A response to Richard Dawkins by Adam Deen

[Pygoscelis]

Ok, uh why is my post being added to the FRONT of this thread instead of the end?

[Pygoscelis]

No I'm saying only one of the many deities of religions has actually outright claimed total creation of the universe. It would be logical to therefore use that deity as a starting point

I can't follow this logic. Is it logical to use the idea that pots of gold are at the ends of rainbows as a starting point for meteorology studies? You only put more credit to the Allah thing because of your faith not because of this logic I think.

And there have been lots of Gods whose believers claimed to create the universe. You believe yours. Others believe theirs. The only reason my comment on this is useless (as you put it) is because you've already made up your mind through faith before logic comes in the door.

[Ramadhan]

As I've shown, that is not true, as plenty of other gods have been described as doing the same thing. How are the details you mention relevant to this?

Despite your claim, you actually haven't shown us any deity who claim that they created the universe.
I know that you are not that dense.

Show us something comparable to Allah unambiguous direct claim in the Qur'an, and not just "xyz tribe believe Thor created the universe"

And show us that claim in writing, and only then we can analyze and discuss if those claims are legit.

[deenman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFTsNaL-Zg0

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

[جوري]

well done.. you are right he isn't trained in philosophy.. What I find particularly awkward is how disjointed and disconnected his arguments are and the huge leap of faith on his part to think that he can espouse biology and theology in a fluid fashion without ultimately having it come down to unicorns and tooth fairies.. Makes me believe that atheists aren't able to argue on a level to explain or defend their own faith without resorting to puerile dialogue.. why it is they hold on to a universal negative and burden the rest of us with their woes of their complete lack of understanding of the world around them.. I wouldn't mind so much if he and his followers weren't so militant and fundamentalistic in their approach-- as it happens I think the man is the brunt of jokes as he only serves to discredit himself and his self made religion with his lowly derisive approach!

:wa:

[tetsujin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFTsNaL-Zg0

It's clear that Adam Deen has also not studied philosophy, and that he is trying to argue for a point that was already granted in the book he's criticizing. What is someone to make of that?

He's on full display beginning at 40:15, where he grants that god is not knowable, and not testable, and that every refutation of every argument advanced in favour of god would not refute the idea of god. So at this point shouldn't the audience ask themselves what exactly he was talking about for the first 15 minutes of that speech.


All the best,


Faysal

[Pygoscelis]

Just a quick note on the above. The comparisons of God to unicorns and pixies is not mere purile dialogue. It is a serious comparison made in earnest. Atheists who use this comparison genuinely do see God as on par with unicorns in terms of likelihood of existing.

The comparison is primarily made to note that absent evidence of the non-existence of something it doesn't follow that the said something is as likely as not to exist.

The point is often missed by believers because they are understandably offended by having their God (on whom they have based their world view) seen by others as a delusion. There is really no kind way for an atheist to express to a theist that he thinks their God is a myth though. No matter how they express it, it'll be seen by many as "purile dialogue".

[جوري]

Perhaps if atheists were a bit more intellectually honest, they'd have realized that it is impossible to prove a universal negative and that they themselves are subjects to relying on very strong faith which they can't elucidate without indeed being puerile and throwing a tantrum..They focus is on FSM and tea pots when the approach would be far better crystallized leaving all that aside, and focus on illuminating their own beliefs as correct, Statements that are contraries can't be true together... You can't have a God and No God at the same time..
In science, you don't have 100% in anything, that is why we have type I and Type II errors, we have confidence intervals, we have P values to relative risks, we never accept the Null hypothesis, but we can fail to reject it.
One would think such principles would be carried over to theology if the two subjects are to be espoused in a fluid manner and since they are just so 'scientifically inclined' and not puerile at all.

I think any theist can be game with the no God shbeal if atheists would merely take their focus and elucidate it to the rest of us. Pink unicorns and celestial tea pots haven't left us with polka dotted elephants and chamomile tea for us to ponder their existence or whatever the generate of either 'magical beings' is to yield-- However, God has given us every last morsel in the Universe and taken credit for it in his books.
If atheists know better then perhaps they can show us how it all began and where it is going?

all the best of course

[Ramadhan]

What I really do not understand is that atheists have complete faith in the evolution of human being from amino molecules in a billion years ago which they can never prove nor observe, while flatly reject the idea of a creator for the universe which proof and evidence are observable all around them

[tango92]

well their is some evidence for evolution we cant deny it but just as many missing links.

anyway i think the "what if" question in the back of an atheists mind drives them crazy

[Supreme]

This video of Dawkins REALLY annoys me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1KUOksyYcA

[جوري]

What I really do not understand is that atheists have complete faith in the evolution of human being from amino molecules in a billion years ago which they can never prove nor observe, while flatly reject the idea of a creator for the universe which proof and evidence are observable all around them

:sl:
Even if evolution were the way, it still doesn't explain the origins of life-- and life as we know it didn't always exist, so they are yet to account for that, for the drive forth, sentience and do it for every species in existence ... Without relying on faith, but using the very tools they like to impose on theists..

if they can't and they won't for surely they couldn't put the wing of a fly together, they should shut up and buzz off. And be happy in their own void without sucking everyone along with them back into their cesspool!

[Justufy]

well done.. you are right he isn't trained in philosophy.. What I find particularly awkward is how disjointed and disconnected his arguments are and the huge leap of faith on his part to think that he can espouse biology and theology in a fluid fashion without ultimately having it come down to unicorns and tooth fairies.. Makes me believe that atheists aren't able to argue on a level to explain or defend their own faith without resorting to puerile dialogue.. why it is they hold on to a universal negative and burden the rest of us with their woes of their complete lack of understanding of the world around them.. I wouldn't mind so much if he and his followers weren't so militant and fundamentalistic in their approach-- as it happens I think the man is the brunt of jokes as he only serves to discredit himself and his self made religion with his lowly derisive approach!

:wa:

Greetings sister,

in my encounters with atheists they claim that atheism is not a belief, they say that is merely is the absence of belief, I always thought atheism was a belief that god does not exist, while they argue this is not so, what to answer to this?

Thank you.

[جوري]

:sl:

it is indeed a belief system no different than any other, has its gaps and its fanatics..
to quote their leader and lesser god dawkin'

Well, I’m convinced that future physicists will discover something at least as wonderful as any god you could ever imagine.” Why not call it God? “I don’t think it’s helpful to call it God.” OK, but what would “it” be like?
“I think it’ll be something wonderful and amazing and something difficult to understand. I think that all theological conceptions will be seen as parochial and petty by comparison.” He can even see how “design” by some gigantic intelligence might come into it. “But that gigantic intelligence itself would need an explanation. It’s not enough to call it God, it would need some sort of explanation such as evolution. Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of. These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind. It’s going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it’s going to put theology to shame.”

