do we now know that cytoplasm, the basic substance of the cell is made up of 80% water. Modern research has also revealed that most organisms consist of 50% to 90% water and that every living entity requires water for its existence. Was it possible 14 centuries ago for any human-being to guess that every living being was made of water? Moreover would such a guess be conceivable by a human being in the deserts of Arabia where there has always been scarcity of water? (SOURCE)
The following link also comments on this:
http://www.-----------------------/scientific_58.html

Embryological development

16:4 He has created man from a nutfah; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer!

Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman has explained this as follow:

Nutfah (The drop)

Al-Nutfah in Arabic means a drop or a small part of fluid and Nutfah in general describes a stage where the beginnings of a human being are found in this fluid (Ref: 6A, 12/6; 17/118; 19/120: 13A, 3/436: 15A, 17/116: 1C, 2/121: 7B, 3/116: 4D, 9/235-6: 5D, 6/258: 4A, 30/234: 7A, 4/336: 10A, 13/9: 12A, 4/288). Its real meaning can only be deduced from the text of Qur'an; evidently it is a comprehensive term and includes male and female gametes and part of their natural environments of fluid. It also includes zygote, morula and blastocyst till implantation in the uterus. This is illustrated by the following citation:


"was he not a drop or part of germinal fluid (Mani) emitted or programmed" (Surah Al- Qiyama, Ayah 37)

Here "Mani" means male or female germinal fluid (Ref: 1D, 5/276: 5D, 10/348:2D, 6/2497).

The Prophet's Hadith confirms the fact that the offspring is created from part of the germinal fluids.

"Not from all the fluid is the offspring created"

(Sahih. Muslim: Kitab Al-Nekah, Bab Al-Azl)

It is also known that not all parts of the ejaculate are equally potent in the fertilisation process. "In the first portion of the ejaculate are the spermatozoa, epididymal fluids, and the secretions from the Cowper and prostate gland fluids. In the last portions of the ejaculate are the secretions of the seminal vesicles. Most spermatozoa appear in the first part of the ejaculate, which is made primarily of prostatic secretions. Thus spermatozoa in the initial portion of the ejaculate have better motility and survival than those in the later portions, which are chiefly vesicular in origin". (SOURCE)
And concerning the verse:
96:2 Created man, out of a (mere) clot of an Alaqah
Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman states:
The 'Alaqah stage

"Then (thumm) We made the drop into an 'Alaqah". (Surah Al-Mu 'minun, Ayah 14)

In Arabic the word ‘Alaqah in fact has several meanings;


something which clings or a suspended thing (Ref: 7B, 5/440: 1D, 4/125: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267: 5D, 7/20)
a leech-like structure (Ref: 9A, 3/242: 20A, 2/281: 7B, 5/139: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267)
Amazingly each of these terms can be applied to the developing embryo with stunning precision. All of these terms encompassed by the word ‘Alaqah describe the appearance of the embryo as well as its relationship with the womb. From the discussion below it becomes clear that the embryo resembles a primitive multicellular organism which is attached to a host and feeding on its blood.

a) something which clings

Modern science informs us that once the egg has been fertilised in the Fallopian tube it undergoes successive divisions to form a ball like structure of 12-16 cells by the third day. This structure is called a blastocyst and it reaches the uterus in 4 to 5 days. The blastocyst then lies free in the uterine secretions for a further 2 days. About a week after fertilisation the blastocyst begins to attach and implant into the uterine wall. By the 11th to 12th day it is completely embedded in the uterine wall. At this stage chorionic villosities begin to develop like roots in the soil, these draw nourishment from the uterus necessary for the blastocyst's growth. These formations cover the whole blastocyst and make it literally cling to the uterus. By the end of the second week implantation is complete. Inside the blastocyst the embryo is anchored to the wall of the chorionic cavity by a connecting stalk. Hence, these different ways of clinging and attachment seem to represent the most dominant features from day 7 to 21, and are perfectly described in the Qur'anic description by the word ‘Alaqah. For greater detail see S. Hussain (1986) ‘Al-‘Alaq:the mystery explored, Ark Journal, London, pp. 31-36.

b) a suspended thing

The 3 week old embryo inside the blastocyst which is embedded in the uterine wall is seen to be suspended in the chorionic cavity by means of the connecting stalk and is surrounded by the amniotic cavity and the yolk sac. Therefore, the term ‘Alaqah accurately describes the suspended embryo after it has been implanted.

c) a leech-like structure

The word ‘Alaqah can also be translated as ‘leech like structure'. The leech is a elongated pear shaped creature which thrives on blood sucking. At this stage of development the embryo from top view does bear a resemblance to a leech. This resemblance is even more marked if the 24 day old embryo is seen from the side. It is also interesting to note that the embryo is now dependent on the maternal blood for its nutrition and behaves very much like a leech!. (For greater detail see Moore, KL. ‘A scientists interpretation of references to embryology in the Qur'an.' Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of US and Canada, 1986, 18:15, and Moore, KL. and Azzindani, AMA.: "The Developing Human, Clinically Orientated Embryology, With Islamic Additions". 3rd Ed., Dar Al-Qiblah and WB Saunders).

In conclusion, whichever of the above terms are used to translate the word ‘Alaqah they are all stunningly accurate descriptions of the embryo at this stage in it's development as confirmed by modern science.

There is a gap of a few days between the stages of implantation (Nutfah) and 'Alaqah and this period is clearly explained by the above Ayah:

The word "Thumm" in Arabic is a conjunction indicating a time lag and the Ayah will, therefore, mean that after some time we created the "Nutfah" into 'Alaqah. (SOURCE)
The full explanation of the Qur'anic account of embryology can be read here:
http://www.load-islam.com/C/rebuttal...iarismGreek/8/
For further information, one may examine the following two articles:
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...&QR=4811&dgn=4
http://www.understanding-islam.com/r...rticle&aid=102

(Ansar Al Adl)Which was Created first, the Heavens or the Earth?

Concerning the tenth alleged contradiction:

Quote:
Heavens or Earth? Which was created first? First earth and then heaven [2:29], heaven and after that earth [79:27-30].

Verses in question:
2:29 He it is Who created for you all that is on earth. Then He ascended towards the heaven and made them seven heavens and He is the All-Knower of everything.

And
79:27-31. Are you more difficult to create, or is the heaven that He constructed? He raised its height, and He has equally ordered it, Its night He covers with darkness, and its forenoon He brings out (with light). And after that He spread the earth; And brought forth therefrom its water and its pasture...

1. At first sight, it may seem as though these verses contradict because 2:29 mentions the earth before the heavens, while in 79:27-21, the situation is reversed. However, on closer inspection, we discover some significant differences:
A) 2:29 mentions the development of the heavens into seven layers, not their initial creation which is described in 79:27-31.
B) 2:29 describes the creation of the earth and its features while 79:27-31 only descibres the spreading of the earth
Thus, based on the two verses we know two things:
1. The creation of the earth preceded the formation of the heavens into seven layers
2. The creation of the heavens preceded the 'spreading' of the earth.
And a third point is logically concluded from the above:
3. The creation of the heavens preceded their formation into seven layers
However, it is not know from the verses whether the creation of the heavens preceded the creation of the earth or vice versa, or whether they occured simultaneously. Some Qur'anic commentators took one view while others took another. What we do know is that the heavens and the earth were created and then subsequently the earth was spread and the heavens formed into seven layers. This interpretation is supported by the classical commentaries of the Qur'an. As Imaam Abu Abdullah Al-Qurtubi (d. 1273CE) states in his monumental Al-Jaami` le Ahkaam al-Qur'an when giving his opinion on the Qur'anic description:
I believe that what Qatada said is sound Allah willing: that Allah first created the smoke of heaven and then created the earth and directed Himself to heaven, which was smoke and [He] arranged it and then He smoothed out the earth. (Tafsir Al-Qurtubi Classical Commentary of the Holy Qur'an, Dar Al-Taqwa Ltd. 2003, vol. 1, p.200, emphasis added)
Imaam Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d. 1372CE) also distinguishes between the different stages in his renowned Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-Azim, while presenting a slightly different view:
It already has been mentioned previously in [the Tafsir of] Surat Ha Mim As-Sajdah that the earth was created before the heaven was created, but it was only spread out after the creation of the heaven. This means that He brought out what was in it with a forceful action. This is the meaning of what was said by Ibn Abbas and others, and it was the explanation preferred by Ibn Jarir [At-Tabari (d. 923CE)] (fn. At-Tabari 24:208). (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 10, p. 350, emphasis added)
Thus, the commentators are agreed that the difference in verse 2:29 and verses 79:27-31 relates to the different stages in the creation of the heavens and the earth, with the earth's 'spreading' occurring after the creation of the heavens and the development of the heavens occurring after the creation of the earth. The commentators only differ regarding the creation of the earth preceding the creation of the heavens, or vice versa, or if they were both created simultaneously.

Scientific research describes the creation and formation of the earth in the following stages:
Differentiation in the first few 100's of millions of years led to the formation of the core and the mantle and a crust, and initiated the escape of gases from the moving interior that eventually led to the formation of the atmosphere and oceans.
The earliest Earth was probably an unsorted conglomeration, mostly of silicon compounds, iron and magnesium oxides, and smaller amounts of all the natural elements. It became increasingly hotter as the protoplanet grew.
...After loss of the hydrogen, helium and other hydrogen-containing gases from early Earth due to the Sun's radiation, primitive Earth was devoid of an atmosphere. The first atmosphere was formed by outgassing of gases trapped in the interior of the early Earth, which still goes on today in volcanoes.
For the Early Earth, extreme volcanism occurred during differentiation, when massive heating and fluid-like motion in the mantle occurred. It is likely that the bulk of the atmosphere was derived from degassing early in the Earth's history.
...Lava flowing from the partially molten interior spread over the surface and solidified to form a thin crust. This crust would have melted and solidified repeatedly, with the lighter compounds moving to the surface. This is called differentiation. Weathering by rainfall broke up and altered the rocks. The end result of these processes was a continental land mass, which would have grown over time. The most popular theory limits the growth of continents to the first two billion years of the Earth. (SOURCE)
The above description informs us that the earth was initially one mass and through differentiation and volcanic out-gassing, the early atmosphere formed. Then, cooling of the earth resulted in the formation of land mass.
These descriptions concur with the Qur'anic desciption that the earth (2:29) and the heaven (79:27) were created and were originally one mass and then seperated (verse 21:30), the heavens were then developed into seven layers (verse 2:29) and the earth's crust was later spread out (79:30). The last description may be a reference to the cooling of the earth's crust, or it may be a reference to continental drift.
Thus, we find that the Qur'an does not contradict itself here, but instead contains accurate details regarding the formation of the earth in the stages.

2. According to an alternative interpretation, verse 2:29 is rendered as follows:
He is the One who created for you all that's inside earth (Matter), then turned to the sky and perfected seven universes therein, and He is fully aware of all things.
Therefore, verse 2:29 is taken to refer to the creation of the universe and it is not the creation of the earth being described here, but rather what is in the earth, or matter. And verse 79:30 is referring to the spreading of the earth, which has been defined before.

3. A third explanation argues on the understanding of thumma, which does not always indicate sequential order. The meaning of Thumma is explained very well by Moiz Amjad in his article entitled The Meaning of "Thumma" & "Yawm". Therefore, when verse 2:29 says that Allah created the earth and thumma He turned to the heavens, this could also be read as "Furthermore He turned to the heavens" which does not necessarily imply that the creation of the heavens is after the creation of earth. Critics argue that when it says God turned towards the heaven, this implies a sequential act. But this is not entirely true, as God could have turned to the heaven at any point in the past, not necessarily after the creation of the heavens. This point is emphasized in the classical tafsirs as well. Imaam Qurtubi writes:
In His words "then directed", the word "then" is simply a narrative aid and does not imply any time sequence in the matetrs referred to. (Tafsir Al-Qurtubi Classical Commentary of the Holy Qur'an, Dar Al-Taqwa Ltd. 2003, vol. 1, p.199)
Similarly, Imaam Ibn Kathir writes:
It is said that "Then" in the Ayah (2:29) relates only to the order of reciting the information being given, it does not relate to the order that the events being mentioned took place, this was reported from Ibn 'Abbas by 'Ali bin Abi Talhah. (fn. At-Tabari 1:437). (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 1, p. 180)
Thus, this explanation is not in conflict with the traditional understanding of the earier Muslims.
From the above points, it should be clear that these verses do not in any way constitute a contradiction

41:12 And He [it is who] decreed that they become seven heavens in two aeons, and imparted unto each heaven its function.
And We adorned the skies nearest to the earth with lights, and made them secure:
such is the ordaining of the Almighty, the All-Knowing.

Seven heavens? Each with a function? Secure lights to the skies nearest the Earth? Heavens and stars created after the Earth?
No contradictions you say? Pull the other one.

(Ansar Al Adl)
Were the Heavens and the Earth called together, or ripped apart for Creation?

Concerning the eleventh alleged contradiction:

Quote:
Calling together or ripping apart? In the process of creation heaven and earth were first apart and are called to come together [41:11], while 21:30 states that they were originally one piece and then ripped apart.

Let us first read the verses in question:
41:11 Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."

And:
21:30 Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

Simply by taking a quick look at the verses, one already begins to see that these verses do not pose a contradiction at all. Furthermore, it there is a lack of scientific knowledge displayed by the author of this allegation, as we shall see.

1. These verses are not referring to the same concept at all. Let us examine the two different concepts of astronomy involved here:
a)From research in astronomy, human beings have begun to understand a concept known as the Big Bang, which describes the origin of the universe. Verse 21:30 is widely held by Muslim scholars to refer to the Big Bang, when the universe was initially combined as a primary nebula and then exploded leading to the formation of various galaxies etc. (This scientific miracle is described here and here). With this mind, the Qur'an is actually very accurate in describing the initial union of all creation before being split.

b)The concept of the Big Bang is very different from the concept of accretion of cosmic dust. The latter describes the formation of stars and planets throught the condensation or 'coming together' of matter in space. Verse 41:11 is generally taken by Muslim scholars to refer to the collection of cosmic dust into the various celestial bodies present today, specifically the heavens and the earth. Perhaps the misunderstanding arises from interpreting the heavens in this verse to be another reference to the universe as a whole. But as we have already explained, this is not the case. The word as-samaa simply describes what is above, and in this case simply refers to the immediate atmosphere of the earth. Verse 41:11 is described in greater detail here and well as here.
2. Verse 21:30 can also be taken to refer to the earth's atmposphere as well, without any conflict. If one considers the formation and development of earth, the original atmosphere was blended together with the Earth and only became seperate in its second stage. Hence, verse 21:30 is very accurate in describing the heavens and the earth as initially joined together before being cloven asunder, either by volcanic out-gassing or cometary impacts. According to this interpretation, verse 41:11 would be chronologically before verse 21:30.

3. An additional point can be made about the phrases used in verse 41:11. When the verse mentions that the heavens and the earth were ordered to come, this does not necessarily imply that they actually came together and merged. Other verses of the Qur'an used the same phrase:
37:83-84 And verily, among those who followed his (Noah's) path was Abraham. When he came to his Lord with a pure heart.
It is obviously understood that Abraham did not come to his Lord physically, but rather in terms of submission and obedience. Hence, this verse could simply be taken as God asking the heavens and the earth to submit to His will, either voluntarily or involuntarily. From this linguistic perspective, there is also no conflict between this verse and 21:30.
These explanations sufficiently demonstrate how these verses cannot be considered a contradiction in any way.

The Number of Days Taken to Create the Universe

Concerning the eighth alleged contradiction:


Quote: ( Ansar Al adl)
Six or eight days of creation? Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 clearly state that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days. But in 41:9-12 the detailed description of the creation procedure adds up to eight days.

This one will require some more detail in the analysis and explanation.

The Qur'an clearly mentions that creation took place in six days:
7:54 Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days...

Now let us examine the verses 41:9-12:

41:9. Say: "Do you verily disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two Days and you set up rivals (in worship) with Him? That is the Lord of the Universe.

41:10. He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings upon it, and measured therein its sustenance within four Days, for all those who ask (about its creation).

41:11. Thumma(Moreover/then), He turned towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come, willingly."

41:12. So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the cosmic heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.

There are various explanations that can be given here:

1. The first explanation is the classical and most common one, but we shall elaborate upon it in greater detail. The classic scholars of the Qur'an have mentioned that the four days mentioned in verse 41:10 includes the two days mentioned in verse 41:9. This was the explanation provided by Al-Qurtubi, Al-Zajjaaj and Al-Baghawi. Indeed this is a very logical approach because there is no indication that verse 41:10 describes a period subsequent to that described in verse 41:9. Verse 41:9 is in the form of a question, while 41:10 explains the point further. It is logical that the development of mountains, the bestowment of blessings, and the measure of sustenance would denote the full development of the earth, including its period of creation mentioned in 41:9.
A similar example would be if one were to say, "I read the first chapter of that book in two days, and I finished the entire book in two weeks." Or if one were to say, "The teacher taught us the basics in two days, and we understood all the details within three weeks."
Obviously, in both cases, the second period of time can be taken to include the first period of time.
One objection that is raised to this explanation is that the second stage described in 41:10 presupposes the existence of the earth and therefore does not include its creation. Is this true? The indication of time in 41:10 is given by saying "fee four days". When fee is translated as within, then this period can clearly include the previous period describing the creation of the earth. As illustrated by the second example provided, understanding the details of a subject does entail understanding the basics, but this does not mean that the basics cannot be included in the second period of time if the preposition 'within' is used. So if it is said that we understood the basics in two days, and we understood the details within three weeks, even though the details requires the basics, the second period of time still includes the first period. Moreover, the period of time is connected to the measurement of sustenance, which does not need to occur after to the creation of the earth. Rather, it occurs during the earth's creation as well.

Another objection to this explanation is that it is scientifically innaccurate to say that the earth was formed before the heavens. This objection interprets the heavens in this verse to refer to outerspace, and claims that it is innacurate to say that it was only 'smoke' even after the earth was created. But these critics do not realize that the heaven in this passage refers to the atmosphere of the earth, as is indicated by the mentioning of the seven layers, and each with its own property or command (this description is explained here ). The term used for heaven in the Qur'an is As-Samaa. This basically denotes whatever is above or beyond the earth. Depending on the context of the verse, it can be taken to mean atmosphere of outerspace. In these verses, only after mentioning the atmosphere does verse 41:12 mention As-Samaa Ad-Dunyaa or what can be translated as the cosmic heaven. The cosmic heaven refers to outerspace while the heaven described in seven layers refers to the earth's atmosphere. So to answer this objection, any student of science knows that the atmosphere has developed greatly since the formation of the earth. The modern atmosphere is often referred to as the 'third atmosphere'. The first atmosphere that formed with the earth was very primitve and very different from our modern atmosphere. The original atmoshpere consisted of mainly helium and hydrogen, and was soon dissipated by the heat of the earth. The second atmosphere was formed after volcanic activity and primarily consisted of carbon dioxide and water vapor. There was some nitrogen but virtually no oxygen. So the development of the modern atmosphere was clearly after the creation of the earth, which is exactly as the verses state. Interestingly, the modern atmosphere also formed after the existence of early life and the abundance of rain, which Allah often describes as His blessings in the Qur'an. This is exactly as the Qur'an has stated in verses 41:9-12.
The above explanation is evidently the best and most logical. Nevertheless, we shall quote some other explanations given by muslims to allow the reader some choice in selecting the best refutation to this allegation.

