Simple, logical arguments to prove the existence of God

[crayon]

Ok so.. do we really need background information on this? Don't think so..

So first of all, can the existence of God (any God, no Islam talk yet) or any higher power be logically proven? [I think the problem is that people differ on the definition of 'proof', which causes each side to think they have won the argument, getting us nowhere]

Anyway, can it be logically proven?

What are some simple, logical arguments that support the existence of God/a higher power?

No "Quranic scientific miracle" talk please. And preferably nothing related to Islam either- just the existence of God in general.

It would be much appreciated, jazakum Allah khair. The sooner the better. :)

[Uthman]

:salamext:

That this universe has been created by an intelligent being isn't as irrational a position as many atheists and agnostics would have you believe. It is possible to, at most prove, and at least make a very strong case for the existence of a creator through the use of logical arguments.

Some of the arguments include:

- The argument from objective morality
- Design as the only reasonable explanation of a life-permitting universe
- The cosmological argument (there is also a slight variation known as the Kalam Cosmological argument).
- The ontological argument

I'll present the outline of them here but I won't substantiate them at this point because I don't have time. If you want me to explain some of them in further detail, let me know. Hamza Andreas Tzortzis and Adam Deen have written some excellent articles explaining some of these on their blogs which can be found here and here. I highly recommend reading them.

The argument from Objective Morality

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist;
2. The universe with objective moral values does exist;
3. Therefore, God exists.

Design as the only reasonable explanation of a life-permitting universe

1. The fine-tuning of the universe to permit life can be due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

The Cosmological argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The Ontological argument

This argument takes a very unique approach by basically saying that God exists by definition. It can be quite hard to get your head around it at first but when you ponder on it, it does make some sort of sense. I'm paraphrasing from what I remember here:

1. By definition, God is the greatest conceivable entity that could possibly exist
2. If God only exists in the mind (and not in reality), then such a God is not the greatest conceivable entity (because a greater entity would be a God that exists in reality)
3. Therefore God, by definition, exists in reality.

Needless to say, the ontological argument hasn't converted any atheists to theism (as far as I'm aware).

Generally, the approach of Western philosophy to proving the existence of a creator has been such that the arguments are not easily understandable to the layman. The arguments can be extremely complicated and they don't tend to prove a great deal. Furthermore, some of the arguments have negative ramifications about God himself which isn't acceptable for us as Muslims.

Of course, it isn't necessary to construct complicated theorems to prove the existence of a creator and the Islamic approach to proving the existence of God is a testament to this. The Islamic approach does not suffer from the deficiencies of the traditional Western approach (as outlined above). Maybe we could discuss Islamic methods next.

[crayon]

^Perfect, exactly what I was looking for. Jazak Allah so much khair. I'll probably look more into those arguments you mentioned, particularly in the blog posts, so unless I have any specific questions, you don't need to explain any of them further.

"Maybe we could discuss Islamic methods next."

That would be brilliant.

[CosmicPathos]

I was reading an argument from design regarding the distance between the Earth and the moon. If we bring the moon close to Earth now as it probably was in the past because the Moon was created from the Earth and moved away into its own orbit, chaos will ensue on Earth. Life would vanish.

The atheists counter-argue that of course chaos will ensue. But that is because we are damaging an already established system. The system could have evolved differently, lets say if the moon was closer to Earth than it is now, if life were to emerge, it could have in an entirely new set of conditions where Earth's day would be 7 hours long (due to nearness of moon to Earth, Earth's rotation speed would increased) etc. So the assumption in this case is that life "could have" emerged in a totally different set of settings. And that is how we can explain the crazy impetus behind the search for life in the extra-solar planets found so far so that it can be proven that life can emerge in totally non-Earth like setting. What implications it has for God? It could show that life is not unique after all and hence God-explanation is not needed.

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

[noorseeker]

For a human being to exist , we need air to exist, hence we need trees to exist, hence we need water and sunlight, hence we need the sun to exist, hence we need the universe to exist.