Interview with Richard Dawkins

What can I say? adding anything to that will detract from its hilarity!


all the best!

[Trumble]

Greetings sister,

in my encounters with atheists they claim that atheism is not a belief, they say that is merely is the absence of belief, I always thought atheism was a belief that god does not exist, while they argue this is not so, what to answer to this?

You are right, I think. It's possible to imagine circumstances in which you do not believe in God and yet do not have a the positive belief of the atheist that there is no God. Perhaps the thought there might be one just never occured. I've seen the word defined both ways, though.

:sl:

it is indeed a belief system no different than any other, has its gaps and its fanatics..
to quote their leader and lesser god dawkin'

Dawkins is no more the 'leader' of atheists than Harun Yahya is the 'leader' of muslims.

[Ramadhan]

:sl:

it is indeed a belief system no different than any other, has its gaps and its fanatics..
to quote their leader and lesser god dawkin'

Well, I’m convinced that future physicists will discover something at least as wonderful as any god you could ever imagine.” Why not call it God? “I don’t think it’s helpful to call it God.” OK, but what would “it” be like?
“I think it’ll be something wonderful and amazing and something difficult to understand. I think that all theological conceptions will be seen as parochial and petty by comparison.” He can even see how “design” by some gigantic intelligence might come into it. “But that gigantic intelligence itself would need an explanation. It’s not enough to call it God, it would need some sort of explanation such as evolution. Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of. These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind. It’s going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it’s going to put theology to shame.”

Interview with Richard Dawkins

What can I say? adding anything to that will detract from its hilarity!


all the best!

I actually have never read any work by Dawkins, and have not even seen his youtube clips because I believe that would be a waste of my time, and the above statement from Dawkins is enough to confirm that I made good decision.

:D

[جوري]

Dawkins is no more the 'leader' of atheists than Harun Yahya is the 'leader' of muslims.

I view them both in the same light to a subset of people!

peace

[tetsujin]

Interviewer: Do you think there is a tiny, even a smidgen [of a chance] that physicists will discover god?

Dawkins: Well, I’m convinced that future physicists will discover something at least as wonderful as any god you could ever imagine. I don't know what that would be like, I'll wait for them to decide of that.

Interviewer: Why not call it God?

Dawkins: “I don’t think it’s helpful to call it God.”

Interviewer: OK, but what would “it” be like?


Dawkins: “I think it’ll be something wonderful and amazing and something difficult to understand. I think that all theological conceptions will be seen as parochial and petty by comparison.” We can even see how “design” by some gigantic intelligence might come into it. “But that gigantic intelligence itself would need an explanation. It’s not enough to call it God, it would need some sort of explanation such as evolution. Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of. These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind. It’s going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it’s going to put theology to shame.”

Someone will have to explain to me what was funny about that response to the interviewer.

The link for the article and interview referenced above:
August 22, 2009 - Times Online Article

To the quote above, keep in mind that Dawkins is stating that whatever is found could not be called "god". Not because of any malice or belief in atheism, but simply because it is not useful in any way to science advancement.

Science must be agnostic when it comes to the question of god, some religions emphasize that god is something beyond the scope of science. That's fine, however, it's due to the fact that religion often tresspasses on the territory of science with testable claims that we run into this dialogue of science versus religion.



@Naidamar,

If you always get your information second hand, especially considering the man is alive and capable of explaining himself, then you are likely to get a lot of misinformation.


All the best,


Faysal

[Ramadhan]

@Naidamar,

If you always get your information second hand, especially considering the man is alive and capable of explaining himself, then you are likely to get a lot of misinformation.

For your benefit, I don't always get information second hand (frankly, it is strange for atheists who normally demand absolute proof/evidence for anything to have so readily jumped into conclusion about the habit of another person they don't know at all).
In any case, I do not find atheism interesting or important or beneficial, so that's why any information about Dawkins is of no use for me, either way.

[Ramadhan]

Interviewer: Do you think there is a tiny, even a smidgen [of a chance] that physicists will discover god?

Dawkins: Well, I’m convinced that future physicists will discover something at least as wonderful as any god you could ever imagine. I don't know what that would be like, I'll wait for them to decide of that.

Interviewer: Why not call it God?

Dawkins: “I don’t think it’s helpful to call it God.”

Interviewer: OK, but what would “it” be like?

Dawkins: “I think it’ll be something wonderful and amazing and something difficult to understand. I think that all theological conceptions will be seen as parochial and petty by comparison.” We can even see how “design” by some gigantic intelligence might come into it. “But that gigantic intelligence itself would need an explanation. It’s not enough to call it God, it would need some sort of explanation such as evolution. Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of. These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind. It’s going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it’s going to put theology to shame.”

This still elicits big chuckles from yours truly.
;D

The whole verbal acrobat just to avoid having to acknowledge the creator (although his logic seems to demand so) is pretty sad actually.

[جوري]

Which part of my 'paraphrasing' do you think took away from what he actually said?

Someone will have to explain to me what was funny about that response to the interviewer.

If you don't find it funny, there is nothing we can do to help you!
or is it because atheists don't like comments that poke at their core beliefs?

The link for the article and interview referenced above:
August 22, 2009 - Times Online Article

aha

To the quote above, keep in mind that Dawkins is stating that whatever is found could not be called "god". Not because of any malice or belief in atheism, but simply because it is not useful in any way to science advancement.

if you find 'Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of. These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind. It’s going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it’s going to put theology to shame.” 'scientific' then by all means, you'd do yourself a world of disservice discussing your miltonic mind before us oafs!

Science must be agnostic when it comes to the question of god, some religions emphasize that god is something beyond the scope of science. That's fine, however, it's due to the fact that religion often tresspasses on the territory of science with testable claims that we run into this dialogue of science versus religion.

As Einstein once said ''
“All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.” seems hypocritical for so-called scientists to trespass territories to make asses of themselves and not expect the same courtesy back.. especially when it is so **** hilarious :D

@Naidamar,

If you always get your information second hand, especially considering the man is alive and capable of explaining himself, then you are likely to get a lot of misinformation.


All the best,


Faysal

Maybe it is best he gets it from third party info (i.e) through you, so that it is better sugared coated?

all the best

[tetsujin]

For your benefit, I don't always get information second hand (frankly, it is strange for atheists who normally demand absolute proof/evidence for anything to have so readily jumped into conclusion about the habit of another person they don't know at all).
In any case, I do not find atheism interesting or important or beneficial, so that's why any information about Dawkins is of no use for me, either way.