2. The word yawm, which has been translated as day can also mean period. It has been explained thoroghly by Moiz Amjad in his article entitled The Length of God's Days. If we understand yawm as period, there can be no contradiction because the same action can be measured in different periods of time. Here Allah is providing the details on the stages in the development of the earth and the rest of the universe. These verses demonstrate the design and wisdom in nature, and the bounties Allah has favoured us with. Therefore, Allah has chosen to mention the periods seperately in more detail.

3. The third explanation does not say that the second period includes the first, but instead argues that the last period (mentioned in 41:11-12) of two days, occurs simultaneously in relation to the first two periods. Therefore, the earth was created in two days simultaneously with the creation of the heaven, then the mounatins and blessings were added in four days, adding to a total of six days. This explanation translates thumma as moreover instead of then. In other words, the period described in 4:11 is not subsequent to the previous verses, but rather it occurs parallel to the creation of the earth in 4:9. The meaning of Thumma is explained very well by Moiz Amjad in his article entitled The Meaning of "Thumma" & "Yawm". Critics argue that when it says God turned towards the heaven, this implies a sequential act. But this is not entirely true, as God could have turned to the heaven at any point in the past, not necessarily after the creation of the heavens.

4. A similar explanation to the above is that the two days taken to create the heavens are not to be added to the previous days. This argument does not debate the meaning of thumma but instead argues that nowhere in the passage does God mention the creation of the heavens. It only mentions the further development of the heavens. So this can either be taken to refer to the atmosphere or outerspace, as both are compatible with this description. In other words, the earth was created as described in 41:9-10, and the creation of the heaven is not mentioned at all in this passage. The passage only mentions the further perfection and development of the heavens, indicating that they were created while the process described in 41:9-10 was going on. This explanation is also sufficient to explain the allegation.
Before finishing with this allegation, there is still another issue to comment on. Some people have inquired about a hadith found in Sahih Muslim that describes the order of creation. Concerning this hadith, it is sufficient to quote a fatwa from IslamToday.com:
As for the hadîth in Muslim, it reads:
Allah created the dust on Saturday. He created the mountains on Sunday. He created the trees on Monday. He created the despised things on Tuesday. He created the light on Wednesday. He scattered the beasts throughout it on Thursday. He created Adam (peace be upon him) in the late afternoon on Friday as the last creation on the last hour of Friday, between the late afternoon and the night.
There are numerous criticisms against it.

Al-Bukhârî writes in al-Târâkh al-Kabîr:
“Some of them have said that it is from Abû Hurayrah who took it from Ka`b al-Ahbâr. This is the most correct view.”
Ibn Kathîr, in his commentary of the Qur’ân writes:
This hadîth is one of the unusual hadîth found in Sahîh Muslim. `Alî al-Madînî, al-Bukhârî, and a number of other leading scholars of hadîth have criticized it, saying that it is the statement of Ka`b and that Abû Hurayrah merely heard it from Ka`b al-Ahbar and some narrators merely got confused and attributed it to the Prophet (peace be upon him). This has been thoroughly researched by al-Bayhaqî.
Ibn Taymiyah comments:
“It is a defective hadîth. It has been declared defective by more than a few scholars.” [Majmû` al-Fatâwâ (17/236)]
Moreover, regarding the text itself, al-Qurtubî points out in his commentary on Sahîh Muslim that the text does not convey its meaning with sufficient coherence. He writes in al-Mufhim:
This hadîth has been related in other sources besides Sahîh Muslim with various conflicting narrations. In some of them the Earth is created on Sunday and Monday while the mountains are created on Tuesday and the trees, rivers, and inhabitants are created on Wednesday, and the Sun, Moon, stars, and angels created on Thursday, and Adam on Friday. These are single-narrator hadîth that conflict with one another and do not provide any practical instruction. We must not rely upon them in determining the order of appearance of created things during those days.
What he is saying is that even if we regard the hadîth as authentic – as a number of scholars do – there remains the problem that there is too much incoherence in its many conflicting narrations to provide evidence for the order of events.

And Allah knows best.

Fatwâ Department Research Committee of IslamToday chaired by Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî
The above fatwa clarifies that the narration is not only defective but that it contains other points which are inconsistent with similar narrations. As far as the text of the narration itself is concerned, since we know that the arabic term yawm can refer to either a day or a period of time, then the only point in the narration which would appear to conflict with science is the saying that light was created on the fourth day. Concerning this part of the narration, it is interesting to read the commentary of Sahih Muslim written by Imaam Abu Zakariyya An-Nawawi (d. 1300CE):
The Messenger's Saying (peace be upon him): "And He created light (ar. Noor) on the fourth day"

This is how it has been narrated in Sahih Muslim as noor but in the transmission of Thabit ibn Qaasim it says noon with the letter 'Nûn' at the end. Al-Qaadi said "It refers to the fish". (Saheeh Muslim Bi-Sharh An-Nawawi, 4997)
This seems to suggest the creation of aquatic life before that of humans.

The above discussion should clear any confusion regarding the account of creation in the Qur'an and in the hadith

What Was Man Created From?

Concerning the thirteenth alleged contradiction,

Quote: Ansar Al Adl)
What was man created from? A blood clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45, 25:54], "sounding" (i.e. burned) clay [15:26], dust [3:59, 30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then denied in 52:35, earth [11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37]

The obvious explanation to this question is that these references describe different aspects or stages in man's creation. This has always been the understanding of such verses.

We will give a brief explanation of each verse, while presenting them in chronological order.

Most of the references refer to two different aspects of creation: Original creation and Embryological development.

Original creation
19:67 Does not man remember that We created him before, and he was nothing?
The phrase and he was nothing is the translation of the arabic wa lam yaku shay. Some confusion may have resulted because Yusuf Ali's translation renders it as out of nothing, which is not very accurate at all. The phrase literally means, and he was nothing.

Hence, this verse states that human beings were nothing, and Allah brought us into existence. This is a tremendous favour bestowed upon us, that we may be thankful to Allah swt.

This is allegedly in contradiction to the following verse:

52:35 Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d.1372CE) has explained this verse as follows in his renowned Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-Azim:
Allah asks them, were they created without a maker or did they create themselves Neither is true. Allah is the One Who created them and brought them into existence after they were nothing.(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 9, p. 297)
Hence, this verse is not in contradiction to the previous verse at all, after closer examination. Even if we choose to translate verse 52:35 as "Were they created from nothing..." it would also be correct as Allah swt developed the human being from previously created substances.

20:55 Thereof (the earth) We created you, and into it We shall return you, and from it We shall bring you out once again

The original creation of Adam pbuh was from the dust of the earth.

30:20 Among His Signs is this, that He created you from dust; and then,- behold, ye are men scattered (far and wide)!

This dust was then mixed with water to produce what is mentioned in the following verse:
15:26 And indeed, We created man from dried (sounding) clay of altered mud [min hama’in masnoon]

An interesting commentary on these verses has been provided here:
http://harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_p1_08.php#1

Sheikh Muhammad Mutwalli Ash-Sha`rawi also comments:
If we take dust and add water to it, it will be mud. If it is left for some time, it will turn into clay. These are simply the stages of the creation of man. Man thus comes from dust, turned into clay after the addition of water. If we scrutinize this issue, we will find out that man, in his daily life, needs earth and depends on it in so many aspects. It is this earthy soil where we grow the plants upon which we live. Thus, preserving the materials of man depends on the source from which these materials are created.


Scientists have analyzed the human body and found that it is composed of 16 substances including oxygen and manganese. These elements are no more than the elements of the earth?s crust. This experiment was not meant for proving the credibility of the Qur'an; rather, it was solely for scientific research purposes.


In addition, death itself serves as a proof of creation. When we try to demolish a building, we follow the reverse order of building it; we start with the last floor. By the same token, since we have not eye-witnessed the creation of man, then we shall see how death occurs. Actually, we witness several deaths everyday. When man dies, his soul leaves his body, then the decline starts; his body becomes dry (which is similar to the stage of clay) and then decays and turns finally into dust which was his original substance. Life is given to man through the soul that is blown into his body. When the soul departs, man dies and starts his way back to his original form going through the stages of his first creation. Thus, death stands as a living proof for creation (SOURCE)
21:30...We made of water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
This verse explains that all living things are composed of water.

Dr. Zakir Naik has commented on the above verse by saying:
Only after advances have been made in science, do we now know that cytoplasm, the basic substance of the cell is made up of 80% water. Modern research has also revealed that most organisms consist of 50% to 90% water and that every living entity requires water for its existence. Was it possible 14 centuries ago for any human-being to guess that every living being was made of water? Moreover would such a guess be conceivable by a human being in the deserts of Arabia where there has always been scarcity of water? (SOURCE)
The following link also comments on this:
http://www.-----------------------/scientific_58.html

Embryological development

16:4 He has created man from a nutfah; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer!

Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman has explained this as follow:

Nutfah (The drop)

Al-Nutfah in Arabic means a drop or a small part of fluid and Nutfah in general describes a stage where the beginnings of a human being are found in this fluid (Ref: 6A, 12/6; 17/118; 19/120: 13A, 3/436: 15A, 17/116: 1C, 2/121: 7B, 3/116: 4D, 9/235-6: 5D, 6/258: 4A, 30/234: 7A, 4/336: 10A, 13/9: 12A, 4/288). Its real meaning can only be deduced from the text of Qur'an; evidently it is a comprehensive term and includes male and female gametes and part of their natural environments of fluid. It also includes zygote, morula and blastocyst till implantation in the uterus. This is illustrated by the following citation:


"was he not a drop or part of germinal fluid (Mani) emitted or programmed" (Surah Al- Qiyama, Ayah 37)

Here "Mani" means male or female germinal fluid (Ref: 1D, 5/276: 5D, 10/348:2D, 6/2497).

The Prophet's Hadith confirms the fact that the offspring is created from part of the germinal fluids.

"Not from all the fluid is the offspring created"

(Sahih. Muslim: Kitab Al-Nekah, Bab Al-Azl)

It is also known that not all parts of the ejaculate are equally potent in the fertilisation process. "In the first portion of the ejaculate are the spermatozoa, epididymal fluids, and the secretions from the Cowper and prostate gland fluids. In the last portions of the ejaculate are the secretions of the seminal vesicles. Most spermatozoa appear in the first part of the ejaculate, which is made primarily of prostatic secretions. Thus spermatozoa in the initial portion of the ejaculate have better motility and survival than those in the later portions, which are chiefly vesicular in origin". (SOURCE)
And concerning the verse:
96:2 Created man, out of a (mere) clot of an Alaqah
Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman states:
The 'Alaqah stage

"Then (thumm) We made the drop into an 'Alaqah". (Surah Al-Mu 'minun, Ayah 14)

In Arabic the word ‘Alaqah in fact has several meanings;


something which clings or a suspended thing (Ref: 7B, 5/440: 1D, 4/125: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267: 5D, 7/20)
a leech-like structure (Ref: 9A, 3/242: 20A, 2/281: 7B, 5/139: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267)
Amazingly each of these terms can be applied to the developing embryo with stunning precision. All of these terms encompassed by the word ‘Alaqah describe the appearance of the embryo as well as its relationship with the womb. From the discussion below it becomes clear that the embryo resembles a primitive multicellular organism which is attached to a host and feeding on its blood.

a) something which clings

Modern science informs us that once the egg has been fertilised in the Fallopian tube it undergoes successive divisions to form a ball like structure of 12-16 cells by the third day. This structure is called a blastocyst and it reaches the uterus in 4 to 5 days. The blastocyst then lies free in the uterine secretions for a further 2 days. About a week after fertilisation the blastocyst begins to attach and implant into the uterine wall. By the 11th to 12th day it is completely embedded in the uterine wall. At this stage chorionic villosities begin to develop like roots in the soil, these draw nourishment from the uterus necessary for the blastocyst's growth. These formations cover the whole blastocyst and make it literally cling to the uterus. By the end of the second week implantation is complete. Inside the blastocyst the embryo is anchored to the wall of the chorionic cavity by a connecting stalk. Hence, these different ways of clinging and attachment seem to represent the most dominant features from day 7 to 21, and are perfectly described in the Qur'anic description by the word ‘Alaqah. For greater detail see S. Hussain (1986) ‘Al-‘Alaq:the mystery explored, Ark Journal, London, pp. 31-36.

b) a suspended thing

The 3 week old embryo inside the blastocyst which is embedded in the uterine wall is seen to be suspended in the chorionic cavity by means of the connecting stalk and is surrounded by the amniotic cavity and the yolk sac. Therefore, the term ‘Alaqah accurately describes the suspended embryo after it has been implanted.

c) a leech-like structure

The word ‘Alaqah can also be translated as ‘leech like structure'. The leech is a elongated pear shaped creature which thrives on blood sucking. At this stage of development the embryo from top view does bear a resemblance to a leech. This resemblance is even more marked if the 24 day old embryo is seen from the side. It is also interesting to note that the embryo is now dependent on the maternal blood for its nutrition and behaves very much like a leech!. (For greater detail see Moore, KL. ‘A scientists interpretation of references to embryology in the Qur'an.' Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of US and Canada, 1986, 18:15, and Moore, KL. and Azzindani, AMA.: "The Developing Human, Clinically Orientated Embryology, With Islamic Additions". 3rd Ed., Dar Al-Qiblah and WB Saunders).

In conclusion, whichever of the above terms are used to translate the word ‘Alaqah they are all stunningly accurate descriptions of the embryo at this stage in it's development as confirmed by modern science.

There is a gap of a few days between the stages of implantation (Nutfah) and 'Alaqah and this period is clearly explained by the above Ayah:

The word "Thumm" in Arabic is a conjunction indicating a time lag and the Ayah will, therefore, mean that after some time we created the "Nutfah" into 'Alaqah. (SOURCE)
The full explanation of the Qur'anic account of embryology can be read here:
http://www.load-islam.com/C/rebuttal...iarismGreek/8/
For further information, one may examine the following two articles:
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...&QR=4811&dgn=4
http://www.understanding-islam.com/r...rticle&aid=102

Courtsey of Br. Ansar Al Adl!
So maybe you can demonstrate your account of the events in lieu of your bombastic declamations plagiarized from the web, surely you must have known they'd be answered here, and that we'd know you don't own a copy of the Quran let alone read a page of it!

Oh and you still haven't answered Skavau regarding how Allah could be seen as Just and Merciful when applying an infinite punishment for a finite transgression by a finite being.

In fact I already have, you might benefit reading more, and braying and pounding less what do you think?

cheers

[Skavau]

was it not you who brought up imperfection of the human body just a post ago? Again, I can only work with what you write!

Absolutely.

However, my initial post that you responded to was this:

You are so close and yet so far. For me, the claim that Allah is infinitely just and merciful is outright contradicted by any assertion that "deserving folks" will be tortured for eternity in hell. Infinite torture for finite crimes is completely disproportionate and therefore unjust. Any damage or oppression that is mustered in a finite lifetime is outweighed by the punishment in this instance.

Secondly, saying that God is just because the Qu'ran claims God is just is a circular argument.

You did not address any of the part highlighted in red. So much for working with what I write.

I merely mirror their own attitudes toward theists. It is my privilege!

See, the thing is - I do not look down on theists, I do not scorn theists and I do not ridicule theists. So if you're mirroring an attitude, it is certainly not mine.

Moreover, two wrongs do not make a right.

Any aberrancy should direct our attention to what goes right all the time that we take for granted, and for the most part responsible for!

Eh?

[جوري]

Absolutely.

However, my initial post that you responded to was this:



You did not address any of the part highlighted in red. So much for working with what I write.

Tha analogy of checks and balances is a response to it. So much for you reading?!

See, the thing is - I do not look down on theists, I do not scorn theists and I do not ridicule theists. So if you're mirroring an attitude, it is certainly not mine.

it is ramapant amongst atheists, the only atheist on board who shows a measure of respect is gator!

Moreover, two wrongs do not make a right.

Glad you've come to that conclusion

cheers

[Skavau]

Tha analogy of checks and balances is a response to it. So much for you reading?!

I was reading.

As you would have noticed, I failed to see the relevance to it.

it is ramapant amongst atheists, the only atheist on board who shows a measure of respect is gator!

I suppose you've got some very accurate statistics which demonstrate that rampant scorn, disrespect and ridicule exist about theists amongst atheists?

Either way, it is not an attitude I have and I would appreciate it if you did not show it towards me.

Glad you've come to that conclusion

I hope that you agree with it, seeing as your own actions imply otherwise.

[جوري]

I was reading.

As you would have noticed, I failed to see the relevance to it.

That is your problem, not mine, but just so I'd have fulfilled my civic duty

Allah Is Merciful: Why Punishment?

Question
Dear scholars, As-Salamu `alaykum. Allah will put some people into Hell fire for eternity on the Day of Judgment. How can I explain to a non-Muslim that my God is Merciful when some people will be condemned forever? Jazakum Allah khayran.

Date
05/Aug/2003

Name of Mufti
Muzammil Siddiqi

Topic
Muslim Belief



Answer



Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.


In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.



All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.



Dear sister in Islam, thanks for your interesting question that shows your keenness to get yourself well acquainted with all what relates to your religion. May Almighty Allah help us all abide by His rules and regulations, Amen.



Responding to the question in point, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America, states:


“Allah (Mighty and Exalted Be He) is indeed very Merciful, Loving and Compassionate, but He is also Just and Severe in punishment. According to the Qur’an, Allah is “Forgiver of sins, Accepter of repentance, the Stern in punishment, the Powerful…” (Ghafir: 3). It is wrong to accept only some aspect of Allah and ignore or negate some other aspects. When people believe only in the love of Allah and ignore His justice and power they become careless and do whatever they wish. When people believe in the justice and power of Allah and ignore His love and compassion they become hermits and monks and run away from the world and its enjoyments. Islam teaches us a balanced life and so it teaches us both aspects of Allah’s Being.


Allah created human beings and He gave them everything for their existence. He guided them through His Prophets and Messengers and gave them all the possibilities to be good and faithful, but if they still reject Him and turn away from Him, then He does not care for them. Such people by their own actions have made themselves unworthy of His love and compassion. He warned them again and again that the consequences of their sins and rebellion will be severe, but if they did not pay any attention to Him, so why should He show any mercy to such ungrateful, stubborn, and evil creatures. Allah says in the Qur’an: “O human being, what has deceived you about your Lord Most Beneficent? Him Who created you, fashioned you in due proportion, and made you right; and in whatever form He willed for you, He set you. But no, you do deny the Day of Judgment! Indeed over you are keeping watch the honorable beings; writing down (your deeds). They know what you do. The Righteous will be in Bliss; and the Wicked will be in the Fire, which they will enter on the Day of Judgment.” (Al-Infitar: 6-15) And Allah says, “We wronged them not, but they it was who did the wrong.” (Az-Zukhruf: 76)”



You can also read:


Islam Teaches Us to be Forgiving and Pardoning


Why Does Allah Allow Suffering and Evil in the World?