So looking at it the way i put it above, or you can find other examples,
Its hard to believe everything was created by chance, if one of those examples was missing from the chain, we wouldnt be here.


Imagine a world with no animals or humans, ask yourself this, would their still be trees bearing fruits, and the lands bearing vegetables.

[CosmicPathos]

For a human being to exist , we need air to exist, hence we need trees to exist, hence we need water and sunlight, hence we need the sun to exist, hence we need the universe to exist.

So looking at it the way i put it above, or you can find other examples,
Its hard to believe everything was created by chance, if one of those examples was missing from the chain, we wouldnt be here.


Imagine a world with no animals or humans, ask yourself this, would their still be trees bearing fruits, and the lands bearing vegetables.

There could be, an atheist would say, as life could have taken different forms.

[noorseeker]

it could take different forms, but life needs things to sustain it

[Trumble]

Anyway, can it be logically proven?

Not so far, although it can't be logically disproven either. Still, people have only been trying for the last two thousand years or so, so it might be a bit early to give up! Uthman has summarized the arguments nicely, although they all have responses - and if you actually intend to present any of those arguments yourself I strongly recommend that you become aquainted with those as well or else you will get 'shot down' pretty much instantly by any passing philosophically minded atheist. And there are responses to the responses, and responses to the responses to... and so on, and so on, just as with the principal 'classical' argument for atheism, the 'problem of evil'.

Probably just as well, think of all the philosophers of religion who would be out of a job if such a logical proof DID come along. :statisfie

[tango92]

for me the simplest proof was, God exists because he told us so.

as far as i know all human civilisations had there god/s who they worshipped. even if the peoples had thought up God as some kind of concept they wouldnt have started worshipping him for no reason.

furthermore we are lucky in this time and age to have high historical knowledge. we know that there have been many (an atheist would say "self proclaimed") prophets of God.
now see a person doesnt just wake up one day and decide "im going to invent a new religion which just so happens to share the same values as the religions before me even though i dont know of all the other world religions" . and have that religion acepted by their people without some kind of truth behind it.

[titus]

im going to invent a new religion which just so happens to share the same values as the religions before me even though i dont know of all the other world religions

If you are referring to your Prophet, he was quite familiar with Christianity, Judaism and pagan religions.

[Uthman]

Regarding Islamic methods:

If you look through the Qur'an, you might notice that it doesn't spend a great deal of time addressing people who don't believe in the existence of God. Sheikh Yasir Qadhi calls this "the Qur'anic methodology for dealing with atheism." The Qur'an, Sheikh Yasir says, assumes the existence of God to be an indisputable, self-evident given. When the Qur'an does address atheists though, it's arguments are extremely powerful. There was an excellent Al-Maghrib seminar on 'Aqeedah which he gave where he spent some time talking about this but I can't find that online so the following video will do to summarise the Islamic approach:

Media Tags are no longer supported

He talks about such things the creation itself as a proof and the Fitrah amongst other things.


I also want to talk a little about the miraculous nature of the Qur'an. This is very useful for us as Muslims because it proves the following two things:

- That God exists
- That the Qur'an is a revelation from Allah

Historically, it was only the second point that really mattered but, in the modern world, atheism has risen to unprecedented levels so we can also now use the Qur'an to prove the existence of God.

But how is the Qur'an a miracle? Again, I'll have to very briefly skim over it but perhaps other members who have studied this topic will have time to explain it in detail.

There are several aspects to the miraculous nature of the Qur'an but primarily it is a literary miracle. Hamza Tzortzis made an excellent website dedicated to explaining the literary aspect (and the objective nature thereof) of the Qur'an's miraculous nature which can be found here. There are a variety of pdf documents on the website which you can access by clicking 'view' under each category. He has also written extensively about it on his blog (which I linked to previously).