I didn't mean to imply that you never do any research. I couldn't know that. I was commenting upon your words:

I actually have never read any work by Dawkins, and have not even seen his youtube clips because I believe that would be a waste of my time, and the above statement from Dawkins is enough to confirm that I made good decision.

in relation to the fact that the quote posted by Gossamer skye does not adequately represent the beliefs of Richard Dawkins. In such a case, where the individual is quite public about his personal beliefs and reasoning, it actually helps to get material first hand. I'm not in any place to advise you on how to spend your time, you can do as you wish.

If you don't find it funny, there is nothing we can do to help you!
or is it because atheists don't like comments that poke at their core beliefs?

You could explain why you find it funny. I'm not without a sense of humour.

You can poke all you like, just as you already take the liberty to exercise that privilege.

if you find 'Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of. These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind. It’s going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it’s going to put theology to shame.” 'scientific' then by all means, you'd do yourself a world of disservice discussing your miltonic mind before us oafs!

You really do miss the whole point, which is alright because quote miners quite often miss context. The same thing happened in a somewhat famous interview a few years ago when the intelligent design vs. evolution 'debate' at the forefront and the movie "Expelled" was released.

Richard is not an unreasonable man, if you listen to the whole of his point what he does for the audience is to set up a reasonable argument for the other side before he begins his criticism.

The whole point of what he was saying was if physicists found some particle or constant or law that was so wonderful and amazing as to move us emotionally, it doesn't actually help science to ascribe it to a transcendent order that doesn't help us scientifically. He was giving some options to consider, a metaphor or analogy if you like. It doesn't mean he truly believes the admittedly sci-fi scenario is true. All you have to do is listen to the 4 minute clip you posted to understand that.

In his interview for the movie "Expelled" he set up the idea of having a seed for life on earth via panspermia, the point of which was to illustrate that it doesn't matter how life initiated in terms of evolutionary theory. It may well have been a divine artificer or it may have been an extra-terrestrial origin. In either case, the way to move forward is to search for explanations. What you have in the movie is a snippet of his point which leads viewers to the conclusion that Dawkins believes in Panspermia. It's irrelevant, let alone not true.

As Einstein once said ''
“All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.” seems hypocritical for so-called scientists to trespass territories to make asses of themselves and not expect the same courtesy back.. especially when it is so **** hilarious

Leaving aside that Einstein did not profess a belief in a personal god, what exactly is the domain/territory of Religion?


All the best,


Faysal

[tetsujin]

The whole verbal acrobat just to avoid having to acknowledge the creator (although his logic seems to demand so) is pretty sad actually.

Fair enough, it seems you understand his point of view.

All the best,


Faysal

[Trumble]

I don't find it 'hilarious' either; Dawkins' point is quite clear. Must be a theists thing.

It's not even as if the position is a new one. Buddhists have been quite happy for over two millennia to believe there is a naturalistic explanation for 'life, the universe and everything' that may be temporarily (or indeed permanently) outside the grasp of our humble little gray cells. In doing so they have encountered no great urge to just assign the tricky bits to 'God' in the hope the problem just goes away. Although, to be fair, that may just be because they consider the immediate human condition to be a far more pressing problem.

[جوري]

You could explain why you find it funny. I'm not without a sense of humour.

I think we should be the judge of whether or not you have a sense of humor, your views of yourself are bound to be biased!

You can poke all you like, just as you already take the liberty to exercise that privilege.

Indeed-- there is no point in stating the obvious!

You really do miss the whole point, which is alright because quote miners quite often miss context. The same thing happened in a somewhat famous interview a few years ago when the intelligent design vs. evolution 'debate' at the forefront and the movie "Expelled" was released.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to direct the point in a more goal oriented fashion and explain how it is at odds with what you think we think of said points without being so strained for effect?

Richard is not an unreasonable man, if you listen to the whole of his point what he does for the audience is to set up a reasonable argument for the other side before he begins his criticism.

Yes, and I find FSM's and celestial tea pots amongst other nonsense to be quite 'reasonable' points to bring to a theological debate!

The whole point of what he was saying was if physicists found some particle or constant or law that was so wonderful and amazing as to move us emotionally, it doesn't actually help science to ascribe it to a transcendent order that doesn't help us scientifically. He was giving some options to consider, a metaphor or analogy if you like. It doesn't mean he truly believes the admittedly sci-fi scenario is true. All you have to do is listen to the 4 minute clip you posted to understand that.

Are you asking for a reprieve for his moronic 'metaphors' -- I can be game with that if a 'metaphor' is your get out of jail free card. One wonders then, why many of you labor to misconstrue religious metaphors just the same? Hypocrisy perhaps? or selective intellectualization?

In his interview for the movie "Expelled" he set up the idea of having a seed for life on earth via panspermia, the point of which was to illustrate that it doesn't matter how life initiated in terms of evolutionary theory. It may well have been a divine artificer or it may have been an extra-terrestrial origin. In either case, the way to move forward is to search for explanations. What you have in the movie is a snippet of his point which leads viewers to the conclusion that Dawkins believes in Panspermia. It's irrelevant, let alone not true.

It doesn't matter what his personal beliefs are, what matters is that they are beliefs just the same, and not any more or less scientific than anything religion offers even if you'd pretty it up under 'axiomatic wisdom' Religion hasn't offered nitty gritty details of how anything was created save that God said be and it was, if that is your axe to grind and label it the god of the gaps then it would make perfect sense that science picks up on said shortcomings and elucidate them without substituting one set of beliefs for another?-- Don't in the end wonder why you are labeled the pawn of a lesser god-- from the lowest common denominator your brand of 'axiomatic wisdom' is neither reproducible, consistent with what we know of science or even naturally observable and I don't see how any of it can be at odds at with religion if again, religion hasn't offered a method, and the methods you throw on the table as sound and scientific can likewise be labeled under beliefs. Beliefs are beliefs no matter how fantastic or down to earth or 'natural' they still stand on equal grounds with those you or he finds so detestable!

Leaving aside that Einstein did not profess a belief in a personal god, what exactly is the domain/territory of Religion?

You don't actually know what Einstein professed on his own private time, as spirituality is a matter personal in nature.. I have no idea what you mean by 'domain/territory' of religion -- Religion is concerned with perfecting people's behavior, cementing the relationship between human fellows, curbing evil tendencies towards others, Religion is meant so we'd reflect and consider nations and tribes as complementary not opposites, to enhance moral values and to help people act morally, to do good and avoid bad and crooked behaviors, and to teach of being sociable, lovable and tolerant, to establish spiritual growth if for nothing else but for one's own well being and comfort in lieu of the prozac pump and to ground and humble us in what is good, like establishing charity, fasting, offering of ourselves not merely financially but physically so humanity can be experienced from its most basic condition, religion is meant to point that all that is beautiful and sacred in the world isn't random, lowly and without meaning, that they are a sign of divine love and justice-- that as we came from the nothing of the womb to life, as we emerge from the uncertainty of sleep to morning light, so shall we rise from death to eternal life and be held accountable for all that we have offered good or bad in a goal directed fashion... If that is NOT compatible with your principles, life-style, personal beliefs, you are certainly free to leave that aside and follow your whimsy or dawkins' 'reason' . If you will take the time to poke fun at religious 'metaphors' and denigrate all that is important and holy to others, then be likewise prepared for a barrage of offensive abuse of equal or greater caliber, the only difference is, how incredibly deserved and how easy!