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...EAskTheScholar
seems you and a million other think along the same lines.. can you have 'light' without darkness? by what contrast?
it amuses me, how some think one should be rewarded at all times by God because he is merciful and have a carte blanche in the process to committ all evil deeds!

I suppose you've got some very accurate statistics which demonstrate that rampant scorn, disrespect and ridicule exist about theists amongst atheists?

It is a patent observation judging just from how many 'humanistic atheist' websites on google to mock religion, and the lot of you on board!

Either way, it is not an attitude I have and I would appreciate it if you did not show it towards me.

should you continue to write in a way I find less than appropriate, I'll meet it with like reaction!

I hope that you agree with it, seeing as your own actions imply otherwise.

see previous reply!

cheers

[Skavau]

I will address your article in a separate post presently.

It is a patent observation judging just from how many 'humanistic atheist' websites on google to mock religion, and the lot of you on board!

I suspect it is no more than the amount of websites that mock, insult and ridicule atheism. Irrespectively, they are both wrong.

should you continue to write in a way I find less than appropriate, I'll meet it with like reaction!

Do drop the pomposity. Are you telling me that you treat those who you deem to type inappropriately with contempt, ridicule and scorn?

Moreover, what precisely is inappropriate about how I type? I have to say I consider my interaction with others generally very bland.

see previous reply!

Strange.

Earlier on, you said:

"I merely mirror their own attitudes toward theists. It is my privilege!"

I then pointed out that two wrongs do not make a right, to which you implied agreement with and yet you still persist in typing to people you do not respect with contempt, ridicule and scorn. Why is this?

[جوري]

I will address your article in a separate post presently.

Really, I can hardly wait!

I suspect it is no more than the amount of websites that mock, insult and ridicule atheism. Irrespectively, they are both wrong.

There is no comparison.. there is nothing 'sacred' to atheism to mock!

Do drop the pomposity. Are you telling me that you treat those who you deem to type inappropriately with contempt, ridicule and scorn?

Based on content yes!

Moreover, what precisely is inappropriate about how I type? I have to say I consider my interaction with others generally very bland.

not bland, at times very instigating!

Strange.

Earlier on, you said:

"I merely mirror their own attitudes toward theists. It is my privilege!"

I then pointed out that two wrongs do not make a right, to which you implied agreement with and yet you still persist in typing to people you do not respect with contempt, ridicule and scorn. Why is this?

As stated prior it is my privilege.. I don't resign to the other cheek for a modus vivendi!

cheers

[Skavau]

There is no comparison.. there is nothing 'sacred' to atheism to mock!

It doesn't matter if atheism is not considered sacred or is not sacred - the point is that it is insulted by theists just as much as atheists insult theism. It also doesn't make atheists like myself any more irritated when insulted just for holding a single disbelief.

Based on content yes!

That is not a nice character trait.

not bland, at times very instigating!

How so?

As stated prior it is my privilege.. I don't resign to the other cheek for a modus vivendi!

Okay.

So you admit that 'Two wrongs do not make a right' does not apply to you.

[Skavau]

Allah Is Merciful: Why Punishment?

Question
Dear scholars, As-Salamu `alaykum. Allah will put some people into Hell fire for eternity on the Day of Judgment. How can I explain to a non-Muslim that my God is Merciful when some people will be condemned forever? Jazakum Allah khayran.

Date
05/Aug/2003

Name of Mufti
Muzammil Siddiqi

Topic
Muslim Belief

“Allah (Mighty and Exalted Be He) is indeed very Merciful, Loving and Compassionate, but He is also Just and Severe in punishment. According to the Qur’an, Allah is “Forgiver of sins, Accepter of repentance, the Stern in punishment, the Powerful…” (Ghafir: 3). It is wrong to accept only some aspect of Allah and ignore or negate some other aspects. When people believe only in the love of Allah and ignore His justice and power they become careless and do whatever they wish. When people believe in the justice and power of Allah and ignore His love and compassion they become hermits and monks and run away from the world and its enjoyments. Islam teaches us a balanced life and so it teaches us both aspects of Allah’s Being.

Okay. We're not at the point just yet. Whether a 'balance' must exist has very little to do with justification for eternal torture in a hellfire.

Allah created human beings and He gave them everything for their existence. He guided them through His Prophets and Messengers and gave them all the possibilities to be good and faithful, but if they still reject Him and turn away from Him, then He does not care for them.

Okay.

So why does this justify eternal torture in a hellfire? Belief is not a choice and nor is it a conscious act of vindictive spitefulness. It is a subjective conclusion that an individual reaches after a specific experience of natural phenomena. There is no question of being able to by 'choice' change that conclusion, because at that point you have already made it. You can only change your belief if you are convinced that your belief is wrong and/or that another belief is right. To do that you must be exposed to different viewpoints or different experiences in life.

I might be an Atheist, but I am not an Atheist because of a 'hatred of belief' or 'arrogance' or 'denial' or for any other rhetoric that some theists like to pretend I am, but I am an Atheist because I contest the existence of a God. I am a Soft Atheist in that I do not declare that there is no God but I simply disbelieve in the assertion that there is a God. As stated, my disbelief in the God proposition rests with skepticism and lack of evidence and/or reason under my world view to suppose a God. I cannot at all 'change' my belief because I would have to be sincerely convinced of its falsehood and/or the validity of another belief to do so.

And this brings me to my point - disbelief or belief in God is based on a sincere conclusion of reality, then why should those who disbelieve in God be sent to hell for all eternity? It is the equivalent of sending someone to hell for getting their information incorrect. It is also grossly unjust. Disbelief in God at most would last a lifetime whereas torture in hell lasts eternity. How is it just to send someone to hell for getting their information wrong? Which is exactly what this is.

Such people by their own actions have made themselves unworthy of His love and compassion. He warned them again and again that the consequences of their sins and rebellion will be severe, but if they did not pay any attention to Him, so why should He show any mercy to such ungrateful, stubborn, and evil creatures.

Stubborn? Evil?

The article writer assumes an image of disbelievers of Islam actively rejecting the word of God. As if disbelievers actively and willfully ignore the word of God and almost attack it. The opposite is quite true. Most Non-Muslims probably have only a passing knowledge of Islam. How can you call people who are aware of Islam only as a religion 'ungrateful, stubborn and evil'?

[جوري]

Okay. We're not at the point just yet. Whether a 'balance' must exist has very little to do with justification for eternal torture in a hellfire.

in fact it has everything to do with it!

Okay.

So why does this justify eternal torture in a hellfire? Belief is not a choice and nor is it a conscious act of vindictive spitefulness. It is a subjective conclusion that an individual reaches after a specific experience of natural phenomena. There is no question of being able to by 'choice' change that conclusion, because at that point you have already made it. You can only change your belief if you are convinced that your belief is wrong and/or that another belief is right. To do that you must be exposed to different viewpoints or different experiences in life.

Belief is very much a choice, we aren't animals. we are all born with the ability to reason and define our purpose, those of us born with a certain handicapped are exempt from such choices and like children are not accountable, but what is the excuse of any thinking rational adult? to have everything for free and think one is entitled to it?

I might be an Atheist, but I am not an Atheist because of a 'hatred of belief' or 'arrogance' or 'denial' or for any other rhetoric that some theists like to pretend I am, but I am an Atheist because I contest the existence of a God. I am a Soft Atheist in that I do not declare that there is no God but I simply disbelieve in the assertion that there is a God. As stated, my disbelief in the God proposition rests with skepticism and lack of evidence and/or reason under my world view to suppose a God. I cannot at all 'change' my belief because I would have to be sincerely convinced of its falsehood and/or the validity of another belief to do so.

In that case, I don't understand why any description of heaven or hell affects you as an atheist? Why are you so aghast of the thought of eternal punishment if the the sole notion of God is ludicrous to you?...

And this brings me to my point - disbelief or belief in God is based on a sincere conclusion of reality, then why should those who disbelieve in God be sent to hell for all eternity? It is the equivalent of sending someone to hell for getting their information incorrect. It is also grossly unjust. Disbelief in God at most would last a lifetime whereas torture in hell lasts eternity. How is it just to send someone to hell for getting their information wrong? Which is exactly what this is.

Again, I don't see how if you don't believe in God or with to abide by his rituals would be concerned at all of being sent to hell eternally? You were in fact given the message and you refused it, it didn't appeal to you, it didn't make sense, whatever it is, atheism is your path, then no such thing as hell exists, and you can live your life free from thoughts of it!

Stubborn? Evil?

The article writer assumes an image of disbelievers of Islam actively rejecting the word of God. As if disbelievers actively and willfully ignore the word of God and almost attack it. The opposite is quite true. Most Non-Muslims probably have only a passing knowledge of Islam. How can you call people who are aware of Islam only as a religion 'ungrateful, stubborn and evil'?

مَّنِ اهْتَدَى فَإِنَّمَا يَهْتَدي لِنَفْسِهِ وَمَن ضَلَّ فَإِنَّمَا يَضِلُّ عَلَيْهَا وَلاَ تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ أُخْرَى وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولاً

Transliteration Mani ihtada fainnama yahtadee linafsihi waman dalla fainnama yadillu AAalayha wala taziru waziratun wizra okhra wama kunna muAAaththibeena hatta nabAAatha rasoolan

Who receiveth guidance, receiveth it for his own benefit: who goeth astray doth so to his own loss: No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another: nor would We visit with Our Wrath until We had sent an apostle (to give warning).

Whoever adopts the right path does so for his own benefit, and whoever goes astray does so to his own detriment, and no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another, and it is not Our way to punish (anyone) unless We send a Messenger.


No one will be punished until they have been given the message, but once they receive and reject it, then they should prepare to handle the consequences!

cheers

[Skavau]

in fact it has everything to do with it!

How so?

Belief is very much a choice, we aren't animals.

No it isn't.

You cannot 'choose' your beliefs, you can only choose what you do. I did not 'choose' to be an Atheist, I concluded it. You did not 'choose' to be a Muslim, you concluded it. It is a conclusion of yours that Islam is correct and that Islam must be followed. You cannot sincerely change this belief unless you find evidence which refutes your current beliefs, or find a more convincing belief.

we are all born with the ability to reason and define our purpose, those of us born with a certain handicapped are exempt from such choices and like children are not accountable, but what is the excuse of any thinking rational adult?

Excuse me?

I don't need an 'excuse'. The whole point of my post there was that people should not be required to explain their beliefs. A belief is a conclusion that an individual reaches upon a specific observation of natural phenomena and a specific set of knowledge learned throughout their life. I don't need an excuse, all I need to be is sincere. I honestly do not believe in the existence of a God/s and this disbelief is based on contention, not reprehensible motives.

to have everything for free and think one is entitled to it?

Eh?

In that case, I don't understand why any description of heaven or hell affects you as an atheist?

It doesn't, personally. I just bought it up because I read your post in a discussion subforum. It is somewhat relevant to this thread whether it effects me or not.

Why are you so aghast of the thought of eternal punishment if the the sole notion of God is ludicrous to you?...

I consider it hypocritical to claim that God is benevolent, all-just and all-merciful and then claim that God sends non-believers to hell for eternity.

Again, I don't see how if you don't believe in God or with to abide by his rituals would be concerned at all of being sent to hell eternally?

I'm not.

But if Islam is true, I don't think it is fair I get sent to hell for eternity simply for getting my information incorrect.

You were in fact given the message and you refused it, it didn't appeal to you, it didn't make sense, whatever it is, atheism is your path, then no such thing as hell exists, and you can live your life free from thoughts of it!

I do.

I'm just debating and discussing on here.

No one will be punished until they have been given the message, but once they receive and reject it, then they should prepare to handle the consequences!

What constitutes receiving the message? If a Non-Muslim just happens to have heard of Islam, but knows very little about it - is that hearing the message?

[جوري]

How so?

What do you mean how so? Do you think for instance one who commits murder, essentially perfect and gets away with it, shouldn't be held accountable? The system exists so that everyone pays their dues! It is really that simple!

No it isn't.

Yeah it is, to believe or not is very much a choice!

You cannot 'choose' your beliefs, you can only choose what you do. I did not 'choose' to be an Atheist, I concluded it. You did not 'choose' to be a Muslim, you concluded it. It is a conclusion of yours that Islam is correct and that Islam must be followed. You cannot sincerely change this belief unless you find evidence which refutes your current beliefs, or find a more convincing belief.

I did very much choose my beliefs, for the longest time, I lived as an atheist, then an agnostic, then later in my twenties and after much reading chose to be a Muslim, it is a choice, It is a choice to practice and a choice to make it a way of life, you getting lost in semantics to make a moot point isn't helping you, rather a way to wash your hands out of your decision making!

Excuse me?

I don't need an 'excuse'. The whole point of my post there was that people should not be required to explain their beliefs. A belief is a conclusion that an individual reaches upon a specific observation of natural phenomena and a specific set of knowledge learned throughout their life. I don't need an excuse, all I need to be is sincere. I honestly do not believe in the existence of a God/s and this disbelief is based on contention, not reprehensible motives.

All right then, that is your choice, we al live by the choices we make.. You don't need to justify your beliefs to me, I am neither your judge nor executioner. We all lie in the beds we make!

Eh?

Why is that so difficult to comprehend? you'd gladly pay for O2 hospital and doctor and medication bills, should you be suffering from COPD because of life style choices such as smoking which render you unable to breathe, yet feel no such need to offer the most remote of payment for having your heart beat 100,800 beats per day or your lungs roughly breathe 23,000 involuntairy breaths including higher function when you sleep so if you should slip into a state of imbalance either your apneustic or Pneumotaxic center take over and inhibit you from dying, or your kidneys filtering about 180 quarts of blood so you don't end up in a coma, etc etc etc etc X a life time per person and you don't see fit that you should offer the smallest gratitide for one who granted you all of this?

It doesn't, personally. I just bought it up because I read your post in a discussion subforum. It is somewhat relevant to this thread whether it effects me or not.

If eternal life doesn't affect you, then it shouldn't be a topic for discussion. I'd personally enjoy life if I were an atheist and not spend so much time being philosophical in things that wouldn't benefit me whatsoever.

I consider it hypocritical to claim that God is benevolent, all-just and all-merciful and then claim that God sends non-believers to hell for eternity.

See all previous replies. I consider it hypocritical to expect without offering!

I'm not.

so why question it on any grounds?

But if Islam is true, I don't think it is fair I get sent to hell for eternity simply for getting my information incorrect.

If it is true, then you make your grievences known on the day of recompense!

I do.

I'm just debating and discussing on here.

What do you gain from such a debate?

What constitutes receiving the message? If a Non-Muslim just happens to have heard of Islam, but knows very little about it - is that hearing the message?

Everyone is raised on their intent. I don't know what constitutes receiving the message!

cheers

[Gator]

so why question it on any grounds?

What do you gain from such a debate?

Just a comment on this point since it comes up often. The reason why I question theists about their religion is to see the thinking behind it. Its not about God.

Simply, what I gain from such a debate is insight into you.

(sorry for jumping in y'all).

[Skavau]

What do you mean how so? Do you think for instance one who commits murder, essentially perfect and gets away with it, shouldn't be held accountable? The system exists so that everyone pays their dues! It is really that simple!

Sure.

But there is a difference between a murderer and someone who disbelieves in the existence of God. To murder is to commit an act of evil, to disbelieve in God is just to not believe in something.

Moreover, neither murder or disbelief in God should command eternal torture.

Yeah it is, to believe or not is very much a choice!

No it isn't. To believe is to conclude.

I did very much choose my beliefs, for the longest time, I lived as an atheist, then an agnostic, then later in my twenties and after much reading chose to be a Muslim, it is a choice

More accurately, you were an atheist - then events made you become an agnostic, and then eventually you became convinced of Islam. There was no choice involved. There was only choice in your actions.

It is a choice to practice and a choice to make it a way of life, you getting lost in semantics to make a moot point isn't helping you, rather a way to wash your hands out of your decision making!

It is a choice to practice and make it a way. But what you actually believe, deep down - cannot be a 'choice'. To demonstrate my point - could you honestly, sincerely just suddenly 'decide' to accept Christianity? You could pretend to be a Christian, live a Christian lifestyle but unless you actually are convinced that Christianity is true - you would be in denial.

Moreover, I am not attempting to wash my hands out of decision making.

All right then, that is your choice, we al live by the choices we make.. You don't need to justify your beliefs to me, I am neither your judge nor executioner. We all lie in the beds we make!

Okay then.

Why is that so difficult to comprehend? you'd gladly pay for O2 hospital and doctor and medication bills, should you be suffering from COPD because of life style choices such as smoking which render you unable to breathe, yet feel no such need to offer the most remote of payment for having your heart beat 100,800 beats per day or your lungs roughly breathe 23,000 involuntairy breaths including higher function when you sleep so if you should slip into a state of imbalance either your apneustic or Pneumotaxic center take over and inhibit you from dying, or your kidneys filtering about 180 quarts of blood so you don't end up in a coma, etc etc etc etc X a life time per person and you don't see fit that you should offer the smallest gratitide for one who granted you all of this?

I never said that.

To me, lest you forget - there is nothing to thank. I don't believe I was created.

If eternal life doesn't affect you, then it shouldn't be a topic for discussion. I'd personally enjoy life if I were an atheist and not spend so much time being philosophical in things that wouldn't benefit me whatsoever.

That would be you, not me.

And I do not ascribe to the theory of not discussing things that do not effect me. I find the background story of Mass Effect absolutely fascinating and I enjoy discussing it. Just because it doesn't effect me doesn't mean I shouldn't have an interest in it or not discuss it.

See all previous replies. I consider it hypocritical to expect without offering!

Whether that is true or not, this has nothing to do with any of my arguments about hell.

so why question it on any grounds?

I like the topic? I like to discuss things?

What do you gain from such a debate?

Depends.

New information, new insight, sometimes nothing. Do I need to gain something?

[جوري]

Sure.

But there is a difference between a murderer and someone who disbelieves in the existence of God. To murder is to commit an act of evil, to disbelieve in God is just to not believe in something. Moreover, neither murder or disbelief in God should command eternal torture.

Even murder can be expiated if one is sincere, but your feelings on the matter isn't really what commands what happen in the hereafter.. In fact there is no sin greater than 'kufr'
I am curious however, how do you think punishment should be dispensed to someone who has commited the perfect crime if there is no such thing as a hereafter?

No it isn't. To believe is to conclude.

You keep maintaining that, and I likewise maintain that you want to get lost in semantics. logical free thinking adults are responsible for their choices and decisions and religion is very much a choice, we have many young children on board who chose to be Muslim and also chose to keep such a decision from their parents lest they be punished for it.

More accurately, you were an atheist - then events made you become an agnostic, and then eventually you became convinced of Islam. There was no choice involved. There was only choice in your actions.

How far are you willing to go to make a nonpoint? this isn't philosophy 101. you either make a choice that you want to be something or you a choice to be another!

It is a choice to practice and make it a way. But what you actually believe, deep down - cannot be a 'choice'. To demonstrate my point - could you honestly, sincerely just suddenly 'decide' to accept Christianity? You could pretend to be a Christian, live a Christian lifestyle but unless you actually are convinced that Christianity is true - you would be in denial.