Sheikh Yasir Qadhi also has a chapter in his book An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an about the miraculous nature of the Qur'an. If you haven't read this book, it's definitely worth purchasing. In it, he talks about the literary aspect as well as other aspects such as prophecies (which are clear and specific) and the fact that the Qur'an contains information about previous nations which Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) had no recourse to. And yes, there can be no denying that Qur'an as a scientific miracle is one such aspect as well.

Finally, Abdur Raheem Green spends some time talking about this in his series The Proof that Islam is the truth which can be found online here.

I urge all Muslims to study this topic because unfortunately it is all too common for Muslims these days to be ignorant of it which means that they have to base their belief in Islam on faith alone which is shaky. Studying the miraculous nature of the Qur'an allows us to base our belief in Islam on proof which is a much more solid foundation.

[Lynx]

Ok so.. do we really need background information on this? Don't think so..

So first of all, can the existence of God (any God, no Islam talk yet) or any higher power be logically proven? [I think the problem is that people differ on the definition of 'proof', which causes each side to think they have won the argument, getting us nowhere]

Anyway, can it be logically proven?

What are some simple, logical arguments that support the existence of God/a higher power?

No "Quranic scientific miracle" talk please. And preferably nothing related to Islam either- just the existence of God in general.

It would be much appreciated, jazakum Allah khair. The sooner the better. :)

Well there are attempts to prove God logically. When you say logical proof then you are talking about a specific definition where the conclusion follows necessarily from true premises/set of assumptions. Uthman outlined the basic ones but remember that each argument has tons of variants.

I should point out though that most philosophers have rejected all arguments so far so you should look up the counters to every argument.

http://plato.stanford.edu/
You can search up each proof in this site and you'll get a history of all the variants and counter-arguments.

and Uthman is quite right in pointing out that accepting some of the arguments would involve severely changing one's definition of God as found in a particular religion, especially Islam.

[Skavau]

The argument from Objective Morality

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist;
2. The universe with objective moral values does exist;
3. Therefore, God exists.

#2 is a claim made without evidence.

Syllogism collapses.

Design as the only reasonable explanation of a life-permitting universe

1. The fine-tuning of the universe to permit life can be due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Concerning #1: We have to believe that the universe is 'fine-tuned'. Our existence does not necessitate that it must be. For every single human alive, there is a failed species.

#2 and #3 invoke a false dichotomy. Even if our existence is not due to 'physical necessity' or chance, it does not necessitate a designer much less a designer invoked to be a God of sorts.

The Cosmological argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Deceptive argument.

We actually have no idea if the universe is eternal or not (the Big Bang does not describe the beginning of the universe, rather just the universe as we now understand it). This argument is nothing more than speculation.

Irrespectively, the exact same logic can be applied to a God.

The Ontological argument

This argument takes a very unique approach by basically saying that God exists by definition. It can be quite hard to get your head around it at first but when you ponder on it, it does make some sort of sense. I'm paraphrasing from what I remember here:

1. By definition, God is the greatest conceivable entity that could possibly exist
2. If God only exists in the mind (and not in reality), then such a God is not the greatest conceivable entity (because a greater entity would be a God that exists in reality)
3. Therefore God, by definition, exists in reality.

The ontological word game permits fantasy into reality. Anything you perceive or invoke would be of more value, or greater if it was to exist in reality.

Here's a quick parody:
1. By definition, a infinity foot person is the tallest conceivable person that could possibly exist.
2. If this infinity foot person only exists in the mind (and not in reality), then such a person is not the greatest conceivable tallest person (because a taller entity would be a tall person that exists in reality).
3. Therefore an infinity foot person by definitions, exists in reality

^o)

The argument has no concept of what to conceive something actually means.