All the best,


Faysal

Indeed!

[Pygoscelis]

Perhaps if atheists were a bit more intellectually honest, they'd have realized that it is impossible to prove a universal negative

That is there very point of bringing up the pixies. You can't prove they don't exist. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove any of these unprovable things don't exist. It doesn't give you any reason to believe that they do exist. It is a demonstration of the flaw in the logic of saying "you can't prove God doesn't exist" as if it means something. The statement is true, but that doesn't make the claim that God does any more potent.

Pink unicorns and celestial tea pots haven't left us with polka dotted elephants and chamomile tea for us to ponder their existence or whatever the generate of either 'magical beings' is to yield-- However, God has given us every last morsel in the Universe and taken credit for it in his books.

So all it takes is for somebody to write a book claiming that pixies are responsible for the creation of everything we see? Would every creation myth of ancient people's suffice to put their own claims on par? That'd include everything from the earth being perched on the back of a giant turtle to to, yes, pixie like creatures making us.

If atheists know better then perhaps they can show us how it all began and where it is going?

That is a god-of-the-gaps appeal. If nobody knows how it all began, that doesn't give any more reason to accept the creation myth you suggest.

[جوري]

That is there very point of bringing up the pixies. You can't prove they don't exist. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove any of these unprovable things don't exist. It doesn't give you any reason to believe that they do exist. It is a demonstration of the flaw in the logic of saying "you can't prove God doesn't exist" as if it means something. The statement is true, but that doesn't make the claim that God does any more potent.

Again, the thread is neither about pixies or celestial teapots, it is about the cult of atheism and how it is incapable of grounding itself in science without some form of make belief.. try to read everything before you write.. Don't like God, give us a good clean scientific alternative that does what religion can't!

So all it takes is for somebody to write a book claiming that pixies are responsible for the creation of everything we see? Would every creation myth of ancient people's suffice to put their own claims on par? That'd include everything from the earth being perched on the back of a giant turtle to to, yes, pixie like creatures making us.

I have no idea what this mindless drivel is all about.. try to go to the bathroom before you sit in front of your computer next time!

That is a god-of-the-gaps appeal. If nobody knows how it all began, that doesn't give any more reason to accept the creation myth you suggest.

Indeed, and that works both ways!

all the best

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I have no idea what this mindless drivel is all about..

This is the problem, Skye. I don't believe you're stupid, but it's clear you don't understand much of this debate at all.

Peace

[Pygoscelis]

Again, the thread is neither about pixies or celestial teapots, it is about the cult of atheism and how it is incapable of grounding itself in science without some form of make belief.

You are correct here. Atheism can't be spoken of without addressing make belief (God). Atheism is a reaction to something with no basis in science, so no, it can't ground itself in science. There is nothing it could work with towards that end.

[جوري]

You are correct here. Atheism can't be spoken of without addressing make belief (God). Atheism is a reaction to something with no basis in science, so no, it can't ground itself in science. There is nothing it could work with towards that end.

Rather, atheism is a colorful new cult with staunch defenders who delude themselves that their brands of fairy tales are more sound and reasonable than everyone else' yet can't seem to go the extra mile to elucidate their points to save their dear life with that thing they claim their roots grounded in ...'science' ..

how is this for scientific?

__________

perhaps

as colorful as this?

oh wait, at least the celestial teapot can indeed be visualized!

we'll be waiting for rocks and computerized sperm in distant planets to take flight, before you come speaking of science!

all the best

[Pygoscelis]

Who is being purile here?

And why do you associate any of the above with atheism?

As for the "science of atheism", atheism is a response to theism and as such can only work with the claims of theism. Theism will have to open itself to scientific study before atheism can do anything.

[جوري]

Who is being purile here?

Still you and your compadres!

And why do you associate any of the above with atheism?

per your quote
"Atheism is a reaction to something with no basis in science"
and the above is the distillate of the science that atheism has given us..


all the best

[جوري]

Greetings,


This is the problem, Skye. I don't believe you're stupid, but it's clear you don't understand much of this debate at all.

Peace

Rather what is stupid is to dignify feeble-minded attempts when seeking a goal directed dialogue knowing well the frequent detours to lala land when the going gets tough for one of you a unicorn or a tea pot is a good trump card--

all the best!

[Enderby]

Whether richard Dawkins is correct or not is not a great issue .

What is relevant is that all religions are Myths else they would all be true from the prehistoric era thru to scientology There are or have been many thousands of religions in existence over time and the amazing thing is that adherents fervently believe in ONE and know categorically that the remainder are myths or even less so are we saying that a majority of people know the true religion or only a tiny minority . Or is it a matter of faith and not numbers as advised by my local pastor . WHY does it matter if out of 6 billion people noone can claim supreme knowledge ;its all faith based and faith is just a part of one's imagination and requires no proof or logic just fervent belief .
Well it doesn't really matter as long as followers just follow their faith but when it comes to killing or culling the population based on the other persons faith then we could be in trouble . but it could also be the answer to world over population which is the real problem that needs addressing

[Justufy]

It’s funny how the local atheist that claims high and loud that God does not exist is at the same time logically admitting his existence with these very claims. I love it! Besides Dawkins now has his own cult! Loll, I guess we should start buildings new churches of le Dawkins, I can imagine the sermons taking place there, fine little gems like the one sky provided. I saw an interview with this Dawkins guy and some other atheist show host, it almost made me sick. the two oafs seem to be praising themselves, sick.

I will now postulate my belief in a fine tuned universe by God: Wherever we look fine tuning is apparent, for example the laws of gravity, Gravity’s’ fine tuning is apparent, If gravity were too strong, stars would have
lifetimes shorter than a billion years, and if it were too weak (or negative), no solid
bodies could exist in the universe. Given the range of forces, gravity must be fine-tuned

to one part in 10^36 Carbon is another example among many of a fine tuned universe Carbon is extremely important for the existence of life, and if it were not for the
fine-tuning of the nuclear strong force, it would not be produced in sufficient quantities to
allow life. An increase or decrease of this force by approximately 1 percent would cause
this unwelcome result. Increasing this force more than two percent would prohibit the
existence of atoms and a reduction of 5 percent or more would make stellar burning
impossible.
It all boils down to this:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

I will explain, in 2 it is not due to physical necessity because Attempts to explain fine-tuning by
means of physical necessity rely on the dubious assumption that all of the laws of the
universe can be reduced to a fundamental law and fail to consider initial conditions of the
universe, this only manage to push the question of design up one step.