I believe christianity to be true indeed just not the most correct, they are people of the book, to choose christianity is to go backwards not forwards, I don't deny Jesus or that there is a form of a bible out there though not in its current form. If Islam weren't around, I'd probably be Jewish, as christianity defies all logic to me, and thus wouldn't be a good choice for a religion!

Moreover, I am not attempting to wash my hands out of decision making.

Sure if you say so!

Okay then.


I never said that.

To me, lest you forget - there is nothing to thank. I don't believe I was created.

hehehehe... ok you weren't created, a stork brought you to your parents, and no one is forcing you to give thanks..

That would be you, not me.

And I do not ascribe to the theory of not discussing things that do not effect me. I find the background story of Mass Effect absolutely fascinating and I enjoy discussing it. Just because it doesn't effect me doesn't mean I shouldn't have an interest in it or not discuss it.

You wish to discuss it under what grounds? a thriller? a bedtime story? a nice piece of fiction? you should at least highlight your interests, so if it is a complete waste of our time we'd quit.
There is punishment too for wasting time in vain discourse you see which personally I'd like to avoid.. I'd hate to spend my time idly if it were for your mere amusement. I am not here to amuse or fascinate anyone!

Whether that is true or not, this has nothing to do with any of my arguments about hell.

You are the one mentioning that 'it if were true' again, you should in the least be consistent!

I like the topic? I like to discuss things?


Depends.

New information, new insight, sometimes nothing. Do I need to gain something?

Of course there has to be gain.. Do you think I like sitting here straining my eyes and putting off a million other things that are pilling on me for nonesense?!

cheers

[Azy]

I have already stated in my previous post, religion is faith based on observed natural phenomenon in the known world, none which you have accounted for scientifcally!

None? This is basically the God of the gaps argument, science has explained a great many things which were once evidence of the Almighty, as time goes on the list diminishes.
How exactly does one conclude the God of the Quran from observing nature?

What claims, what do you want?

What claims? Every claim related to God or world religions.
c. 1500BC Moses comes down from the mountain with a list carved into a tablet.
"Hey guys, I went up this mountain and spoke to God. He told me to let you know that these are the rules from now on, ok?"
"Bro, you've been up there alone for quite a while, how do I know you didn't just write those yourself?"

Since day one noone ever came up with any evidence of God's existence or that his will has been dictated in the manner described by the Book(s).
I don't doubt that most people here believe wholeheartedly in the word of the Quran but when people are so vehement about obtaining evidence for claims made by others it makes me wonder what these
people have done to validate the factual accuracy of their own opinions.

In order for me to convince you otherwise about the origins of the world you require a how from science, spelled out in detail.
If I challenged you on the how of God, what answer would I get? "Don't know, he's God, he just did it. Don't ask how because you probably wouldn't understand."
It's a lie that religion gives you any of the right answers, it just prevents you from asking the right questions.

shown what in fossil record? you have jumping genes, and framshift mutations in fossil records at work? further how does evolution disprove a God, I really fail to see your point, again because you have failed to demonstrate or prove it!
--
how are two humans populating the earth a contradiction, further what is your alternative, I mean you contend we came from single-celled or noncellular organisms that lack even mitochondria, and that propelled itself to higher life organisms, further split into male and female and you find that less absured than two humans copulating? and you want to speak of unsupported? are you for real?

3.5 billion years of life on Earth with a gradual development and increase in complexity from microbes to humans. It isn't evidence against God, but it is evidence against what is allegedly God's word.

There is no evidence in the fossil record that humanity started 40-85 (depending on who you ask) generations before the Prophet with the sudden appearance of a single pair of humans (and if ahadith are to be believed, humans that are 90ft tall).
Does the presence of 60,000 year old human remains in australia agree with this Quranic account? Maybe they all lived to 2000 years old and mastered shipbuilding in the desert. Perhaps Eve was so genetically disimilar to Adam that all the races of humanity came about in
a dozen generations of interbreeding.

how is creation of six days a contradiction?

Why, if the Quran is meant to be clear and precise, fully detailed and with nothing excluded, does it take several hundred lines of alternate interpretations to explain away a small handful of passages?
Additionally they all have errors. (You could have just linked, not everyone wants to read all those passages inline.)

The explanation by Ansar for 6 days in one place vs 2+4+2 in another, that some are to be understood as simultaneous is akin to me saying:
I washed my clothes on Monday. I ironed my clothes on Tuesday. I picked up my dirty clothes on Monday.
There is nothing elegant about this, and it is in contravention of Quranic principles.

Surah 11, Verse 1 This is a scripture whose verses are perfected and then explained.
This verse indicates that no words are wasted in the Qur'an, it could not be in a better form. One could not use fewer words to say the same thing. To do so would add unnecessary information.

Depending on which way you look at it there is either redundancy or missing detail, which both go against properties of the Quran defined within it. The fact that the creation is described 5 times is a little redundant, no?

Scientists have analyzed the human body and found that it is composed of 16 substances including oxygen and manganese. These elements are no more than the elements of the earth?s crust. This experiment was not meant for proving the credibility of the Qur'an; rather, it was solely for scientific research purposes.

http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~wuhsi/elements.html lists 17 elements and their use in the body, note it does not include hydrogen, carbon, oxygen or nitrogen.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs087-02/images/fig04.gif relative abundance of elements in earth's crust. A few more than 16...

The cosmic heaven refers to outerspace while the heaven described in seven layers refers to the earth's atmosphere.

Not sure how you would reconcile that with the placement of the stars...
41:12 So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard.

[Skavau]

Even murder can be expiated if one is sincere, but your feelings on the matter isn't really what commands what happen in the hereafter.. In fact there is no sin greater than 'kufr'

I know this is the case.

I also believe that this specific case is unjust.

I am curious however, how do you think punishment should be dispensed to someone who has commited the perfect crime if there is no such thing as a hereafter?

Define the 'perfect' crime here.

Moreover, justice would be dispensed the old fashioned way. We would find them and take them into custody.

You keep maintaining that, and I likewise maintain that you want to get lost in semantics. logical free thinking adults are responsible for their choices and decisions and religion is very much a choice

What you learn and what you decide to do in life is a choice, but what you believe is not.

we have many young children on board who chose to be Muslim and also chose to keep such a decision from their parents lest they be punished for it.

Actually, we have many young children on board who concluded Islam is true and chose from that to become a Muslim.

How far are you willing to go to make a nonpoint? this isn't philosophy 101. you either make a choice that you want to be something or you a choice to be another!

This is extremely relevant to the topic. If belief is not a choice, but only a conclusion - then punishment for any kind of belief becomes inherently unjust.

I believe christianity to be true indeed just not the most correct, they are people of the book, to choose christianity is to go backwards not forwards, I don't deny Jesus or that there is a form of a bible out there though not in its current form. If Islam weren't around, I'd probably be Jewish, as christianity defies all logic to me, and thus wouldn't be a good choice for a religion!

There we go then. You couldn't just 'believe' in Christianity by choice.

hehehehe... ok you weren't created, a stork brought you to your parents, and no one is forcing you to give thanks..

I was caused, not created.

You wish to discuss it under what grounds? a thriller? a bedtime story? a nice piece of fiction? you should at least highlight your interests, so if it is a complete waste of our time we'd quit.

Interest. There is no grounds otherwise.

There is punishment too for wasting time in vain discourse you see which personally I'd like to avoid.. I'd hate to spend my time idly if it were for your mere amusement. I am not here to amuse or fascinate anyone!

Are you informing me that God, as per Islam prescribes punishment for idle amusement?

Of course there has to be gain.. Do you think I like sitting here straining my eyes and putting off a million other things that are pilling on me for nonesense?!

Clearly not.

But you are not me. I don't mind discussions like this.

[جوري]

None? This is basically the God of the gaps argument, science has explained a great many things which were once evidence of the Almighty, as time goes on the list diminishes.

You haven't answered one question posed you, yet speak so freely for science.. why is that?

How exactly does one conclude the God of the Quran from observing nature?
What claims? Every claim related to God or world religions.
c. 1500BC Moses comes down from the mountain with a list carved into a tablet.
"Hey guys, I went up this mountain and spoke to God. He told me to let you know that these are the rules from now on, ok?"
"Bro, you've been up there alone for quite a while, how do I know you didn't just write those yourself?"

Here is a good book for starters on how to find God in nature. written by a biologist
http://www.amazon.com/Growth-Form-Co.../dp/0486671356

http://www.nous.org.uk/Thompson.html

• synopsis from amazon
• First published in 1917, On Growth and Form was at once revolutionary and conservative. Scottish embryologist D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson (1860-1948) grew up in the newly cast shadow of Darwinism, and he took issue with some of the orthodoxies of the day--not because they were necessarily wrong, he said, but because they violated the spirit of Occam's razor, in which simple explanations are preferable to complex ones. In the case of such subjects as the growth of eggs, skeletons, and crystals, Thompson cited mathematical authority: these were matters of "economy and transformation," and they could be explained by laws governing surface tension and the like. (He doubtless would have enjoyed the study of fractals, which came after his time.) In On Growth and Form, he examines such matters as the curve of frequency or bell curve (which explains variations in height among 10-year-old schoolboys, the florets of a daisy, the distribution of darts on a cork board, the thickness of stripes along a zebra's flanks, the shape of mountain ranges and sand dunes) and spirals (which turn up everywhere in nature you look: in the curve of a seashell, the swirl of water boiling in a saucepan, the sweep of faraway nebulae, the twist of a strand of DNA, the turns of the labyrinth in which the legendary Minotaur lived out its days). The result is an astonishingly varied book that repays skimming and close reading alike. English biologist Sir Peter Medawar called Thompson's tome "beyond comparison the finest work of literature in all the annals of science that have been recorded in the English tongue." --Gregory McNamee --This text refers to the Paperback edition.
  
• Product Description
• Why do living things and physical phenomena take the form they do? D'Arcy Thompson's classic On Growth and Form looks at the way things grow and the shapes they take. Analysing biological processes in their mathematical and physical aspects, this historic work, first published in 1917, has also become renowned for the sheer poetry of its descriptions. A great scientist sensitive to the fascinations and beauty of the natural world tells of jumping fleas and slipper limpets; of buds and seeds; of bees' cells and rain drops; of the potter's thumb and the spider's web; of a film of soap and a bubble of oil; of a splash of a pebble in a pond. D'Arcy Thompson's writing, hailed as 'good literature as well as good science; a discourse on science as though it were a humanity', is now made available for a wider readership, with a foreword by one of today's great populisers of science, explaining the importance of the work for a new generation of readers.

The text is its own testament, in this case the quran specifically, as there is no other book like it, in style, context, meaning, poetry, politics/ economics/ social structure and spiritual guidance! and the challenge is yours should you desire to produce one sura like unto it, I have already stated the criteria, on numerous posts prior.
perhaps if you read more and spewed less drivel it might become clearer?

Since day one noone ever came up with any evidence of God's existence or that his will has been dictated in the manner described by the Book(s).
I don't doubt that most people here believe wholeheartedly in the word of the Quran but when people are so vehement about obtaining evidence for claims made by others it makes me wonder what these
people have done to validate the factual accuracy of their own opinions.

You speak of factual accuracy with the confidance of someone who possesses it, which is hilraious considering you haven't answered any questions about our existence, origins of life, purpose, evolution into more complex organisms and the purpose of death in evolution. Which makes me wonder what have you done to validate your own opinion and that is actually all it is, an opinion, where you take the liberty to speak for all scientests as if you have a clue!
furtheremore all you have done is plagiarize and have the audacity to complain of well thought refutations.. what is ailing you?

In order for me to convince you otherwise about the origins of the world you require a how from science, spelled out in detail.
If I challenged you on the how of God, what answer would I get? "Don't know, he's God, he just did it. Don't ask how because you probably wouldn't understand."

That is the diffident way out, science should be its own truth, if you had factual evidence to the list I stated prior, you wouldn't dance so much like a kid who can't hold his bladder. In my previous post I stated, I wouldn't discuss details of religion to someone who doesn't believe in God and gave the example
I don't discuss Quranic contents with folks who don't even believe in God, it is purpose defeating! It will be like discussing with you the thromboprophylaxis of Dabigatran, when you have no understanding whatsoever of the coagulation pathway normal physiology let alone the pathology of it and why this particular med is superior to others already out on the market!
If you truly had details on the evolution of single celled organisms into bacteria, you wouldn't need all these fillers, you'd produce your evidence annihilate all religious books in one shot and it would be over.. but here you are day in and day out failing to make a point for yourself!

It's a lie that religion gives you any of the right answers, it just prevents you from asking the right questions.

Amazing, you have had all the time in the world to free yourself from religious obligations and shackles, yet stand on any ground with the most unlearned adherent, handicapped at best at offering any answers!

3.5 billion years of life on Earth with a gradual development and increase in complexity from microbes to humans. It isn't evidence against God, but it is evidence against what is allegedly God's word.

That would be true indeed, if it were verifiable, so far you have failed to show how any single celled organism evolved into a complex being, I have in fact given you some of the names of possible mutations, be they acrocentric breaks in chromosomes, silent, missense, framshift mutations, jumping genes etc etc, none have been proven to cause anything short of death and or disease, and yet you claim that is how bacteria from God knows where (perhaps left by the aliens) evolved in to cockroaches and later into humans, and amazingly enough, not a thought as to why the process is so directed? for instance we wouldn't stop at cockroaches, they seem inherently more successful than we are at survival!
so how about you give your theoritical science some practical considerations? You can use liposomes or e-coli as vectors see how I make your life easier? and introduce new genetic material into a host to transform it, plus perhaps you might mention what environmental circumstances allowed for that success the first time around, ON ITS OWN VOLITIONS, so that for instance you can have a perfectly working carbamoyl phosphate synthetase and don't end up dead from nitrogenous wastes simply floating in your body-- as any mistake happening early on would spell the death of that organism and then there is none more to be had for other tries see.. use your gooey noodles!

There is no evidence in the fossil record that humanity started 40-85 (depending on who you ask) generations before the Prophet with the sudden appearance of a single pair of humans (and if ahadith are to be believed, humans that are 90ft tall).

isn't it amazing then, how we have humans here, when according to you there is no record of them? yet I can survey the room and see them, they must have come from somewhere, even if they are not fossilized!
You are willing to believe you came from ape, but not a larger size human, it is a conundrum really? When people are burried they decay, that is why there is no evidence of them (ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh) has that ever occured to you? Not everything is left deep in limestone!

Does the presence of 60,000 year old human remains in australia agree with this Quranic account? Maybe they all lived to 2000 years old and mastered shipbuilding in the desert. Perhaps Eve was so genetically disimilar to Adam that all the races of humanity came about in
a dozen generations of interbreeding.

I don't see why it doesn't agree? We don't know how long ago adam and eve lived and there is an account in the Quran of other creatures and large gaps in existance before the creation of man... I have taken the liberty to add verse
one from Suret al'insan and an exegesis of it

هَلْ أَتَى عَلَى الإِنْسَانِ حِينٌ مِنَ الدَّهْرِ لَمْ يَكُنْ شَيْئًا مَذْكُورًا

... and again I ask you, you claim we came from fossilized bacteria, yet can't see the absurdity in bacteria becoming human, turning into a pair of male and female, or generations of interbreeding with that?

Why, if the Quran is meant to be clear and precise, fully detailed and with nothing excluded, does it take several hundred lines of alternate interpretations to explain away a small handful of passages?
Additionally they all have errors. (You could have just linked, not everyone wants to read all those passages inline.)

Arabic is a rich language, and as stated prior, if you wish to take the challenge of producing anything like it, then using the least amount of words to convey the best meaning is desired, and I have given the example of suret an'nazi3at where it takes 7 words to translate just two Arabic ones. The Quran is preserved in original tongue and not difficult to read or learn.
There are no errors in the Quran, if you maintain that, you'll have to prove it and not scurry to the web like a plagiarist in the least you should have the courtesy before you write so you don't come across like a complete oaf? as stated everything has been refuted and I can tell how it bothers you to read a long refutation. If you are not up to a challenge then don't be all he man about it things that are clearely over your head. In other words don't bray and pound on your chest extra hard and then complain when you are given a response that doesn't appeal to you!

The explanation by Ansar for 6 days in one place vs 2+4+2 in another, that some are to be understood as simultaneous is akin to me saying:
I washed my clothes on Monday. I ironed my clothes on Tuesday. I picked up my dirty clothes on Monday.
There is nothing elegant about this, and it is in contravention of Quranic principles.

You are just splitting hair, his modifying of it, so it is spoken in terms even you can understand doesn't detract from the beauty of the text or its transcendence, and those terms that are more abstract and complex will be deemed by you fictional, so there is really no winning, and no one really cares at the end, whether it speaks to you personally or not, You are very negligeable in the scheme of things and angry fellow, who wants to drag the world down with him, while feigning knowledge in the process!

Depending on which way you look at it there is either redundancy or missing detail, which both go against properties of the Quran defined within it. The fact that the creation is described 5 times is a little redundant, no?

Nope, there is a reason behind the numerology, and repetition in the Quran, as there is a reason behind 'al'mot'qata3at' those chapters that begin with just odd numbered letters!

• The Divine Law of Cause and Effect attributes one cause to one effect. This law is a strong proof for the existence of God. The more general Law of Repetition attributes repetitive effects in non-related fields to One God. This law simply states that because common guidelines exist, in all living organisms, physical objects or historical events, then the Designer or the Creator of all organisms, objects or events is the same. This law also states that because a phenomenon exists in different branches of science, then this phenomenon has to be attributed to only one Uncaused Cause. With humility and open mind, we should believe that God exists.

http://www.usislam.org/11law.htm

http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~wuhsi/elements.html lists 17 elements and their use in the body, note it does not include hydrogen, carbon, oxygen or nitrogen.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs087-02/images/fig04.gif relative abundance of elements in earth's crust. A few more than 16...

What is the point of this exactly? that it is 17 in lieu of 16? lol how hilarious are you?

Not sure how you would reconcile that with the placement of the stars...
41:12 So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard.

Again, I fail to see what it is, you desire reconcilliation for?

Earth's atmosphere has 7 layers. The lowest layer is called troposphere. Rain, snow and wind only take place in the troposphere. There is an upper atmosphere. There is a lower atmosphere. and each indeed has a duty

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7b.htm

Now if you'll excuse me, there is a pair of CoSTUME NATIONAL shoes that interest me a heck of alot more than engaging you...
cheers

[Mukafi7]

Some things in life have to be accepted on face value. If one requires proof to accept it, then it is useless. So don't spin ur wheel trying to make one believe. If they do or don't it is for them to deal with. As they say, you can lead the horse to the water, but can't make him drink.

[Gator]

But the "face value" indicates to me that there is no god. That is where we disagree.

I'm not looking for proof for an ironclad conclusion, just what is reasonable based on my experiences.

[جوري]

I know this is the case.

I also believe that this specific case is unjust.

Defining justice isn't really left to human definitions

Define the 'perfect' crime here.

ummmm.. someone who got away with murder and people do get away with murder, not everyone makes it to the ten o'clock news!

Moreover, justice would be dispensed the old fashioned way. We would find them and take them into custody.

see above reply, how do you dispense with justice on someone who got away with a perfect crime?