[tango92]

If you are referring to your Prophet, he was quite familiar with Christianity, Judaism and pagan religions.

did you know him personally? and im not here talking about islam anyway.

all religions arent confined to these 4. do some research on the original teachings on all the religions of the world. the simliarities can be remarkable.

this is despite the "inventors" being far apart in terms of time and distance. and repeating my earlier point, people cant be bullied into accepting a new religion. there is always major adversity when change is imposed suddenly on people. the "inventors" (prophets) of the religions must have had something substantial to show there people in order for there whole religion to be accepted.

[tango92]

.


The ontological word game permits fantasy into reality. Anything you perceive or invoke would be of more value, or greater if it was to exist in reality.

Here's a quick parody:
1. By definition, a infinity foot person is the tallest conceivable person that could possibly exist.
2. If this infinity foot person only exists in the mind (and not in reality), then such a person is not the greatest conceivable tallest person (because a taller entity would be a tall person that exists in reality).
3. Therefore an infinity foot person by definitions, exists in reality

^o)

The argument has no concept of what to conceive something actually means.

this can only work for god, due to the definition of greatest. it mean greatest in every respect.

an infinitely tall person can exist both in the real world and in the mind. neither is taller than the other.
but as for an imaginary god and a real god, the real god is greater in power.

[Skavau]

this can only work for god, due to the definition of greatest. it mean greatest in every respect.

This is an arbitrary distinction.

an infinitely tall person can exist both in the real world and in the mind. neither is taller than the other.
but as for an imaginary god and a real god, the real god is greater in power.

All the Ontological Argument does, is at best state the obvious. Something is greater if it exists in reality. It fails to substantiate the claim that conceiving of the greatest thing possible (something which we have no real objective basis to claim) means that it must exist.

[CosmicPathos]

#2 is a claim made without evidence.

Syllogism collapses.


Concerning #1: We have to believe that the universe is 'fine-tuned'. Our existence does not necessitate that it must be. For every single human alive, there is a failed species.

#2 and #3 invoke a false dichotomy. Even if our existence is not due to 'physical necessity' or chance, it does not necessitate a designer much less a designer invoked to be a God of sorts.


Deceptive argument.

We actually have no idea if the universe is eternal or not (the Big Bang does not describe the beginning of the universe, rather just the universe as we now understand it). This argument is nothing more than speculation.

Irrespectively, the exact same logic can be applied to a God.


The ontological word game permits fantasy into reality. Anything you perceive or invoke would be of more value, or greater if it was to exist in reality.

Here's a quick parody:
1. By definition, a infinity foot person is the tallest conceivable person that could possibly exist.
2. If this infinity foot person only exists in the mind (and not in reality), then such a person is not the greatest conceivable tallest person (because a taller entity would be a tall person that exists in reality).
3. Therefore an infinity foot person by definitions, exists in reality

^o)

The argument has no concept of what to conceive something actually means.

There are three independent evidences which prove that Universe (matter and time) came into being and that Big Bang explosion is a reality.

1- Cosmic background radiation: the remnant of such an explosion. It can be readily measured. The average temperature of universe is 3K.
2- Red-shift, galaxies are moving away from each other, universe is expanding, by extension, universe started expanding from something.
3- The presence of heavy elements. Within the 3 minutes after Big Bang, we had only 3-4 elements present namely H, He, Li and trace Be. Heavy elements have emerged within stars. Universe is approx 75% hydrogen and 25% He. Everything else is trace.

It is your speculation that universe, as we know it, is eternal. Universe is not eternal. Unless you call the pre-Big Bang ball of infinite matter and density "universe" too. I have not come across any scientist who calls that state before the Big bang a universe.

Since time did not exist before Big Bang, you cannot say that this ball was present eternally. If you do then its your assumption that time existed before Big Bang occurred. Such a ludicrous assumption is a product of chronically-ill and deluded mind.

[tango92]

This is an arbitrary distinction.