And It is not due to chance because of absolute
Improbability, To deny the absolute improbability, the critic must address the evidence for fine tuning, I have provided 2 nice examples above.
The universe was designed it is obvious.:hiding:

http://www.skepticalchristian.com/atheism

[Pygoscelis]

Justufy, even if we were to accept that the universe is designed, its still a long way from there to concluding a God did it and a longer step to conclude your God did it and a longer step to conclude your God did it and wants us to behave a certain way.

[aamirsaab]

Justufy, even if we were to accept that the universe is designed, its still a long way from there to concluding a God did it and a longer step to conclude your God did it and a longer step to conclude your God did it and wants us to behave a certain way.

Well the Qur'an pretty much covers all that. I only see the God of Abraham claiming He created the universe (in the Quran). Thor didn't; Shiva didn't; Vishnu didn't etc.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Well the Qur'an pretty much covers all that. I only see the God of Abraham claiming He created the universe (in the Quran). Thor didn't; Shiva didn't; Vishnu didn't etc.

So because you have a book where a character called Allah claims to have created the universe, that is enough to convince you to make all of the logical leaps that Pygoscelis described?

Peace

[aamirsaab]

Greetings,


So because you have a book where a character called Allah claims to have created the universe, that is enough to convince you to make all of the logical leaps that Pygoscelis described?

Peace

No I'm saying only one of the many deities of religions has actually outright claimed total creation of the universe. It would be logical to therefore use that deity as a starting point, thus minimising any useless comments such as pygo's (no offence or anything, but that post really doesn't pose a problem for theists). If you have one deity (and only one) claiming such things I'd say that's a pretty big claim to make!.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

No I'm saying only one of the many deities of religions has actually outright claimed total creation of the universe.

What a strange thing to say. There are (and have been) many gods whose followers credit them with the creation of the universe. Here are a few of them:

Bumba
Kaang
Pangu
Gitche Manitou
Ta'aroa
Tagaloa
Viracocha
Xamaba

It would be logical to therefore use that deity as a starting point, thus minimising any useless comments such as pygo's (no offence or anything, but that post really doesn't pose a problem for theists).

It would be interesting if you could explain why those several logical leaps are not a problem for theists. I can't understand what gives you the justification to jump from one to the other.

Peace

[aamirsaab]

Greetings,


What a strange thing to say. There are actually many gods whose followers credit them with the creation of the universe. Here are a few of them:

Bumba
Kaang
Pangu
Gitche Manitou
Ta'aroa
Tagaloa
Viracocha
Xamaba

Bumba - god of vomit.
Kaang - apparently was consumed by an ogre, then vomitted out.
Pangu - originated from an egg.
Gitche Manitou - similar concept to Holy spirit in Christianity (thus bears similar weaknesses to that concept).
Ta'aroa - created the universe cus he was bored.
Tagaloa - has fellow gods as siblings. Which one do I pray to?!
Viracocha - Wept at his creations. Also had siblings. Why? How? Again, which do I pray to?!
Xamaba - Apparently, you only need to think about him when you go on journeys or are ill. The rest of the time you can forget he exists, I suppose.

I think we can rule those ones out.

It would be interesting if you could explain why those several logical leaps are not a problem for theists. I can't understand what gives you the justification to jump from one to the other.

Peace

Qur'an/written sources. It's not word of mouth - it's actual scripture - that has been here for over quite some time. There's some ''hard'' evidence to back up the claims, written (in many languages) for all of mankind to see. Note also that contained within this hard evidence are no such statements of being vomitted or power struggles with fellow deities or crap like that. You don't have to do any gymnastics or stop thinking (it's actually the opposite in Islam) and the layman actually can understand just what the eff is going on.

You can approach the Qur'an and the God of Abraham with intellectual discourse. You can't do that with the other deities. That's why it's not a problem for thesits, or I should say muslims to take those logical leaps; God's attributes as written in the Qur'an are something you can respect and understand (unlike say Bumba's!) - so when He makes a claim like Being the creator of all things, I listen attentively.

[Trumble]

It all boils down to this:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

While 'fine tuning' is fun to speculate about, you will need to do rather more to produce a convincing argument! You cannot dismiss either physical necessity or 'chance' without making assumptions just as broad as those you are criticizing.

Starting with 'chance', your implicit assumption seems to be that those numbers and probabilities relate only to one universe - this one. They do not. We actually know precisely the odds of everything being 'right' for life in this universe, 1:1, certainty.

The numbers are only relevant in terms of any potential life-bearing universe, and we simply have no idea how many of those the may have been, are, and will be. How many millions, billions, or indeed googolplexes of universes have there been/will there be in which carbon was not produced, stars had short lives or no solid bodies existed? There are several cosmological speculations that encompass a vast number of possibilities. According to one hypothesis for example, which while as speculative as any other is no more 'dubious' than them either, is that every single possibility happened and continues to happen even as we can only ever experience one possibility as it is realized. Life is therefore certain in a least one universe and highly likely to occur in a further vast number of them, even if that number is itself only a speck in the virtual infinity of total possibilities. There is no 'chance' or luck at all involved as far as we are concerned, as we could only ever have existed in a universe where life was possible.

As to 'physical necessity', again we simply do not know what may have/does/will do constrain the nature and values of physical constants. I would dispute there is any need to rely on the assumption that the workings of the universe are reducible to one fundamental law to argue the point, but even if there were that assumption is no more 'dubious' than any other made in this context. Few physicists would reject the possibility and it will take much more than your opinion, which you don't even attempt to justify, that it is 'dubious' to discard it!

As to pushing the question of design back one step, you might want to consider the point made in the video (about 27:00 in) where the lecturer distinguishes between the infinitely complex thoughts of God and the far simpler mind of God, in an attempt to deflate the 'who/what designed the designer' argument. An analogous point could be suggested here; that should such a one fundamental law exist, the 'watchmaker' argument dissolves instantly there being no complexity or 'design' to be explained. The theist, I'm afraid, cannot have it both ways!

What 'fine tuning' actually boils down to is what every other argument for or against the argument of God boils down to, it is inconclusive. Whether you find it convincing or not depends entirely on your starting assumptions; the argument reveals the 'obvious' only those who believed it beforehand. Ultimately trying to prove God exists is as futile as trying to prove He doesn't.

[Justufy]

[QUOTE=Trumble;1251753]While 'fine tuning' is fun to speculate about, you will need to do rather more to produce a convincing argument! You cannot dismiss either physical necessity or 'chance' without making assumptions just as broad as those you are criticizing.