What you learn and what you decide to do in life is a choice, but what you believe is not.

What you believe is a choice. We are given free will and make choices with it.

Actually, we have many young children on board who concluded Islam is true and chose from that to become a Muslim.


This is extremely relevant to the topic. If belief is not a choice, but only a conclusion - then punishment for any kind of belief becomes inherently unjust.

Your conclusion is based on an a priori judgement, which I don't accept because it is flawed at the core, to which again I say you are entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is incorrect!
It is as if you are maintaining that watermelons are oranges when everyone around you tells you they are red!

There we go then. You couldn't just 'believe' in Christianity by choice.

But it is by choice that I don't subscribe to christianity.. to believe is to be confident about something as truth, and I don't find full truth in it for reasons I'll defer as I am not interested into turning this into a religious debate!

I was caused, not created.

Yes we have already established you were caused by the storks!

Interest. There is no grounds otherwise.

interest is a sterile term by itself!

Are you informing me that God, as per Islam prescribes punishment for idle amusement?

for vain discourse specifically!

Clearly not.

But you are not me. I don't mind discussions like this.

You are right, but you address me in the process which in turn gives me a subtle obligation if nothing else to clarify the Islamic position, which I don't know if your term 'interest' falls into, or it could steer into vain discourse, which displeases me not just from a religious stand point but just a mismanagement of my private time that I NEED otherwise!


cheers

[جوري]

I'm not looking for proof for an ironclad conclusion, just what is reasonable based on my experiences.

Indeed you are on to something, it is what is reasonable to experience and level of educations that renders me unable to accept some of the floating theories on the origins of life at face value without here too meriting large leaps of faith, that I'd rather invest where they are actually needed and provide me with spiritual satisfaction!

and that is really what it comes down to, instead of such long winded debates..
other atheists here can learn something from you in relating to others and generally how to address those whose thoughts differ from yours..

peace!

[Skavau]

Defining justice isn't really left to human definitions

Justice, to me is an entirely human invention. There is nothing divine about it and there is nothing unquestionable or infallible about any form of it. When I hear someone assert a God that is benevolent, all-merciful and all-just and in the next breath declare that this same God will send non-believers in him to hell for all eternity - I see a contradiction. There is so much else I could say to this post, but I will merely reiterate my original point.

I believe that torture in hell for the 'crime' of disbelief is morally reprehensible and immoral. Appealing to the argument that God decides what is just is not a convincing argument, for it begs the question of the age old Euthyphro Dilemma and implies that morality is inherently arbitrary and infinitely subjective, not linked to universal principles, or universal ideals but merely the will of a cosmic arbiter. Simply to say, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy - not a convincing argument.

ummmm.. someone who got away with murder and people do get away with murder, not everyone makes it to the ten o'clock news!

So the perfect crime, according to you is a successful crime? I thought you were referring to a deeply nasty crime that commanded a long punishment.

Well, if someone was a fugitive from justice - we would try and catch them and bring them to justice.

see above reply, how do you dispense with justice on someone who got away with a perfect crime?

How do we deal out justice to someone who got away?

We can't - unless we catch them.

What you believe is a choice. We are given free will and make choices with it.

You assert this so often and yet provide no reasoning behind it, where as I have provided reasoning for the opposite position.

Your conclusion is based on an a priori judgement, which I don't accept because it is flawed at the core, to which again I say you are entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is incorrect!
It is as if you are maintaining that watermelons are oranges when everyone around you tells you they are red!

It is nothing to do with that at all.

It just shows that you do not understand the nature of belief.

But it is by choice that I don't subscribe to christianity..

No it isn't. It is because you do not believe in Christianity (which you cannot change unless you become convinced by new information or new insights).

to believe is to be confident about something as truth, and I don't find full truth in it for reasons I'll defer as I am not interested into turning this into a religious debate!

I am not interested in your reasons for rejecting or disbelieving in Christianity. I only bought it up to make a point about the nature of belief.

Yes we have already established you were caused by the storks!

Storks played no role in my causation.

interest is a sterile term by itself!

That is my reason for discussion. Deal with it.

for vain discourse specifically!

Then I would say that the God that you propose is unjust and apparently petty. (To moderators: this is not an insult, but an honest observation of a concept of God that I am being told about.)

You are right, but you address me in the process which in turn gives me a subtle obligation if nothing else to clarify the Islamic position, which I don't know if your term 'interest' falls into, or it could steer into vain discourse, which displeases me not just from a religious stand point but just a mismanagement of my private time that I NEED otherwise!

Nobody is forcing you to respond.

[جوري]

Justice, to me is an entirely human invention. There is nothing divine about it and there is nothing unquestionable or infallible about any form of it. When I hear someone assert a God that is benevolent, all-merciful and all-just and in the next breath declare that this same God will send non-believers in him to hell for all eternity - I see a contradiction. There is so much else I could say to this post, but I will merely reiterate my original point.

To you is the operative word here!

I believe that torture in hell for the 'crime' of disbelief is morally reprehensible and immoral. Appealing to the argument that God decides what is just is not a convincing argument, for it begs the question of the age old Euthyphro Dilemma and implies that morality is inherently arbitrary and infinitely subjective, not linked to universal principles, or universal ideals but merely the will of a cosmic arbiter. Simply to say, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy - not a convincing argument.

Morality to an atheist is subjective indeed and subject to the changing tides. Theological morality is defined.. and your choice to adhere to.. You don't get to define it, and as stated, you may state your grievences on the day of recompense, I am personally not impressed.

So the perfect crime, according to you is a successful crime? I thought you were referring to a deeply nasty crime that commanded a long punishment.

one that is awful and one which one got away with..

Well, if someone was a fugitive from justice - we would try and catch them and bring them to justice.

That is sophmoric at best, as you know many criminals in fact aren't caught

How do we deal out justice to someone who got away?

We can't - unless we catch them.

What a profound revelation, indeed when they get away with crimes, no earthly justice will be served then!

You assert this so often and yet provide no reasoning behind it, where as I have provided reasoning for the opposite position.

And I have stated your reasoning is based on an apriori judgement and is easily dismissed as it is a nonpoint!

It is nothing to do with that at all.

It just shows that you do not understand the nature of belief.

That is hilarious coming from an atheist!

No it isn't. It is because you do not believe in Christianity (which you cannot change unless you become convinced by new information or new insights).

What do you mean don't believe in christianity, it does exist, therefore there cannot be denying belief in it. New evidence has indeed come forth to make me dismiss it as a contendor and its own book is wrought with contradiction, there is no point in me adhering to something that is faulty IT IS A CHOICE. Stop dictating to me your defintions of belief and religion. It is nonesensical at best

I am not interested in your reasons for rejecting or disbelieving in Christianity. I only bought it up to make a point about the nature of belief.

see my previous reply!

Storks played no role in my causation.

you are a funny guy!

That is my reason for discussion. Deal with it.

the very defintion of sophistry!

Then I would say that the God that you propose is unjust and apparently petty. (To moderators: this is not an insult, but an honest observation of a concept of God that I am being told about.)

You think what you will, it is inconsequential to me!

Nobody is forcing you to respond.

Then quit quoting me!

cheers

[Skavau]

To you is the operative word here!

Absolutely to me. It is incompatible with my moral principles. Assuming that Muslims have the objective to convert Non-Muslims, they will have to at some point - deal with and answer questions relating to this topic. People disbelieve in certain renditions of God for moral reasons just as much as philosophical and scientific reasons.

Morality to an atheist is subjective indeed and subject to the changing tides.

Define 'subjective' in this instance.

And no, my morality is not subject to the changing tides.

Theological morality is defined.. and your choice to adhere to..

Theological morality is nothing more than a glorification of obedience. It is infinitely subjective and ultimately arbitrary.

one that is awful and one which one got away with..

Well, if they got away we couldn't do anything.

What a profound revelation, indeed when they get away with crimes, no earthly justice will be served then!

Unfortunately, correct.

That is hilarious coming from an atheist!

How do I not understand the nature of belief?

What do you mean don't believe in christianity, it does exist, therefore there cannot be denying belief in it.

As in, you do not believe the claims of Christianity. You cannot change this disbelief unless you are convinced that your disbelief is false.

New evidence has indeed come forth to make me dismiss it as a contendor and its own book is wrought with contradiction, there is no point in me adhering to something that is faulty IT IS A CHOICE.

Have you ever heard of the term internally inconsistent? You just specified that new evidence defined your reasoning for dismissing it and then you insist that it was a choice.

Belief is a conclusion, not a choice - again. You cannot just 'choose' to be a Christian anymore than I can just 'choose' to be a Hindu.

the very defintion of sophistry!

I don't have to justify my reasons to discuss to you.

Then quit quoting me!

Me quoting you is not forcing you to respond.

[جوري]

Absolutely to me. It is incompatible with my moral principles. Assuming that Muslims have the objective to convert Non-Muslims, they will have to at some point - deal with and answer questions relating to this topic. People disbelieve in certain renditions of God for moral reasons just as much as philosophical and scientific reasons.

1-Inconsequential. I find many man made laws down right immoral and don't contest it, since it is state law.
2-There is no compulsion in religion.
3-Most people who are seeking to be Muslims usually have more abstract thoughts and sophistication and don't ask the questions and draw conclusions in similar manner to that of two year olds further, if truly interested in religion ask answers to deep philosopical questions of learned scholars and not on a public board!

Define 'subjective' in this instance.

Taking place within your own mind and modified by your individual bias

And no, my morality is not subject to the changing tides.

where does your morality come from then?

Theological morality is nothing more than a glorification of obedience. It is infinitely subjective and ultimately arbitrary.

another subjective view, for you haven't personally defined for us where you own morality comes from? Theological morality is documented for millenniums and well outlined nothing at all arbitraty about it.. where is the moral code of conduct of atheism?

Well, if they got away we couldn't do anything.

Yeah, you couldn't how inauspicious.. what keeps an atheist at bay from commiting the perfect crime if he could get away with it and there was no such thing as rewards and punishment in the hereafter? I mean truly if you could commit a white collar crime and embezzle knowing 100% you'd get away with it, why wouldn't you? I can't think of a single thing to hold you back!

Unfortunately, correct.

see above.

How do I not understand the nature of belief?

your account of it, is laughable at best!

As in, you do not believe the claims of Christianity. You cannot change this disbelief unless you are convinced that your disbelief is false.

It is a choice based on serious study.. the same way one chooses to be a doctor of lawyer or an engineer based on study and choice!

Have you ever heard of the term internally inconsistent? You just specified that new evidence defined your reasoning for dismissing it and then you insist that it was a choice.

Have you heard of cognitive conservatism? Once you've have formed a cognition (attitude or belief), you will process every piece of information in a way to preserve that belief and understanding. and remain in a state of inertia.. and that is something you are entitled to, but consider your opponent, not everyone is so easily molded for you to hammer your incessantly for it to finally take hold out of someone caving in. You are entitled to your non-point, but I am a bit sick of your circular logic at this stage!

Belief is a conclusion, not a choice - again. You cannot just 'choose' to be a Christian anymore than I can just 'choose' to be a Hindu.

see my above reply!

I don't have to justify my reasons to discuss to you.

Don't bait me into more silliness.

Me quoting you is not forcing you to respond.

Good then. It ends on my part with this post!

cheers

[Pygoscelis]

Theological morality is nothing more than a glorification of obedience.

I wouldn't say its nothing more than that, but that is certainly one of the biggest components of it, and especially of the abrahamic religions. I don't think there is any theme more repeated in these three religions than obedience.

Half the ten commandments are about obedience (not about being kind or good). Muslims celebrate surrendering and submitting to the will of God. The entire book of Judges in the bible is about Israel straying from obedience to God and being punished for it over and over.

The story of Abraham and Isaac is the ultimate example though. If it was a morality story it would end with Abraham telling God he will not obey and kill his son Isaac because that would be unjust, and God then saying Abraham passed his test for staying moral in the face of unjust authority. It instead ends with Abraham killing his child on God's order, like when a mobster tests the loyalty of his goons by giving them a gun they think is loaded and telling them to shoot their brother. This story is Morality vs Obedience, and obedience wins.

Also notice that in the garden of eden story, the forbidden fruit is said to be the "fruit of knowledge of good and evil", so before eating it there is no way that Adam and Eve could have know it was good to obey God and not eat the apple. It is all about obedience to power.

Heaven and Hell are also obedience based. The most base form of moral development - punishment and reward.

Every now and then you find a theist claiming that atheists can not be good without God, can not be moral, etc. But I argue the opposite. We all have a sense of morality stemming primarily from empathy (seeing yourself in others and feeling their pain as you identify with them). Some enshrine this in religion and attribute it to the orders of a deity. But it isn't just them who have it - we all do, else why are atheists not running around killing and raping everybody? The problem with religion is that although it may enshrine some moral values it also burries others beneath dogmatic adherence to a perceived authority (God) and throws in added adherence to some rather arbitrary and sometimes harmful "values".

Belief is a conclusion, not a choice - again. You cannot just 'choose' to be a Christian anymore than I can just 'choose' to be a Hindu.

Indeed. Try as you might, I doubt you'll manage to choose to believe you are an elephant. Try it. Repeat "i am an elephant" a few dozen times and picture yourself as an elephant. Is it working? Can you make this choice?

[Skavau]

1-Inconsequential. I find many man made laws down right immoral and don't contest it, since it is state law.

Not all man-made 'morality' is state law, and I don't see why - just because something is considered law, that you refuse to contest it? Especially as you accept that state law can be wrong.

3-Most people who are seeking to be Muslims usually have more abstract thoughts and sophistication and don't ask the questions and draw conclusions in similar manner to that of two year olds further, if truly interested in religion ask answers to deep philosopical questions of learned scholars and not on a public board!

Nonetheless, they are still questions that people ask and concerns that they have.

Taking place within your own mind and modified by your individual bias

Then yes, my entire moral understanding by your definition is subjective. As is every decision I make in my life. So?

where does your morality come from then?

I have reasoned (with or without influence from mainstream culture) my moral principles. My other influences of morality come from empathy.

another subjective view, for you haven't personally defined for us where you own morality comes from?

It doesn't matter where my morality may or may not come from. It does not have anything to do with theistic morality.

Theological morality is documented for millenniums and well outlined nothing at all arbitraty about it..

The amount of documentation and the paper trail of theistic morality does not make it any less arbitrary.

Your conviction that Islam is right or that Allah's viewpoint is infallible is no more convincing that another individuals conviction that Thor exists. You define morality by what God says. You deem what is righteous not through rational inquiry or valued principles but through the declaration of might. God is the ultimate force of might in your belief and therefore what God says goes. You are from this not interested in humanity, but furthering what you believe God has said in the Quran. You do not condemn things like murder, or theft wrong because they are intrinsically wrong in themselves - but you condemn them because Allah has told you to. This is a world view of effective moral failure because there is nothing moral about it. It isn't designed to be moral but simply to perpetuate what God says into the real world. It is a system of obedience, it is a world view where right is simply obey and where wrong is simply disobey. It is arbitrary, infinitely subjective and at its worst - destructive.

where is the moral code of conduct of atheism?

Since Atheism is not an ethical theory, or a moral principle or indeed anything whatsoever to do with reality - it has none. As explained, all an atheist constitutes is someone who does not believe in the existence of a God/s. An Atheist's morality is not defined by their disbelief in God.

Yeah, you couldn't how inauspicious.. what keeps an atheist at bay from commiting the perfect crime if he could get away with it and there was no such thing as rewards and punishment in the hereafter?

Well, your situation is outside of reality. The 'perfect crime' is never ever known until it happens. People who commit the 'perfect crime' and get away with it only happen to figure that out when it succeeds. So for a start, no-one who intends to commit a crime ever knows whether it will succeed.

Moreover, many things keep atheists at bay from being a criminal. It depends upon the atheist that you ask. I personally see attempting to commit a crime as morally wrong and so I will not do it.

I mean truly if you could commit a white collar crime and embezzle knowing 100% you'd get away with it, why wouldn't you? I can't think of a single thing to hold you back!

Morality.

It is a choice based on serious study.. the same way one chooses to be a doctor of lawyer or an engineer based on study and choice!

I'll fix this for you:

It is a conclusion based on serious study.

Moreover, you cannot compare a belief to a career choice. A belief is a conclusion an individual comes to. A career choice is an active decision someone makes in life.

Have you heard of cognitive conservatism? Once you've have formed a cognition (attitude or belief), you will process every piece of information in a way to preserve that belief and understanding. and remain in a state of inertia.. and that is something you are entitled to, but consider your opponent, not everyone is so easily molded for you to hammer your incessantly for it to finally take hold out of someone caving in. You are entitled to your non-point, but I am a bit sick of your circular logic at this stage!

How is my logic here circular?

Don't bait me into more silliness.

I do not bull bait at all, having spending a lot of time historically with other people on forums bullbaiting me.

Good then. It ends on my part with this post!

Okay then.

[جوري]

Not all man-made 'morality' is state law, and I don't see why - just because something is considered law, that you refuse to contest it? Especially as you accept that state law can be wrong.

what do you propose a coup?

Then yes, my entire moral understanding by your definition is subjective. As is every decision I make in my life. So?

so your 'morality' by many an account can be immoral, as discussed prior there is no definition of terms for you, and no good reason it is anything short of your own whims or what you concede in your own mind.. one day for instance you see a man who is oozing money, money drips from his wallet, you decide to take it rather than handing it back to him, for there is no really impetus for you to do otherwise especially if you can get away with it!

I have reasoned (with or without influence from mainstream culture) my moral principles. My other influences of morality come from empathy.

empathy isn't something that one can regard in the case of an atheist, it is too esetoric too abstract, and not scientifically defined, or are you conceding that other forces undefined come to play here?

It doesn't matter where my morality may or may not come from. It does not have anything to do with theistic morality.

But it matters, because you speak of obedience and glorification, and your buddy brings into it colouful biblical stories that have nothing to do with Islam as if you both have such a profound understanding yet fail in the matter to define for us
1- purpose for your so called morality
2- a source to it
3-reason.. as discussed prior, if you could commit a perfect white collar crim why wouldn't you? rebelling against 'obedience' even such obedience is state law seems an atheist moto, so why not?

The amount of documentation and the paper trail of theistic morality does not make it any less arbitrary.

but the whims of an atheist morality makes it thoughtful and organized or are you trying to tickle me?

Your conviction that Islam is right or that Allah's viewpoint is infallible is no more convincing that another individuals conviction that Thor exists. You define morality by what God says. You deem what is righteous not through rational inquiry or valued principles but through the declaration of might.

How is declaration of might an impetus for my morality? I concede that my morality is innate and doesn't argue against nature, and nature is God's laws according to Islam.. there is no might or spite.. there is however Justice.. what is the case for you? I mean arbitrary seems really well assigned in the case of atheism not theism!

God is the ultimate force of might in your belief and therefore what God says goes. You are from this not interested in humanity, but furthering what you believe God has said in the Quran. You do not condemn things like murder, or theft wrong because they are intrinsically wrong in themselves - but you condemn them because Allah has told you to. This is a world view of effective moral failure because there is nothing moral about it. It isn't designed to be moral but simply to perpetuate what God says into the real world. It is a system of obedience, it is a world view where right is simply obey and where wrong is simply disobey. It is arbitrary, infinitely subjective and at its worst - destructive.