Starting with 'chance', your implicit assumption seems to be that those numbers and probabilities relate only to one universe - this one. They do not. We actually know precisely the odds of everything being 'right' for life in this universe, 1:1, certainty.

The numbers are only relevant in terms of any potential life-bearing universe, and we simply have no idea how many of those the may have been, are, and will be. How many millions, billions, or indeed googolplexes of universes have there been/will there be in which carbon was not produced, stars had short lives or no solid bodies existed? There are several cosmological speculations that encompass a vast number of possibilities. According to one hypothesis for example, which while as speculative as any other is no more 'dubious' than them either, is that every single possibility happened and continues to happen even as we can only ever experience one possibility as it is realized. Life is therefore certain in a least one universe and highly likely to occur in a further vast number of them, even if that number is itself only a speck in the virtual infinity of total possibilities. There is no 'chance' or luck at all involved as far as we are concerned, as we could only ever have existed in a universe where life was possible.

As to 'physical necessity', again we simply do not know what may have/does/will do constrain the nature and values of physical constants. I would dispute there is any need to rely on the assumption that the workings of the universe are reducible to one fundamental law to argue the point, but even if there were that assumption is no more 'dubious' than any other made in this context. Few physicists would reject the possibility and it will take much more than your opinion, which you don't even attempt to justify, that it is 'dubious' to discard it!

As to pushing the question of design back one step, you might want to consider the point made in the video (about 27:00 in) where the lecturer distinguishes between the infinitely complex thoughts of God and the far simpler mind of God, in an attempt to deflate the 'who/what designed the snip* QUOTE]

Im sotty but adding a great numbre of ''multiverses'' to make the odds plausible does not cut it.

The first problem is that there is no evidence for a multiverse apart from finetuning itself. In fact, the total lack of evidence for multiple universes is a severe problem for you here.

secondly, the '' thing '' that would create these multiverses would need to be very fine tuned. so here we are.

What 'fine tuning' actually boils down to is what every other argument for or against the argument of God boils down to, it is inconclusive.

:hiding: then why should we believe or disbelieve in God?

[Trumble]

The first problem is that there is no evidence for a multiverse apart from finetuning itself. In fact, the total lack of evidence for multiple universes is a severe problem for you here.

It isn't a problem at all. I never claimed it was any more than cosmological speculation. As indeed are the other possibilities I alluded to, such as the now-mainstream M-theory, which also opens up the possibility of virtually any number you like of possible universes. All I need to show is that the possibility cannot be dismissed (as you casually attempt to do just by introducing the word 'dubious'!) to show your argument is invalid. It's the icing on the cake, of course, that the possibility cannot be dismissed not because of some obscure logical loophole, but instead because most cosmologists take one or more ideas that would do the job quite seriously. Such speculations do not happen in a vacuum, they are accommodated only so long as they fit the empirical evidence available. Neither do they have anything to do with 'fine tuning'.

secondly, the '' thing '' that would create these multiverses would need to be very fine tuned

Why? We have no reason to think there is a 'thing' at all, let alone one that comes in sufficient flavours to need tuning.

:hiding: then why should we believe or disbelieve in God?

You believe or disbelieve on the basis of the evidence as you select it and as you understand it, conditioned by ba multitude of factors such as your upbringingt, your culture, your existing beliefs and so on. Just same as everything else, God is not a unique case at least as far as belief goes. If you think about it we believe a great many things for which the evidence is far from conclusive, let alone because of any logical proof.

[Justufy]

to trumble,

Funny when you come to think about it, you will not dismiss the possibility of multiverses because of lack of evidence yet you dismiss the possibility of God on the same basis. I think I have provided robust evidence for fine tuning leading to strong possibility of design (carbon, the laws of gravity and many others that I could write down) What are you bringing here? Nothing.

As to 'physical necessity', again we simply do not know what may have/does/will do constrain the nature and values of physical constants. I would dispute there is any need to rely on the assumption that the workings of the universe are reducible to one fundamental law to argue the point, but even if there were that assumption is no more 'dubious' than any other made in this context. Few physicists would reject the possibility and it will take much more than your opinion, which you don't even attempt to justify, that it is 'dubious' to discard it!

some scientists hope to find a fundamental theory that explains why the constants of the universe have the values they do.

Even if a more fundamental law explains some of the constants, there is no reason to
think that all of the constants will eventually be explained in this way.

Moreover, physicists often discuss mathematically consistent universes that do not in any way correspond to our own . There is no apparent logical impossibility with such universes, and so this is prima facie reason to regard these universes as possible.
Even a theory of everything would not explain away all of the fine-tuning that is very well present in our universe.

[Justufy]

Justufy, even if we were to accept that the universe is designed, its still a long way from there to concluding a God did it and a longer step to conclude your God did it and a longer step to conclude your God did it and wants us to behave a certain way.

If we accept the universe is designed then this is the very first step.:statisfie

[Justufy]

That is a god-of-the-gaps appeal. If nobody knows how it all began, that doesn't give any more reason to accept the creation myth you suggest.

Hypocrisy much? this always makes me giggle atheists tend to give theists the burden of proof and when we propose God they turn around and say that God is not a good explanation.

Oh the hypocrisy of it all!:hiding:

[Trumble]

Funny when you come to think about it, you will not dismiss the possibility of multiverses because of lack of evidence yet you dismiss the possibility of God on the same basis.

I have done no such thing. My whole point is that neither can be dismissed and neither can be proven on the information available.

I think I have provided robust evidence for fine tuning leading to strong possibility of design (carbon, the laws of gravity and many others that I could write down) What are you bringing here? Nothing.

Oh, please. :heated: I thought you had learned your lesson last time. If you really insist on performing the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la-la-la" rather than actually considering and engaging with the points I raised, I'll stop wasting my time and leave you to get on with it. Life is too short.

[Justufy]

I have done no such thing. My whole point is that neither can be dismissed and neither can be proven on the information available.



Oh, please. :heated: I thought you had learned your lesson last time. If you really insist on performing the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la-la-la" rather than actually considering and engaging with the points I raised, I'll stop wasting my time and leave you to get on with it. Life is too short.

I have engaged the points you have made about the physical necessity and about your claim to many universes.:hmm:

Sorry! sorry for pointing out your dishonest arguments!:omg:

I think we should leave it at this.:hmm:


:wa:

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Bumba - god of vomit.
Kaang - apparently was consumed by an ogre, then vomitted out.
Pangu - originated from an egg.
Gitche Manitou - similar concept to Holy spirit in Christianity (thus bears similar weaknesses to that concept).
Ta'aroa - created the universe cus he was bored.
Tagaloa - has fellow gods as siblings. Which one do I pray to?!
Viracocha - Wept at his creations. Also had siblings. Why? How? Again, which do I pray to?!
Xamaba - Apparently, you only need to think about him when you go on journeys or are ill. The rest of the time you can forget he exists, I suppose.

I think we can rule those ones out.

I'm not sure I understand. Your claim (which leads to your "logical... starting point") is that only one deity is claimed to have created the universe. As I've shown, that is not true, as plenty of other gods have been described as doing the same thing. How are the details you mention relevant to this?

Qur'an/written sources. It's not word of mouth - it's actual scripture - that has been here for over quite some time.

There are lots of texts that have been here for a long time. How does this affect the matter?

There's some ''hard'' evidence to back up the claims, written (in many languages) for all of mankind to see. Note also that contained within this hard evidence are no such statements of being vomitted or power struggles with fellow deities or crap like that. You don't have to do any gymnastics or stop thinking (it's actually the opposite in Islam) and the layman actually can understand just what the eff is going on.

It's interesting that you feel the need to put the word "hard" in inverted commas. I'm not sure what you mean by it as a result. Although you might feel distaste for ideas of gods being vomitted and so on, why is there any less reason to believe those stories than stories about an existent omnipotent being that has never been observed, yet which has very specific instructions for mankind?

On the "stop thinking" issue, it's very common to see people posting advice here on the forum that amounts to basically that. "These are things we should avoid thinking about." "We shouldn't ask questions about this." "We should trust what such-and-such a person has said, and that is that". How often do you see comments like these on the forum?

You can approach the Qur'an and the God of Abraham with intellectual discourse. You can't do that with the other deities.

You can approach any text or concept with intellectual discourse. This is presumably what anthropologists have done in order to bring to light the existence of belief in these deities. Again, I don't see the relevance.

That's why it's not a problem for thesits, or I should say muslims to take those logical leaps;

Your entire argument is some sort of logical leap. I can't see any point in your post that has any real bearing on the matter.

God's attributes as written in the Qur'an are something you can respect and understand (unlike say Bumba's!) - so when He makes a claim like Being the creator of all things, I listen attentively.

Well, that is fair enough. You're entitled to your view. As for me, I see no compelling reason to believe one over the other.

Peace

[Justufy]

Life is too short.

Tumble, don’t you see that there is something repellent about this way of tough? claims like ''we are just animals'' or ''life is beautiful and we don’t need God for this'' I’m not sure why..

Just like Richard Dawkins, I saw a conference he gave in which he was talking about one of his colleagues that got really sick and almost died, Richard was explaining how that man was asking people not to pray for him, and that he had the unwavering conviction that nothing exists after death.
There was something profoundly wrong and sad about these men.

[Enderby]

Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed (at least outwardly) to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. Although he was cleared of any offence at that time, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture" in February 1616,[10] and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.


now , unless , every one wants to support the 1616 verdict that Galileo and subsequently many other scientists , is guilty of some sort of sin , and that the earth is flat with heaven and hell are in symmetry with this theory. then they must surely agree that he is not guilty an that the world is round , that there are space stations in orbit , and so there is no heaven above and no hell below.

so regardless of Mr DAWKINS ability to advocate or advance his theory , normal humans are going to understand that a thousand myths of often opposing virtues cannot all be real at the same time , ie only one can be the right one, so which one the good 0ne the bad one the newest one or the original one , only faith can decide , and faith is only in ones imagination.

it should be remembered that this is 2009 and that the era of self imposed ignorance has past into history, and human society is moving on ...

[جوري]

it should be remembered that this is 2009 and that the era of self imposed ignorance has past into history, and human society is moving on ...

Indeed.. makes us wonder why Christianity would then be your way of life?
God born to women,God accursing his creation for not bearing him fruit, God ineffectual at choosing apostles to carry out his message after his death, god's apostles forsaking god, then God dying, Lut sleeping with his daughters, Abraham married to his half sister, Abraham not knowing the number of kids he has, philosophers and scientists of their time persecuted for having different virtues than the church...

Hypocrisy perhaps? can you be a worshiper of dawkins and a believer in his computer programmed humans from a planet far away, and a worshiper of Jesus at the same time? Or is it that you just have a distaste of Muslims and came to tinkle your pearls here?

There will always be a way for folks to justify their beliefs, whether rocks that sprout wings, or gods that die.. it just depends on which story is more plausible to you.. suffice it to say with such a conclusion, you can take your heavily philosophical self and try it out on folks more provincial and there is no lack of!

all the best

[Pygoscelis]

Hypocrisy much? this always makes me giggle atheists tend to give theists the burden of proof and when we propose God they turn around and say that God is not a good explanation.

Oh the hypocrisy of it all!:hiding:

How is it hypocracy to ask for evidence and then not find what's offered convincing? Seems consistent to me.

[Justufy]

You have not invalidated said evidence, you just said it was not convincing to you, you see only what you want to see because you are a hypocrite, If It was evidence AGAINST the existence of God that evidence would be convincing to you meanwhile the person presenting this evidence would appear to you as intelligent, ruggedly handsome and rational!


Because you are a hypocrite! Your mere presence as an atheist on an Islamic forum confirms this, your endless thirst in trying to destroy the beliefs of others here also confirms this.

Despicable!

[جوري]

your endless thirst in trying to destroy the beliefs of others here also confirms this.

he can't defend his own beliefs to save his dear life to make that leap and invalidate those of others-- in fact four or more years on the forum have taught him nothing, I rather think his purpose for being here is personal in nature and to compensate him for qualities he clearly lacks in his every day life.. I can't imagine an Islamic forum is the place to be for an atheist to frequent to feel vindicated..

Since atheism per them is all about 'lack of belief'.. perhaps its tenets should draw from that same premise and practice a 'lack of preach' ..

Not the case of course, since belief is a belief is a belief after all, and zealots of all sorts have a message to preach!

[Ramadhan]

I'm not sure I understand. Your claim (which leads to your "logical... starting point") is that only one deity is claimed to have created the universe. As I've shown, that is not true, as plenty of other gods have been described as doing the same thing. How are the details you mention relevant to this?

Actually, you have not shown other deity claiming that they created the universe.
Please show us which deity who directly claims that they created the universe.

and by directly here is something comparable to Allah SWT claiming directly in the Qur'an that He alone created the universe.
and NOT something like "tribe A believes that deity Z created the universe"

And only then we can examine/analyze whether their claim holds true, and this is where the details that brother Aamirsaab mentioned are relevant.

[Pygoscelis]

You have not invalidated said evidence, you just said it was not convincing to you, you see only what you want to see because you are a hypocrite, If It was evidence AGAINST the existence of God that evidence would be convincing to you meanwhile the person presenting this evidence would appear to you as intelligent, ruggedly handsome and rational!