How do I not condemn things like murder pray do tell?
The amount of murders committed by atheists so we can keep tally of who is arbitrary in their morality here overrides all the religions COMBINED
enver hoxha, mao xedong, saloth sar, stalin or sung 1I etc each one with millions of death in their names...

Since Atheism is not an ethical theory, or a moral principle or indeed anything whatsoever to do with reality - it has none. As explained, all an atheist constitutes is someone who does not believe in the existence of a God/s. An Atheist's morality is not defined by their disbelief in God.

I know it is driven by pure self interest!

Well, your situation is outside of reality. The 'perfect crime' is never ever known until it happens. People who commit the 'perfect crime' and get away with it only happen to figure that out when it succeeds. So for a start, no-one who intends to commit a crime ever knows whether it will succeed.

lol.. I love how you write 'never ever ever' cute, perfect crimes happen all the time in fact they have several programs dedicated to them, be it unsolved crimes on court TV or try to catch Ameica's most wanted etc..
people do bad things and get away with it every day.. and most criminals think they can outsmart everyone, they don't go into a situation really thinking it is morally reprehensible or that they will get caught, either way you have strayed from purpose
1- the need for justice to be established in cases where earthly justice fails
2- and again, what would hold an atheist back from commiting a perfect crime if he knew he'd get away with it with enough planning and calculation?

Moreover, many things keep atheists at bay from being a criminal. It depends upon the atheist that you ask. I personally see attempting to commit a crime as morally wrong and so I will not do it.

But where do your morals come from?

Morality.


I'll fix this for you:

It is a conclusion based on serious study.

study of what? you have $2000 of your gluttonous evil boss where you can grab them and completely get away with it.. what to study save your mode of execution?

Moreover, you cannot compare a belief to a career choice. A belief is a conclusion an individual comes to. A career choice is an active decision someone makes in life.

yes the same active decision one makes when deciding on a religion.. you haven't told me why the two can't be compared, they both require planning and study and execution of action!

How is my logic here circular?

you assume a conclusion based only on premises designed in the confines of your own mind and go over them again and again!

I do not bull bait at all, having spending a lot of time historically with other people on forums bullbaiting me.

amazing isn't it, how you can just walk away from it..

Okay then.

cheers

[Skavau]

what do you propose a coup?

Uh, no - I propose nothing. I just don't see why you are reluctant to criticise something just because it is law.

so your 'morality' by many an account can be immoral

Sure.

And others morality can be immoral to me. We all have different views on what is moral. So?

as discussed prior there is no definition of terms for you, and no good reason it is anything short of your own whims or what you concede in your own mind..

Except not everything I consider moral or immoral has been defined simply by my own mind, or through my own whims. I already told you that a lot of my moral beliefs come through reason.

one day for instance you see a man who is oozing money, money drips from his wallet, you decide to take it rather than handing it back to him, for there is no really impetus for you to do otherwise especially if you can get away with it!

I wouldn't do that.

I would help him pick it up and return to him. I don't consider taking someone's money as a moral action.

empathy isn't something that one can regard in the case of an atheist, it is too esetoric too abstract, and not scientifically defined, or are you conceding that other forces undefined come to play here?

Empathy is innate.

I have felt it, and I suspect I will continue to feel it. Do not presume to tell me whether I have empathy or not.

But it matters, because you speak of obedience and glorification, and your buddy brings into it colouful biblical stories that have nothing to do with Islam as if you both have such a profound understanding yet fail in the matter to define for us

Work it out for yourself. Morality is an almost universal grey area. You complain about you needing to spoonfed information to people, yet now I am sensing complete projection. You almost command atheists to inform you everything about the universe. You almost command me now, to inform everything about my moral understand to you. I do not know everything and I freely admit and yet you provide evidence that you are unable to handle not knowing everything, or grey areas existing.

1- purpose for your so called morality

There is no inherent purpose other than arguably, to maintain a balance between peace and personal freedom - at least from my perspective.

2- a source to it

I take influence from Libertarianism, Kantianism and Negative Utiltarianism.

3-reason.. as discussed prior, if you could commit a perfect white collar crim why wouldn't you? rebelling against 'obedience' even such obedience is state law seems an atheist moto, so why not?

Because it would be morally wrong. When we talk about morality, we talk about accepting specific methods of behaviour and condeming others. Yrare asking, essentially - "Why do you do just ignore morality?" Morality is about what we ought to do. If you uphold moral principles as valid, or legitimate - then you would follow them. I do, and therefore I do not break them (or at least try not to).

but the whims of an atheist morality makes it thoughtful and organized or are you trying to tickle me?

There's no such thing as 'atheistic morality'. There is only morality.

How is declaration of might an impetus for my morality?

Well, that depends.

Why is rape wrong, for example? Is it wrong because it is an imposition of another human's rights on another or is it wrong because God says so?

I concede that my morality is innate and doesn't argue against nature, and nature is God's laws according to Islam.. there is no might or spite..

Is something right because God decrees it, or does God decree it because it is right?

there is however Justice.. what is the case for you? I mean arbitrary seems really well assigned in the case of atheism not theism!

Please elaborate how arbitrary morality works for atheism.

How do I not condemn things like murder pray do tell?

I never said that. Apparently big paragraphs render you unable to understand what was said. Here is what I actually said:

"You do not condemn things like murder, or theft wrong because they are intrinsically wrong in themselves - but you condemn them because Allah has told you to."

Do you have anything else to comment on in that paragraph?

The amount of murders committed by atheists so we can keep tally of who is arbitrary in their morality here overrides all the religions COMBINED
enver hoxha, mao xedong, saloth sar, stalin or sung 1I etc each one with millions of death in their names...

The ever-persistant logical fallacy of atheists are killers. Those 'atheists' you spoke of killed not because they were atheists, but because of other reasons (such as their brutality, communist ideals etc).

I know it is driven by pure self interest!

How utterly disgusting. I am not driven by "pure self interest" and therefore your point is false.

So you are telling me that approximately 10% (give and take a percent) of the entire world are all driven by self-interest? This is absolutely prejudiced generalisation and if you switch around it to another generalisation about Muslims, I imagine it would warrant a warning.

If I claimed that all Muslims were terrorists then I would be warned, or banned. I also suspect that you'd be the first to complain about such a gross generalisation. If you claim that all Atheists are self-interested and amoral, you get nothing.

lol.. I love how you write 'never ever ever' cute, perfect crimes happen all the time in fact they have several programs dedicated to them, be it unsolved crimes on court TV or try to catch Ameica's most wanted etc..

Learn to read.

"The 'perfect crime' is never ever known until it happens. People who commit the 'perfect crime' and get away with it only happen to figure that out when it succeeds."

1- the need for justice to be established in cases where earthly justice fails

Of course, we don't even know if a justice outside of human judgment and imposition even exists, so your point here is the equivilent to me complaining that we don't live in peace.

2- and again, what would hold an atheist back from commiting a perfect crime if he knew he'd get away with it with enough planning and calculation?

His or her moral philosophy and/or beliefs.

But where do your morals come from?

My family, my community, my environment, my own reasoning and interpretation of events.

[/quote=Skye]
study of what? you have $2000 of your gluttonous evil boss where you can grab them and completely get away with it.. what to study save your mode of execution?[/quote]
What are you talking about?

I am going to have to, for your own benefit - it appears, retrack the conversation so you can stop incorrectly snipping responses I make to make them look like something I did not mean.

You said: "It is a choice based on serious study.. the same way one chooses to be a doctor of lawyer or an engineer based on study and choice!"

You were referring to your 'choice' to 'choose' Islam. I then responded in the following manner:

I said: "It is a conclusion based on serious study."

I was informing you (and you know that I contend that belief is not a choice) that your 'choice' to accept Islam was not a choice, but a conclusion that Islam was correct. I don't have a clue where you got the delusion that I was talking about morality at all in this point. You have this irritating and consistent habit of completely misunderstanding my points to mean the exact opposite of what I meant. It does not help at all that you poorly quote my points out of context.

you assume a conclusion based only on premises designed in the confines of your own mind and go over them again and again!

No, it is an understanding of the definition of belief. That is my premise.

[/quote=Skye]amazing isn't it, how you can just walk away from it..[/quote]
Yeah.

I choose not to.

[جوري]

Uh, no - I propose nothing. I just don't see why you are reluctant to criticise something just because it is law.

What happens when you criticize the law according to you? you just sit there and *****? people do that all the time, it doesn't change things.. It doesn't matter for instance that half the country hates Bush, he is still in charge.. there is something to be said about wasting ones efforts!

Sure.

And others morality can be immoral to me. We all have different views on what is moral. So?

So.. Your standards in fact are utterly nonsensical and is the making of a lawless society!

Except not everything I consider moral or immoral has been defined simply by my own mind, or through my own whims. I already told you that a lot of my moral beliefs come through reason.

What is the base line for your 'reason' and what is reason really, again a very esetoric concept, I am not sure how an atheist who believes in nothing, nothing unpalpable anyway can 'reason' through something so abstract!

I wouldn't do that.

So refreshing!

I would help him pick it up and return to him. I don't consider taking someone's money as a moral action.

Why not? what makes you 'think' it is wrong?

Empathy is innate.

aha.. what does that mean exactly? you see empathy is something as abstract as speaking of God.. so I am not really sure what you mean!

I have felt it, and I suspect I will continue to feel it. Do not presume to tell me whether I have empathy or not.

I say that is it hypocritical to presume something like morality as innate, but not apply the same concept to God, who many will also contend is innate, out of the exact same reasons!

Work it out for yourself. Morality is an almost universal grey area. You complain about you needing to spoonfed information to people, yet now I am sensing complete projection. You almost command atheists to inform you everything about the universe. You almost command me now, to inform everything about my moral understand to you. I do not know everything and I freely admit and yet you provide evidence that you are unable to handle not knowing everything, or grey areas existing.

It is not projection at all, it is best you learn some basic psychology than risk the same mistake on every thread, this is but a reversal of what usually occurs on this forum. You are unhappy with one stand, prove its opposite to be true and put everything to rest!

There is no inherent purpose other than arguably, to maintain a balance between peace and personal freedom - at least from my perspective.

There can be even more peace at a house with a lakside view when you have embezzled from a company that you in your own 'perspective' can deem criminal, where the money won't be missed and you won't get caught.. I really can't think of one reason why this wouldn't be the case, and if you contend that 'morality' is 'innate' then you'll have to prove it, as stated, it is a little in the esoteric realm, and it makes no sense to speak of something immaterial, when you contend 'lack of belief'

I take influence from Libertarianism, Kantianism and Negative Utiltarianism.

How is your philosophy then not a religion? which is exactly how we defined it before... to take influence from something and adhere to it, is religion!
The burden of proof then lies with why your religion is superior to others!

Because it would be morally wrong. When we talk about morality, we talk about accepting specific methods of behaviour and condeming others. Yrare asking, essentially - "Why do you do just ignore morality?" Morality is about what we ought to do. If you uphold moral principles as valid, or legitimate - then you would follow them. I do, and therefore I do not break them (or at least try not to).

see previous replies!

There's no such thing as 'atheistic morality'. There is only morality.

But just two lines ago, you told me where you get your atheistic morality from.. undoubtedly the rest, including the one who wanted to establish the world's first atheist state got it from some where to.
and it has proven to be alot more sinister and deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong as defined by all the religions combined!

Well, that depends.

Why is rape wrong, for example? Is it wrong because it is an imposition of another human's rights on another or is it wrong because God says so?

I have already told you in the previous post.. it goes against nature, and that is what it means to go against God, it is inherent as the belief in God is inherent!

Is something right because God decrees it, or does God decree it because it is right?

Both!

Please elaborate how arbitrary morality works for atheism.

I have already given you examples of how arbitrary morality is, you have someone like mao xedong, under whom 15 million people died unable to argue against his man-made self-imposed principles.
He defines what is right and it doesn't matter who dies.
lenin defines what is right and twenty million people die... There is no concept of defined right or wrong to keep them at bay.. you and your pal already stated a lack of conformity, though you preferred the term obedience for shock value, what is really to keep at bay from doing all that is unrestrained from convention or morality? Nothing..
a state of lack of belief in everything and imposition of man-made rules which are whimsical at best!

I never said that. Apparently big paragraphs render you unable to understand what was said. Here is what I actually said:

"You do not condemn things like murder, or theft wrong because they are intrinsically wrong in themselves - but you condemn them because Allah has told you to."

Apparently the same lack of understanding is contagious, for I stated repeatedly and in much shorter lines over and over that 'goodness' is innate, placed there by God, the same way he placed in us 'fitrah' of seeking him!

The ever-persistant logical fallacy of atheists are killers. Those 'atheists' you spoke of killed not because they were atheists, but because of other reasons (such as their brutality, communist ideals etc).

It is because their 'morality' is fickle, man-made, no different than yours really, except on some level you contend that, morality is innate but can't for some reason prove it!

How utterly disgusting. I am not driven by "pure self interest" and therefore your point is false.

What forces drive you then?

So you are telling me that approximately 10% (give and take a percent) of the entire world are all driven by self-interest? This is absolutely prejudiced generalisation and if you switch around it to another generalisation about Muslims, I imagine it would warrant a warning.

self-interest, man made philosophy, their 'feelings' for the day.. it is indeed a generalization considering how few there are of you sharing in the same exact argument and ideals, which makes you rather a sort of new organized religion which I believe some of you already recognize as 'humanistic atheism' voila the birth of a new religion!

If I claimed that all Muslims were terrorists then I would be warned, or banned. I also suspect that you'd be the first to complain about such a gross generalisation. If you claim that all Atheists are self-interested and amoral, you get nothing.

You'll have to believe me when I tell you, calling me a terrorist wouldn't bother me in the least, I can think of worst things.. further if you actually read and comprehend, you'll notice all along, that I have stated morality is inherent from God.. but that is a concept that means nothing to an atheist who contends there is no such God, and fails to provide evidence for the inherence of such an abstract ideal!

Learn to read.

"The 'perfect crime' is never ever known until it happens. People who commit the 'perfect crime' and get away with it only happen to figure that out when it succeeds."

Learn to comprehend what you read!
where and when will justice be served if/when someone gets away with the perfect crime, which many criminals in fact get away with!

Of course, we don't even know if a justice outside of human judgment and imposition even exists, so your point here is the equivilent to me complaining that we don't live in peace.

The point is actually how nonsensical life would be, if there were no higher justice, which as far as atheists go!

My family, my community, my environment, my own reasoning and interpretation of events.

see early pargraphs and stop repeating yourself it gets banal!

What are you talking about?

It means by your own account, if you can justify it to yourself what would hold you back from committing the perfect crime, since there is no higher justice to be served!

I am going to have to, for your own benefit - it appears, retrack the conversation so you can stop incorrectly snipping responses I make to make them look like something I did not mean.

You said: "It is a choice based on serious study.. the same way one chooses to be a doctor of lawyer or an engineer based on study and choice!"

You were referring to your 'choice' to 'choose' Islam. I then responded in the following manner:

I said: "It is a conclusion based on serious study."
I was informing you (and you know that I contend that belief is not a choice) that your 'choice' to accept Islam was not a choice, but a conclusion that Islam was correct. I don't have a clue where you got the delusion that I was talking about morality at all in this point. You have this irritating and consistent habit of completely misunderstanding my points to mean the exact opposite of what I meant. It does not help at all that you poorly quote my points out of context.


No, it is an understanding of the definition of belief. That is my premise.

I choose not to.

These are your own quotes I am working with, how could I possible take them out of context? or is it just because your argument is repetitive and ailing at this stage?

cheers

[Skavau]

What happens when you criticize the law according to you? you just sit there and *****?

That depends. You can petition, protest, picket or simply air your views.

It depends on the country you are in and the process, or if it has a process.

people do that all the time, it doesn't change things.. It doesn't matter for instance that half the country hates Bush, he is still in charge.. there is something to be said about wasting ones efforts!

That is because he was elected - twice, despite people's complaints about him.

So.. Your standards in fact are utterly nonsensical and is the making of a lawless society!

What are you talking about? You stated the obvious and I merely agreed with it. You claimed that people may disagree with my moral opinion, and indeed - people do disagree with my moral view on many subjects. I don't see your point.

I never claimed disagreement was the making of a society.

What is the base line for your 'reason' and what is reason really, again a very esetoric concept, I am not sure how an atheist who believes in nothing, nothing unpalpable anyway can 'reason' through something so abstract!

You consider morality an 'abstract' subject? It really isn't. Morality is all assertion, not belief. It is not a subject based on fact, but observation and analysis of how humans ought to act.

Why not? what makes you 'think' it is wrong?

Because it is not my right to to take money that does not belong to me.

I say that is it hypocritical to presume something like morality as innate, but not apply the same concept to God, who many will also contend is innate, out of the exact same reasons!

We can observe that morality has some inherent value merely by a quick observation of society. The mere fact that individuals possess moral understanding and/or moral principles is evidence enough that morality has value.

With God, it is completely different. You may contend that God is innate, but you have no evidence for it.

It is not projection at all, it is best you learn some basic psychology than risk the same mistake on every thread, this is but a reversal of what usually occurs on this forum. You are unhappy with one stand, prove its opposite to be true and put everything to rest!

Are you suggesting that it is only reasonable to disbelieve in something if you have shown complete and total evidence of something else.

There can be even more peace at a house with a lakside view when you have embezzled from a company that you in your own 'perspective' can deem criminal, where the money won't be missed and you won't get caught..

Taking someone's stuff is outright morally wrong.

How is your philosophy then not a religion?

I said my moral philosophy takes influences from three different ethical theories. What makes that a religion?

which is exactly how we defined it before... to take influence from something and adhere to it, is religion!

This makes no sense - since when does taking influence from something and then accepting various aspects of the influences, necessarily imply or assert a religion? Non-Sequitor and false premise.

The burden of proof then lies with why your religion is superior to others!

Uh, no. The burden of proof is on a claimant. Merely having a moral philosophy, or having a religion does not mean I have to prove or demonstrate anything unless I claim anything.

But just two lines ago, you told me where you get your atheistic morality from..

No, I told you what influenced and influences my morality. I did not claim it to be 'atheistic morality' or an example of 'atheistic morality.' It is at best, an example of a specific atheists morality.

undoubtedly the rest, including the one who wanted to establish the world's first atheist state got it from some where to.

Who are you referring to here?

I have already told you in the previous post.. it goes against nature, and that is what it means to go against God, it is inherent as the belief in God is inherent!

This makes no sense. So you dislike rape because it goes against nature, which you consider to be the same as God and therefore is wrong? So, my previous assertion was indeed - correct, you consider rape to be morally wrong not because of its consequences, the harm it does to people or anything else. You do not accept rape because it "goes against nature" or "goes against God". Morality, meet obedience. You concede here that you only disagree with rape essentially because God says so, or in your words - it goes against God (nature).

Do you disagree with rape for any other reason? Would you disagree with rape if you were not a Muslim?

Both!

It cannot be both.