Because you are a hypocrite! Your mere presence as an atheist on an Islamic forum confirms this, your endless thirst in trying to destroy the beliefs of others here also confirms this.

Despicable!

I have to question if you know what the word "hypocrite" means.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Actually, you have not shown other deity claiming that they created the universe.

Correct.

Please show us which deity who directly claims that they created the universe.

Would you like me to link you to an interview with them?

and by directly here is something comparable to Allah SWT claiming directly in the Qur'an that He alone created the universe.
and NOT something like "tribe A believes that deity Z created the universe"

All of this is only persuasive if you already happen to be a theist. For people like me who don't believe in any gods, the Qur'an is a book containing a character called Allah, who claims in the text to have created the universe.

And only then we can examine/analyze whether their claim holds true, and this is where the details that brother Aamirsaab mentioned are relevant.

I was hoping aamirsaab would explain himself why he thinks they are relevant. We'll see if he decides to do that.

Peace

[Enderby]

when will we hear from a poster who can advise us which of the plethora of belief systems that have been presented for acceptance is the most acceptable ...

it is difficult to believe that they are all true and correct , so where learned ones are you when we need you...

[Ramadhan]

Would you like me to link you to an interview with them?

Sure if you have one.

All of this is only persuasive if you already happen to be a theist. For people like me who don't believe in any gods, the Qur'an is a book containing a character called Allah, who claims in the text to have created the universe.

And yet you cannot produce the claims even though earlier you stated that there are other deities who do so.

You have such a profound belief that there is no God, and yet here we have Allah claims clearly and unambiguously that He is indeed the creator (while knowing that there is no other deity does so),
would you not be interested to investigate if the claim holds true?

[جوري]

All of this is only persuasive if you already happen to be a theist. For people like me who don't believe in any gods, the Qur'an is a book containing a character called Allah, who claims in the text to have created the universe.

Belief or lack of belief in God is something you have to work on, in your own private time. No one can convince you that Voltage (V) = Current x Impedance (Ohms) or that Ejection Fraction (EF) = (SV / EDV) × 100%

you don't strike me as the type to derive such conclusion intuitively or through observation, but if you didn't and still want to have a clue then clearly having a book and a teacher seems like your best bet at understanding what goes on in the world around you and the laws that govern your universe.

No one forces or should be made to force another to be an engineer or a physicist or a doctor or even an English teacher.. you need the tools to perfect your craft if you want to butter your bread by said means you will have to comply with the accepted standards and most certainly have to start with a book and assume some confidence in its values and characters, or do the next best thing and come up with better, make it applicable and universal..

Of course one can always be a bum, there is plenty of room for that, just like there is life outside of religion and science outside of academia

all the best

[Pygoscelis]

Sure if you have one.
He is indeed the creator (while knowing that there is no other deity does so),
would you not be interested to investigate if the claim holds true?

Why would a writer's attributing any claim to a fictional character make you suspect it to be reality? Do you spend time trying to find the ends of rainbows for pots of gold and strike it rich? No. Because you see that claim as a fantasy. That the claim would make you rich if it were so and were you to reach the rainbow's end doesn't make you see this as any more than fantasy.

[Ramadhan]

Why would a writer's attributing any claim to a fictional character make you suspect it to be reality?

Where have I ever indicated that?

I asked czgibson, or for that matter all atheists, to come forth with the claim by any other deity that they are indeed God and the Creator.

I am still waiting.

Do you spend time trying to find the ends of rainbows for pots of gold and strike it rich? No. Because you see that claim as a fantasy. That the claim would make you rich if it were so and were you to reach the rainbow's end doesn't make you see this as any more than fantasy.

Now I know how others feel when debating with atheists who keep resorting to "pots at the end of rainbow", "celestial teapot" etc instead of focusing on the subject at hand.

[جوري]

Now I know how others feel when debating with atheists who keep resorting to "pots at the end of rainbow", "celestial teapot" etc instead of focusing on the subject at hand.

dumb happens at the end.. I like to save myself the grief and assume dumb happening all along and avoid the tirade..
It is a predictable spiral, they have just one ride in their amusement park, so if you have been on it before and managed to stifle a mere yawn, I wouldn't keep investing my time on that ride in hopes of new thrills!...

:wa:

[Pygoscelis]

I asked czgibson, or for that matter all atheists, to come forth with the claim by any other deity that they are indeed God and the Creator.

To what end? For the sake of argument, let's grant that the muslim god is the only one that this claim is made for. What does this prove or indicate or give evidence for? Were you not making an argument that it means something?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Sure if you have one.

Total irony failure...

And yet you cannot produce the claims even though earlier you stated that there are other deities who do so.

I don't remember saying that. Please read my words more carefully. In any case, like Pygoscelis, I can't see where you're going with this strange argument.

You have such a profound belief that there is no God, and yet here we have Allah claims clearly and unambiguously that He is indeed the creator (while knowing that there is no other deity does so),
would you not be interested to investigate if the claim holds true?

Of course, I have done. I can't see any reason to believe the Qur'an is anything other than the work of human hands.

Now I know how others feel when debating with atheists who keep resorting to "pots at the end of rainbow", "celestial teapot" etc instead of focusing on the subject at hand.

Are you sure you understand why atheists bring up these comparisons?

Peace

[Ramadhan]

So you guys agree that Allah SWT is the only one who claim that He is God and the Creator.

Now of course I don't expect you that accept it, but you can investigate if the claim holds by examining the Qur'an.

I am not a scholar, so I cannot provide exhaustive explanations why Al Qur'an is the true words of God, but you can read all about it in other sections and threads about the miracles of Al Qur'an, about characteristics such as the fact that it is free of error and contradiction or that it has not changed even a single letter for 1,400 years (and in the Qur'an Allah has promised to keep Al Qur'an intact).

However, I also see that despite all these evidence you guys still refuse to accept the truth. So I have no more to say but May Allah give you hidayah.

[Trumble]

To what end? For the sake of argument, let's grant that the muslim god is the only one that this claim is made for. What does this prove or indicate or give evidence for? Were you not making an argument that it means something?

It's certainly puzzling me. The only use I can possibly see for it would be in arguing that they are in fact lots of other gods, but that they are somehow sub-ordinate to Allah as evidenced by the fact they do not claim to be Creators of the universe. And a muslim could never make any such claim, of course.. so I'm left none the wiser.

[Justufy]

It's certainly puzzling me. The only use I can possibly see for it would be in arguing that they are in fact lots of other gods, but that they are somehow sub-ordinate to Allah as evidenced by the fact they do not claim to be Creators of the universe. And a muslim could never make any such claim, of course.. so I'm left none the wiser.

ah ok


(Edited for content)