If God commands what is good, there is a moral standard external from God and God would only therefore command what is good by other standards. If you assert that God also commands what is good, but whatever commanded by God is good - you move the moral assertion wholly back into God's hands and away from the moral standard. Consider the following:

Premise 1: God commands what is good
Premise 2: Whatever God commands is good

1. God commands what is good and whatever god commands is good
2. Suppose God chooses to command X.
3. X is a bad command. This contradicts Premise 1 as God cannot command what is bad.
4. However, all commands are immediately declared as good by merit of God's own authority (Per Premise 3) and therefore X becomes good. This leads to two results:

4a. God can command X because God is all-powerful. This however refutes Premise 1 and whatever God commands is good only.

4b. God cannot command X because that would contradict Premise 1. This would refute the idea that God is all-powerful and also refute the idea that whatever God commands is good.

5. Therefore it is either false that whatever God commands is good or false that God commands what is good.

I have already given you examples of how arbitrary morality is, you have someone like mao xedong, under whom 15 million people died unable to argue against his man-made self-imposed principles.
He defines what is right and it doesn't matter who dies.

You have given an example of how grey morality is. You have given an example of a dictator acting grossly disgusting. This doesn't mean anything. It has long been understood that humanity just does not agree what is right and what is wrong, irrespective of whether religion or religious influence exists.

The only method out of the ruthless circle of violence imposed by those who insist under every condition that they are always right, or that their world views is alright right is collective humility and tolerance.

lenin defines what is right and twenty million people die... There is no concept of defined right or wrong to keep them at bay.. you and your pal already stated a lack of conformity, though you preferred the term obedience for shock value

There is no defined concept of right or wrong for anyone to be 'kept at bay'. Your viewpoint of humanity is quite disgusting to be honest. You appear to represent humanity as tigers needing to be constrained.

Moreover, Lenin is not 'my pal' and I did not use 'obedience' for shock value.

what is really to keep at bay from doing all that is unrestrained from convention or morality? Nothing..

Many things. For a start, the laws of society often prevent people from getting away with criminal activities and then there is my personal conscience. My understanding, acceptance and willingness to appreciate these principles stop me from committing actions I consider immoral.

Apparently the same lack of understanding is contagious, for I stated repeatedly and in much shorter lines over and over that 'goodness' is innate, placed there by God, the same way he placed in us 'fitrah' of seeking him!

Either way, this is irrelevent to my point.

You claimed I said you do not condemn murder. I never said anything like that.

It is because their 'morality' is fickle, man-made, no different than yours really, except on some level you contend that, morality is innate but can't for some reason prove it!

I am no scientist, I am not able to demonstrate morality anymore than you are to demonstrate God. (My scientist example is referenced here on the basis that many biologists seem to think our empathy is due to evolutionary advantages and therefore - persists).

What forces drive you then?

Many forces. Willingness and desire to help others, personal goals and indeed self-interest (everyone has a degree of self-interest).

self-interest, man made philosophy, their 'feelings' for the day.. it is indeed a generalization considering how few there are of you sharing in the same exact argument and ideals, which makes you rather a sort of new organized religion which I believe some of you already recognize as 'humanistic atheism' voila the birth of a new religion!

So according to you, the fact that atheists share very few ideals that are similar, the fact that there is little belief consistency amongst atheists is somehow 'evidence' that we are an organised religion called "humanistic atheism"?

Since when disorder equal order?

where and when will justice be served if/when someone gets away with the perfect crime, which many criminals in fact get away with!

They won't.

The point is actually how nonsensical life would be, if there were no higher justice, which as far as atheists go!

Your point is moot. The lack of universal justice does not negate life to nonsensical.

see early pargraphs and stop repeating yourself it gets banal!

If you ask the same questions you will get the same answers.

It means by your own account, if you can justify it to yourself what would hold you back from committing the perfect crime, since there is no higher justice to be served!

If I could justify it to myself, I wouldn't be committing a crime in my mind.

These are your own quotes I am working with, how could I possible take them out of context? or is it just because your argument is repetitive and ailing at this stage?

Well, I'll show you how you completely eradicated the context and made it look like something I did not say or mean.

You said: "It is a choice based on serious study.. the same way one chooses to be a doctor of lawyer or an engineer based on study and choice!"

You were referring to your 'choice' to 'choose' Islam. I then responded in the following manner:

I said: "It is a conclusion based on serious study."
I was informing you (and you know that I contend that belief is not a choice) that your 'choice' to accept Islam was not a choice, but a conclusion that Islam was correct. I don't have a clue where you got the delusion that I was talking about morality at all in this point. You have this irritating and consistent habit of completely misunderstanding my points to mean the exact opposite of what I meant. It does not help at all that you poorly quote my points out of context. Here is how it should have been quoted for accuracy:

I'll fix this for you:

It is a conclusion based on serious study.

Moreover, you cannot compare a belief to a career choice. A belief is a conclusion an individual comes to. A career choice is an active decision someone makes in life.

The entire quotation above was referring to a single response of yours for accuracy. You instead, got extracts from me responding to two responses of yours, here it is:

Morality.


I'll fix this for you:

It is a conclusion based on serious study.

The "morality" part was to a completely different point. You made look like I was claiming that I got my morality from serious study, which is completely and utterly dishonest.

[جوري]

That depends. You can petition, protest, picket or simply air your views.

Again, a waste of effort, sort of like replying back to you!

It depends on the country you are in and the process, or if it has a process.

here we are in the free world and no one gives a **** what 49% of the population wants!

That is because he was elected - twice, despite people's complaints about him.

Isn't it amazing how powerful folks can muscle their way into office?

What are you talking about? You stated the obvious and I merely agreed with it. You claimed that people may disagree with my moral opinion, and indeed - people do disagree with my moral view on many subjects. I don't see your point.

Which part was hard for you to understand? I claimed your morality has no agreed upon basis and can in fact fall upon depravity!

I never claimed disagreement was the making of a society.

I didn't assert that agreement was the making of it either! you can't make everyone 100% happy even in a democratic society a prime example is the U.S current day. There is however majority wants and rule!
7% of atheists don't get to define that for the rest of humanity!

You consider morality an 'abstract' subject? It really isn't. Morality is all assertion, not belief. It is not a subject based on fact, but observation and analysis of how humans ought to act.

There is no fact in morality at all.. it is oxymoronic!

Because it is not my right to to take money that does not belong to me.

What defines the rights of the individual?

We can observe that morality has some inherent value merely by a quick observation of society. The mere fact that individuals possess moral understanding and/or moral principles is evidence enough that morality has value.

some societies consider it moral to hang their dead on stilts and let them be eaten by vultures.. or cremate their dead and have them in a drink, I suppose if you have lived there and observed it long enough would consider it normal?

With God, it is completely different. You may contend that God is innate, but you have no evidence for it.

Neither have you for so-called evidence of morality!

Are you suggesting that it is only reasonable to disbelieve in something if you have shown complete and total evidence of something else.

I am suggesting if you eleminate all else, only one answer stands correct!

Taking someone's stuff is outright morally wrong.

Why is that?

I said my moral philosophy takes influences from three different ethical theories. What makes that a religion?

philosophy is a concept unscientifically verified based on a set of ideas and beliefs man-made.. so you are right it doesn't even qualify as a religion... if enough of a brain wash perhaps it would qualify as a cult!

*snip*
cheers

[Skavau]

Again, a waste of effort, sort of like replying back to you!

So why do you do it?

here we are in the free world and no one gives a **** what 49% of the population wants!

Who said that exactly?

Isn't it amazing how powerful folks can muscle their way into office?

I am not interested in a political discussion. It is off-topic.

Which part was hard for you to understand? I ote=claimed your morality has no agreed upon basis and can in fact fall upon depravity!

No morality at all has any agreed upon basis.

And how does people not agreeing with my morality mean that it is depraved?

I didn't assert that agreement was the making of it either! you can't make everyone 100% happy even in a democratic society a prime example is the U.S current day. There is however majority wants and rule!
7% of atheists don't get to define that for the rest of humanity!

I never said that they did.

There is no fact in morality at all.. it is oxymoronic!

We observe people acting upon behaviour they consider immoral, or do for 'moral' reasons.

Therefore, morality to an extent - exists.

What defines the rights of the individual?

Nothing in particular. Human 'rights' are man-made concept.

some societies consider it moral to hang their dead on stilts and let them be eaten by vultures.. or cremate their dead and have them in a drink, I suppose if you have lived there and observed it long enough would consider it normal?

I would consider it normal, but it wouldn't make it necessarily right.

Neither have you for so-called evidence of morality!

Correct.

I am suggesting if you eleminate all else, only one answer stands correct!

But then of course, the only remaining answer has to be viable.

Why is that?

It is not my stuff to take.

philosophy is a concept scientifically verified based on a set of ideas and beliefs man-made.. so you are right it doesn't even qualify as a religion... if enough of a brain wash perhaps it would qualify as a cult!

First of all, Philosophy has very little to do with science. Secondly, Philosophy has no set beliefs, it describes beliefs. There are sub-topics such as Islamic Philosophy, Christian Philosophy, Nihilist Philosophy etc.

Also, are you implying that philosophy is about brain-washing? You seem to imply that philosophy is 'cultish', would would be one of the most absurd statements that I had ever heard in my entire live.

the rest of the protracted blah blah blah tells me a couple of things
1- you are either on wellfare, retired or just can't seem to get a life..
in which case I can tell you that borders has amazing activity books for rainy days in their 'specials' section' try cooking, animal grooming or gardening, grow some weed, get some sun, make new friends

Fascinating.

Reported.

[Trumble]

philosophy is a concept scientifically verified based on a set of ideas and beliefs man-made..

Rubbish. Philosophy analyses, examines and assesses the fundamental assumptions on which such ideas and beliefs are founded, including the scientific method itself. 'A philosophy' is set of views arising from such an examination.

the rest of the protracted blah blah blah tells me a couple of things
1- you are either on wellfare, retired or just can't seem to get a life..

Skye, Skavau has wiped the floor with you in this debate throughout. Couldn't you show just a little grace in defeat rather than your trademark insults just this once? The bluster isn't fooling Skavau or myself and I doubt very much its fooling anybody else either.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

why get philosophical on philosophy when tis a loada balony :D joking philosophy has helped science


but i think trumble has the more accurate description of philosophy.

its just a buncha peoples views of something, or what they derived from something. its not fact and most of the time sounds like fiction :D

[جوري]

Rubbish. Philosophy analyses, examines and assesses the fundamental assumptions on which such ideas and beliefs are founded, including the scientific method itself. 'A philosophy' is set of views arising from such an examination.

says you.. I have already enclosed the definition from the dictionary.. we don't get to rename things to coax atheists!

Skye, Skavau has wiped the floor with you in this debate throughout. Couldn't you show just a little grace in defeat rather than your trademark insults just this once? The bluster isn't fooling Skavau or myself and I doubt very much its fooling anybody else either.

the man is a an unyielding verruca, with alot of free time on his hand to repeat himself ad nauseam, if that seems like victory to you, then please raise both your arms with his in celebration, I am not going to be baited back into more nonsense because you've decided to resort to nanananana!

cheers

[جوري]

p.s--I realize I stated 'scientifically' verified.. I meant unscientifically of course...
You can tell how much time I want to invest in this...

[MSalman]

Absolutely.

That is because teachers mark given answers to questions correctly based upon their conformity with the actual answer. The marks that people receive in examinations have absolutely nothing to do with punishment or reward. Your analogy is invalid.

my analogy will be only invalid if i'm trying convey the point which you understood. I was simply drawing the conclusion that just like a teacher isn't considered evil because he gives every student what he deserves; similarly, Allah Ta'ala is justice and will judge everyone based on what they have done.

Even I intent the meaning that you understood, my analogy still holds and your rational conlusion that teacher doesn't punish everyone isn't rational at all when in students' case the definition of punishment is different. Mind you failing a course is hell lot of physcological torture if you think about it.

Probably not. I know enough to know that none of them command infinite torture.

you either know or you don't; what you're saying is only according to your point of view. May I suggest ask a lonley child who lost his/her family in a tragic accident (i.e. war, terrorist attack)?

I am against torture, finite or otherwise.

so what do you say about worldy laws?

I am responding to the assertion that God tortures or allows people to be tortured in the hellfire for eternity based on the crimes that they have committed in a finite lifetime. I am not using my premise to justify my conclusion, I am making my moral standpoint on this issue clear from information that I am receiving. It is the same if someone told me that a trespasser got six years in jail. I would consider that absurdly disproportionate and unjust.

the argument which you're responding is based on scriptures just like the other agrument. If you think that what they are saying is correct then you also have to accept the other one.

This is all outweighed by the infinite torture that so many think he will bring to those who have crimes.

You were nothing, think about it.

In fact, the greatest injustice is shown in atheists' views. Let's a man ruled a land and he genocide his people etc. No one could do anything to him so he died peacefully as an evil man. So, how will the innocent people get any justice if there's no life hereafter? Isn't this evil and unjust? It is like saying they were born to be murdered, too bad. Off course, rationally speaking, this doesn't prove there's life after death but what's atheists solution for this dilemma.

[Skavau]

my analogy will be only invalid if i'm trying convey the point which you understood. I was simply drawing the conclusion that just like a teacher isn't considered evil because he gives every student what he deserves; similarly, Allah Ta'ala is justice and will judge everyone based on what they have done.

You appear to be comparing our future judgment from God as the same thing as the judgment (or rather, marks) a teacher provides to each individual student when they take an examination. The problem is that every single student knows what they have to do in order to achieve the marks and every single student enters the course, or the subject out of choice. This cannot be said concerning 'God'. I am an atheist. God does not exist to me. There is no 'examination' or 'judgment' for me. I also never actually entered this examination by choice, be it true.

Moreover, a failure of a school examination does not mean punishment. It just means you did not pass, please try again. Whereas, a failure to God (in all respects) appears to mean eternal torture.

As I said: incomparable.

Even I intent the meaning that you understood, my analogy still holds and your rational conlusion that teacher doesn't punish everyone isn't rational at all when in students' case the definition of punishment is different. Mind you failing a course is hell lot of physcological torture if you think about it.

But again, there is no punishment.

It is not fair to punish someone for being wrong.

you either know or you don't; what you're saying is only according to your point of view. May I suggest ask a lonley child who lost his/her family in a tragic accident (i.e. war, terrorist attack)?

What is the relevance of this suggestion? A lonely child who has had his family lost by conditions outside of his control. What is your point?

so what do you say about worldy laws?

Some worldly laws are just and some worldly laws are not.

the argument which you're responding is based on scriptures just like the other agrument. If you think that what they are saying is correct then you also have to accept the other one.

Do you, based on scriptures or otherwise believe that God will condemn non-believers to the hellfire for all eternity? Do you, accept that this is a just action?

In fact, the greatest injustice is shown in atheists' views. Let's a man ruled a land and he genocide his people etc. No one could do anything to him so he died peacefully as an evil man.

Right.

So, how will the innocent people get any justice if there's no life hereafter?

Well, in the analogy that you provided - they won't. The warlord or fascist that you presented would have died and therefore 'evaded' justice (if you consider 'death' a preferable way out of responsibility).

Isn't this evil and unjust?

Possibly, possibly not.

First of all though, you commit many rudimentary flaws. It is first and foremost not necessarily an 'atheist view' that there is no afterlife. The only atheist view is that God does not exist, or there is no evidence for God and therefore no reason to presume that God exists.

Secondly, you are committing the naturalistic fallacy. Many things in nature appear to be evil and unjust. Nature is completely amoral. Earthquakes strike, volcanoes erupt and hurricanes begin with no care whatsoever for the destruction caused. Nature does not measure itself against human wishes. Would you say that it is "evil and unjust" to simply accept this fact of the universe? That it is an "evil and unjust" view to understand that viruses rampage across the world killing innocent people? It isn't at all, what is true is not the same as what ought to be true. You are comparing apples and oranges. The universe is amoral and destructive to human interests. Accepting this is not unjust, it is an agreement and understanding of reality.

It is only theists that seem to have this image of a perfect universe with a cosmic arbiter that will set all immoralities right in the end. Most Atheists probably do not, and freely accept that. Morality is about what humans ought to do and ought not do. Reality is about what is.

The disbelief that a cosmic arbiter will make amends in the afterlife is not immoral - it is an acceptance. It might be nicer to believe that a cosmic arbiter will indeed, make amends - but it doesn't make it true. We do not define what is actually true by desire.

It is like saying they were born to be murdered, too bad. Off course, rationally speaking, this doesn't prove there's life after death but what's atheists solution for this dilemma.

None whatsoever.

It is part of the universe. We have to deal with it.

[Whatsthepoint]

says you.. I have already enclosed the definition from the dictionary.. we don't get to rename things to coax atheists!

Philosophy has two meanings. One is the one you posted (doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school (or something like that)) and the other is this:
The rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics.
Same with theology. The word theology can denote a single set of theological beliefs, for instance islamic theology, but it can also mean a philosophical study of god and god-related concepts.

[جوري]

^^ agree!

[Azy]

Sorry about the delay but I had to go away for a few days, miss me? :D

One thing I noticed about these long posts is it's very easy for important things to fall by the wayside, in future I shall try to break things down into smaller chunks and concentrate on one topic.

First, the text in question

67:3 He Who created the seven heavens one above another: No want of proportion wilt thou see in the Creation of ((Allah)) Most Gracious. So turn thy vision again: seest thou any flaw?

67:5 And we (He?) have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.

41:12 So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.

37:6 We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars.

Earth's atmosphere has 7 layers. The lowest layer is called troposphere. Rain, snow and wind only take place in the troposphere. There is an upper atmosphere. There is a lower atmosphere. and each indeed has a duty

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7b.html

There are two problems here.

1) There are not 7 layers of atmosphere.
It doesn't just stop at 100km like the diagram on that page and there is another layer, the Exosphere, above those. Furthermore the tropopause, stratopause and mesopause are not layers but names for the transition between layers (as you can imagine a layer does not have a well defined edge).
Link: [How many layers?]

2) Whether we accept your position on the makeup of the atmosphere or not, where does that leave us regarding the stars decking the lowest heaven?
It's quite clear to us that they aren't in our atmosphere.

[silkworm]

Any Atheist who can prove why and how the sky is staying without falling without the help of pillars???

Sky is not resting on pillars, right? So who is keeping this sky afloat on on heads in the middle of nowhere. What is the cause of "sky" hanging without any support?


Answer me and I will become an Atheist.

[Azy]

No need for you to convert brother.
If you keep talking like that you'll make a fantastic spokesman for atheism.

[Tornado]

Any Atheist who can prove why and how the sky is staying without falling without the help of pillars???

Sky is not resting on pillars, right? So who is keeping this sky afloat on on heads in the middle of nowhere. What is the cause of "sky" hanging without any support?


Answer me and I will become an Atheist.

[Edit]
The sky isn't that heavy. Why does a balloon with helium rise?

[جوري]

Sorry about the delay but I had to go away for a few days, miss me? :D

oh God, I was in agony.. what took you so long?

One thing I noticed about these long posts is it's very easy for important things to fall by the wayside, in future I shall try to break things down into smaller chunks and concentrate on one topic.

that would be preferable indeed.. but you are a chubby kid in a candy store.. what can I do to keep you from going all over the place?

First, the text in question

There are two problems here.

1) There are not 7 layers of atmosphere.
It doesn't just stop at 100km like the diagram on that page and there is another layer, the Exosphere, above those. Furthermore the tropopause, stratopause and mesopause are not layers but names for the transition between layers (as you can imagine a layer does not have a well defined edge).
Link: [How many layers?]

There are many different websites with opposing views.. who is to say I consider yours? be that as it may.. I went to the NASA one, and ound five layers that were identified .. that being the operative word-- methods of identification included below.. denoting just because you can't account for it does it mean it isn't there.. in a couple of years they will re-consider their classifications, the way pluto was recently demoted.. I am not a google scholar myself I prefer the conventional method for schooling but I can appreciate your need to rely on it for a strategic advantage!
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/layers.htm

Layers of the Atmosphere
The envelope of gas surrounding the Earth changes from the ground up. Five distinct layers have been identified using...

thermal characteristics (temperature changes),
chemical composition,
movement, and
density.
Each of the layers are bounded by "pauses" where the maximum changes in thermal characteristics, chemical composition, movement, and density occur.

Troposphere
The troposphere begins at the Earth's surface and extends up to 4-12 miles (6-20 km) high. This is where we live. As the gases in this layer decrease with height, the air become thinner. Therefore, the temperature in the troposphere also decreases with height. As you climb higher, the temperature drops from about 62°F (17°C) to -60°F (-51°C). Almost all weather occurs in this region.

The height of the troposphere varies from the equator to the poles. At the equator it is around 11-12 miles (18-20 km) high, at 50°N and 50°S, 5½ miles and at the poles just under four miles high. The transition boundary between the troposphere and the layer above is called the tropopause. Both the tropopause and the troposphere are known as the lower atmosphere.


Stratosphere
The Stratosphere extends from the tropopause up to 31 miles above the Earth's surface. This layer holds 19 percent of the atmosphere's gases and but very little water vapor.

Temperature increases with height as radiation is increasingly absorbed by oxygen molecules which leads to the formation of Ozone. The temperature rises from an average -76°F (-60°C) at tropopause to a maximum of about 5°F (-15°C) at the stratopause due to this absorption of ultraviolet radiation. The increasing temperature also makes it a calm layer with movements of the gases slow.

The regions of the stratosphere and the mesosphere, along with the stratopause and mesopause, are called the middle atmosphere by scientists. The transition boundary which separates the stratosphere from the mesosphere is called the stratopause.


Mesosphere
The mesosphere extends from the stratopause to about 53 miles (85 km) above the earth. The gases, including the oxygen molecules, continue to become thinner and thinner with height. As such, the effect of the warming by ultraviolet radiation also becomes less and less leading to a decrease in temperature with height. On average, temperature decreases from about 5°F (-15°C) to as low as -184°F (-120°C) at the mesopause. However, the gases in the mesosphere are thick enough to slow down meteorites hurtling into the atmosphere, where they burn up, leaving fiery trails in the night sky.


Thermosphere
The Thermosphere extends from the mesopause to 430 miles (690 km) above the earth. This layer is known as the upper atmosphere.

The gases of the thermosphere are increasingly thinner than in the mesosphere. As such, only the higher energy ultraviolet and x-ray radiation from the sun is absorbed. But because of this absorption, the temperature increases with height and can reach as high as 3,600°F (2,000°C) near the top of this layer.

However, despite the high temperature, this layer of the atmosphere would still feel very cold to our skin because of the extremely thin air. The total amount of energy from the very few molecules in this layer is not sufficient enough to heat our skin.

Take it to the MAX! The Ionosphere


Exosphere
The Exosphere is the outermost layer of the atmosphere and extends from the thermopause to 6,200 miles (10,000 km) above the earth. In this layer, atoms and molecules escape into space and satellites orbit the earth. The transition boundary which separates the exosphere from the thermosphere below it is called the thermopause

2) Whether we accept your position on the makeup of the atmosphere or not, where does that leave us regarding the stars decking the lowest heaven?
It's quite clear to us that they aren't in our atmosphere.

The Quran doesn't say the lowest earthly heaven is decked with 'stars'.. that is your desired rendition.
preferable you read the book you misquote from a high fidelity source, before plagiarizing from answering islam or the infidels website..


cheers

[silkworm]

Tornado, you are comparing a baloon filled with helium with Sky??? his is ridiclous, who feeds the worm in the stone this is not a "cycle of things just happening without a regular system", this is nature and nature just doesn't work like this bro.

GOD EXISTS!
THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION!

The Humanists, those who believe in the Humanist religion, tells us that they find "insufficient evidence for a belief in the existence of a supernatural [meaning a God.]" They also proudly boast that "the time has passed for theism [a belief in a God.]"

John Dewey, "the father of progressive education," America's leading figure in public education, and a believer in the Humanist religion, wrote "There is no God, and there is no soul."
Yet the Humanists and John Dewey are dramatically wrong! You can know with scientific certainty that there is a God, and that there is no other option but knowledge that He is real!

A belief in God can now be based upon science, logic and reason! This booklet will prove that even to the most skeptical atheist!
THERE IS A GOD!
THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION!

[Tornado]

Silkworm, do you know what the sky is made up of? The helium balloon example is pretty easy to understand illustrating how it's "held up" by gases beneath.

[Skavau]

Tornado, you are comparing a baloon filled with helium with Sky??? his is ridiclous, who feeds the worm in the stone this is not a "cycle of things just happening without a regular system", this is nature and nature just doesn't work like this bro.

GOD EXISTS!
THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION!

What are you talking about?

Even though we know that it is not possible for the sky to fall down on everyone, with or without 'pillars' - you seem to think that any lack of understanding in this area somehow demonstrates the existence of God?

God of the Gaps is not a valid argument. Not understanding the cause or something or understanding the reasoning of someone does not mean that it must have been caused by a God/s. It just means we do not understand the cause.

In relation to your request to demonstrate "how the sky is staying without falling without the help of pillars". The sky is part of the atmosphere of our planet. It just simply is not possible for it to 'crash down to earth'.

Do some basic research of it. It isn't a scientific 'unknown'. Click here and here.

[silkworm]

Gentlemen, the Sky is not only a protective cover but also a canopy and working as a sort of a Distribution Line, now you would be talking about stars being real-life JFK or Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley.

Each and everything that is existing in this world is related to each other and a perfect proof that there is someone who is behind it. The big bang theory is talked about and proved in Holy Qur'an, the days are not converted into night but it actually comes into it.

Remember "light" was created and not the darkness as it was always there.
Also keep in mind that "silence" was not created it was there, it were the sounds that we made to undo the silence.

But I would welcome your comments with a pinch of sense and siensibility.

[energy_22]

in this world is related to each other and a perfect proof that there is someone behind it...

No it does not.

Jungle plants cannot live in the desert. That doen't mean anything other than jungle plants cannot live in the desert.

If a jungle plant appeared in the desert that would be a miracle and evidence of a god.

Perhaps tonight, a jungle plant will suddenly appear in the desert!
-

[Azy]

that would be preferable indeed.. but you are a chubby kid in a candy store.. what can I do to keep you from going all over the place?

It's difficult to stop myself being drawn in with the other kids when there are so many things that are superficially appealing.
You could help (if in fact that is what you wish to do) by answering questions in a straightforward manner with less reliance on insulting folk to try make a point.

There are many different websites with opposing views.. who is to say I consider yours? be that as it may.. I went to the NASA one, and ound five layers that were identified .. that being the operative word-- methods of identification included below.. denoting just because you can't account for it does it mean it isn't there.. in a couple of years they will re-consider their classifications, the way pluto was recently demoted.. I am not a google scholar myself I prefer the conventional method for schooling but I can appreciate your need to rely on it for a strategic advantage!
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/layers.htm

I suppose NASA publish genuine work to the journals and complete fiction on their website. Just out of curiosity, how many meteorological journals did you consult when researching your response?
(You could have made your life a little easier had you read to the bottom and noticed I already posted a link to that site.)

You're right about layers and their identification, this is partly what I was getting at and a reason I disagree with people who say the Quran is talking about the atmosphere. In most cases the classification of a thing depends on the nature of your interaction with it or what information you require. The atmosphere is one continuous ocean of gases gradually changing with altitude, and it's classification into layers done to make the most sense out of it by the people who study it, there are no boundaries other than those you choose.
How many planets are there? It depends on your definition of a planet, same with layers of atmosphere, in the end it only means what you want it to mean.

It's interesting to see how people make an appeal to science to prove the accuracy of the text and then manipulate their findings to make the evidence fit.

The Quran doesn't say the lowest earthly heaven is decked with 'stars'.. that is your desired rendition.
preferable you read the book you misquote from a high fidelity source, before plagiarizing from answering islam or the infidels website..

Oh yeah, the infidels sorry.
I cannot read arabic so must work with a translation.
All quotations are from the [Quran Search] at www.islamicity.com
If you would prefer that I use a different source for my translations let me know.

Back on the point I was trying to make, could you read 37:6, 41:12 and 67:5 and tell me what it means by lamps/lights/stars and how that fits in with the 7 layers of atmosphere?

[جوري]

t's difficult to stop myself being drawn in with the other kids when there are so many things that are superficially appealing.
You could help (if in fact that is what you wish to do) by answering questions in a straightforward manner with less reliance on insulting folk to try make a point.

superficial folks indeed enjoy superficial things.. Is there a point to your stating the obvious?

I suppose NASA publish genuine work to the journals and complete fiction on their website. Just out of curiosity, how many meteorological journals did you consult when researching your response?
(You could have made your life a little easier had you read to the bottom and noticed I already posted a link to that site.)

I believe I have already stated, that unlike your person I am not a google scholar, and I am amused of how much you enjoy flaunting it.. as for saving myself the trouble well my index finger doesn't hurt from writing and clicking search, any more than yours I assume, but my time, is indeed wasted where you seem to have plenty of it on your hands.

You're right about layers and their identification, this is partly what I was getting at and a reason I disagree with people who say the Quran is talking about the atmosphere. In most cases the classification of a thing depends on the nature of your interaction with it or what information you require. The atmosphere is one continuous ocean of gases gradually changing with altitude, and it's classification into layers done to make the most sense out of it by the people who study it, there are no boundaries other than those you choose.
How many planets are there? It depends on your definition of a planet, same with layers of atmosphere, in the end it only means what you want it to mean.

It's interesting to see how people make an appeal to science to prove the accuracy of the text and then manipulate their findings to make the evidence fit.
Oh yeah, the infidels sorry.
I cannot read arabic so must work with a translation.
All quotations are from the [Quran Search] at www.islamicity.com
If you would prefer that I use a different source for my translations let me know.

Back on the point I was trying to make, could you read 37:6, 41:12 and 67:5 and tell me what it means by lamps/lights/stars and how that fits in with the 7 layers of atmosphere?

How would you distinguish manipulation of text really what methods do you employ when all you rely on is plagiarized material of the familiar variety? I have fwd the last of queries to the original refuter, see if he'd graciousely make time for you!

cheers

[Thinker]

Hi

This is an interesting thread. I am new to this group; I am an agnostic reading the Qur’an etc., and learning. Is there a discussion/debate on here that questions the validity of the words of the Qur’an being the absolute unquestionable words of God or is that sort of discussion haraam (on here)?

Thinker

[aamirsaab]

Hi

This is an interesting thread. I am new to this group; I am an agnostic reading the Qur’an etc., and learning. Is there a discussion/debate on here that questions the validity of the words of the Qur’an being the absolute unquestionable words of God or is that sort of discussion haraam (on here)?

Thinker

You are welcome to discuss that subject. Before you do so, make use of the search function to find an existing (if there is one) thread on that matter.

[Uthman]

Hi Thinker,

This is an interesting thread. I am new to this group; I am an agnostic reading the Qur’an etc., and learning. Is there a discussion/debate on here that questions the validity of the words of the Qur’an being the absolute unquestionable words of God or is that sort of discussion haraam (on here)?

Here are some links:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-word-god.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-word-god.html

[Azy]

I believe I have already stated, that unlike your person I am not a google scholar, and I am amused of how much you enjoy flaunting it.. as for saving myself the trouble well my index finger doesn't hurt from writing and clicking search, any more than yours I assume, but my time, is indeed wasted where you seem to have plenty of it on your hands.

If it only takes a few mouseclicks to unwind your argument imagine you had to defend your ideas against a real person.

How would you distinguish manipulation of text really what methods do you employ when all you rely on is plagiarized material of the familiar variety?

Decyphering...
Relying on plagiarised material?
If you read back all you'll find are a few ayat from the Pickthall translation and the National Weather Service page on atmospheric layers.

How would I distinguish manipulation?
Well you posted on the moon split thread. Let's take a photo of a feature from a funny angle so it looks like something it isn't. Maybe we could take an image related to the atmosphere that has seven things marked on it, regardless of whether they're actually what we say they are.

I have fwd the last of queries to the original refuter, see if he'd graciousely make time for you!

Indeed, and maybe he'd do it graciously.

You're fluent in Arabic and English and have a good knowledge of the Quran, is it so hard for you to tell me what those passages say and mean?

[جوري]

If it only takes a few mouseclicks to unwind your argument imagine you had to defend your ideas against a real person.
Decyphering...
Relying on plagiarised material?
If you read back all you'll find are a few ayat from the Pickthall translation and the National Weather Service page on atmospheric layers.

Are you imaginary? or a computer generated response? haven't seen any unwinding yet, further I have nothing to defend.. there is however your ineptitude at reading, comprehending or doing any real work of your own-- you can't show enough respect by exercising something so simple, why do you expect others to invest the time? as stated prior I don't have all day to sit here and whittle away the chips on your shoulder!

How would I distinguish manipulation?
Well you posted on the moon split thread. Let's take a photo of a feature from a funny angle so it looks like something it isn't. Maybe we could take an image related to the atmosphere that has seven things marked on it, regardless of whether they're actually what we say they are.
Indeed, and maybe he'd do it graciously.

I don't see how a photo is evidence for or against an event aimed at querishi's some 1500 yrs ago? That is your comfort level.. a rile is a disturbance by definition, you are free to give it, the rendition of your choosing, but do it in its proper place so you don't at a later time come complaining of a thread being protracted and meandering.

You're fluent in Arabic and English and have a good knowledge of the Quran, is it so hard for you to tell me what those passages say and mean?

Ansar has a good way of curing by coning rather than my gentle cauterization for persistent verrucas. My time is better invested finding a compelling anecdote for the first slide of tomorrow's morning report!
I am sure if you are just a pinch patient you'll get a detailed response or are you filled with your usual concern and insecurity?


cheers ole chap

[Trumble]

It's rille, not 'rile'. From the German for 'groove'.

[جوري]

It's rille, not 'rile'. From the German for 'groove'.

It is inconsequential the spelling although thank you for the correction.. it is a disturbance in any number of ways to cause that furrow, erosion or a 'tool'--whatever the tool maybe..

cheers

[Trumble]

It is inconsequential the spelling although thank you for the correction.. it is a disturbance in any number of ways to cause that furrow, erosion or a 'tool'--whatever the tool maybe..

cheers

The spelling may be inconsequential but the meaning is not, particularly in view of your comments to Azy. As a consequence of using the wrong one you, in all innocence no doubt, attached the meaning of the wrong word to the concept being discussed, i.e 'disturbance'. That is indeed a meaning of 'rile', but not of 'rille' which is most certainly not a "a disturbance by definition".

Of course, I agree some sort of physical 'disturbance' must have been involved, but that is not suggested by the word and neither word nor phenomena have the slightest suggestion of 'moon splitting'. In other words, yet more classic Qur'anic sciento-tosh. :)

[جوري]

The spelling may be inconsequential but the meaning is not, particularly in view of your comments to Azy. As a consequence of using the wrong one you, in all innocence no doubt, attached the meaning of the wrong word to the concept being discussed, i.e 'disturbance'. That is indeed a meaning of 'rile', but not of 'rille' which is most certainly not a "a disturbance by definition".

Of course, I agree some sort of physical 'disturbance' must have been involved, but that is not suggested by the word and neither word nor phenomena have the slightest suggestion of 'moon splitting'. In other words, yet more classic Qur'anic sciento-tosh. :)

I am sorry, I am not following?.. where has anyone claimed that it is 'scientific' for you to add your famous 'tosh' ?

It is but a 'supernatural occurrence' as for ril, rille, rile or 'long narrow valley(s) on the moon's surface' .. they are still indeed caused by a disturbance natural of super, whether I misused the literal definition or not inoccently of course, it doesn't change the fact that they exist, or that Muslims believe that to be a direct result of that documented event.. perhaps your own renditions as to why they are there in an orbitual fashion, would prove less scient(tosh).. and I am sure many a google certfied scholars, will jump on your science fiction bandwagon so long as it is as far away from Islamic methodology as possible!

and I am all for it... it doesn't cause me discomfort for you to classify it, in the way of your choosing!

cheers ole chap

[Thinker]

Hi Thinker,



Here are some links:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-word-god.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-word-god.html

Thanks Osman, I'll look at those links, I'm looking to learn rather than start a debate.

Thanks again

Thinker

[silkworm]

Oh, do I have to deal with kids??? Ofcourse the plants cannot live in deserts. so what are you gonna say next, the deserts cannoot become Alaska??? You would be right here, but in saying you are missing an important point.

The color, the flavour of each and everything is different for you to cherish them and bring a world of colors and sceneries and events. Consider you are stuck in a desert or in a place where you will have to eat a fish sandwich for 30 days staright, I believe that after a week or so, you would be craving for Pizzas, Lasagna, hotdogs etc.

This is how life works, these are the little charms that makes your life worth living and than consider the scenario wherein you would have nothing to eat. A ride in the car, taking a shower, sipping coke or pepsi there are the little things we are taking as granted.

Most of the Atheists I have met have done so to "keep their conscious" wet with the thought that "sin" is no sins and if it is considered a sin, that would make their life difficult, the guilt would eat 'em up.

All God says is to "obey Him", identify Him, the master Creator - He who has given humans the power to think.

[DAWUD_adnan]

So basically, because Allah is Hayyul-Qayyum, He is beyond anything that which can be radared by our senses.

[Skavau]

The color, the flavour of each and everything is different for you to cherish them and bring a world of colors and sceneries and events. Consider you are stuck in a desert or in a place where you will have to eat a fish sandwich for 30 days staright, I believe that after a week or so, you would be craving for Pizzas, Lasagna, hotdogs etc.

This is how life works, these are the little charms that makes your life worth living and than consider the scenario wherein you would have nothing to eat. A ride in the car, taking a shower, sipping coke or pepsi there are the little things we are taking as granted.

Is there anything in this somewhat sentimental red herring that actually has anything to do with he topic?

Most of the Atheists I have met have done so to "keep their conscious" wet with the thought that "sin" is no sins and if it is considered a sin, that would make their life difficult, the guilt would eat 'em up.

I don't believe you. In fact, judging by your absurd analysis - I don't believe you've even met and/or ever listened to an Atheist in your entire life. Most Atheists are Atheists because they don't believe in a God.

That is it. That is the definition of an Atheist.