All the Ontological Argument does, is at best state the obvious. Something is greater if it exists in reality. It fails to substantiate the claim that conceiving of the greatest thing possible (something which we have no real objective basis to claim) means that it must exist.

not arbitrary as were talking about God as per the definition we apply to him as greatest at everything.

yes something is greater if it exists in reality but something is not taller if it exists in reality. eg i imagine a ruler which is 30 cm long, and i buy a ruler 30cm long. they are both 30cm long. therefore the argument only works with god. i dunno maybe there is another adjective for which it works?

[Skavau]

not arbitrary as were talking about God as per the definition we apply to him as greatest at everything.

The application of the ontological argument is selective. Any concept is greater if it exists in reality. That was what I meant by 'arbitrary'.

yes something is greater if it exists in reality but something is not taller if it exists in reality. eg i imagine a ruler which is 30 cm long, and i buy a ruler 30cm long. they are both 30cm long. therefore the argument only works with god. i dunno maybe there is another adjective for which it works?

Yes, it is taller if it exists in reality. Just as the ontological argument claims that God can only be validly claimed as the 'greatest' if he actually exists. A proposed idea of an 30 foot individual can only be considered the tallest person if he or she actually exists.

The Ontological Argument correctly points out, that yes, for God to be considered the 'greatest being' (a subjective criteria) he must actually exist. The argument however forgoes the natural response that an atheist could make is that our concepts of a God are in error.

[VizierX]

#2 is a claim made without evidence.

Syllogism collapses.

Not really. There is very good reason to think objective values exist. Even you stubbornly behave like objective moral values exist despite your natural atheism (eg. liberty, freedom of thought etc.).

[Trumble]

Not really. There is very good reason to think objective values exist. Even you stubbornly behave like objective moral values exist despite your natural atheism (eg. liberty, freedom of thought etc.).

There is also very good reason to suggest otherwise on the grounds simply that people tend to generally obey certain moral codes as doing so is in society's best interests and hence, ultimately in their own. God isn't required, reason alone will do. Which you may well not accept, of course, but there is no need for the atheist to claim that "#2 is a claim made without evidence", merely that it is made without sufficient evidence, and that there are one or more plausible alternatives. Actually, even 'plausible' isn't strictly necessary if we are talking about a logical proof.. it is merely sufficient to show there are logically possible alternatives.

BTW, since when has 'liberty' been a potentially 'objective' moral value'? I would have thought liberty was about as relative as you can get; a great many people have advocated liberty while having wildly different views about what it actually is!

for me the simplest proof was, God exists because he told us so.

As we are talking logic you are doing what is known as 'begging the question'; your 'proof' that God exists requires that you assume He does before you start!

[Skavau]

Not really. There is very good reason to think objective values exist. Even you stubbornly behave like objective moral values exist despite your natural atheism (eg. liberty, freedom of thought etc.).

But you reject moral reasoning. You've said so yourself to me.

But irrespectively, you are claiming that there is good reason to believe objective values exist. Please show how.

[Skavau]

There are three independent evidences which prove that Universe (matter and time) came into being and that Big Bang explosion is a reality.

I'm not denying the Big Bang.

It is your speculation that universe, as we know it, is eternal. Universe is not eternal. Unless you call the pre-Big Bang ball of infinite matter and density "universe" too. I have not come across any scientist who calls that state before the Big bang a universe.

If you type 'pre-big bang universe' into google, you will find 130,000 search results. There has been a lot of speculation on what was prior to the big bang universe. Much of it is simply speculation and a lot of it fits more into philosophy than it does scientists - but nonetheless, there are lots of people out there that don't just claim there was an absence of existence prior to the Big Bang.

I will expand further here by asking you: Do you think that something eternal must always have existed? As in, was it possible for there to have been absolutely nothing prior to something existing?

[Froggy]

Not really. There is very good reason to think objective values exist. Even you stubbornly behave like objective moral values exist despite your natural atheism (eg. liberty, freedom of thought etc.).

You are correct, certain values, such as being free may exist in every or almost every individual. That however doesn't necessarily mean such values are universal, an independent metaphisical entity or something. Perhaps people value freedom because it's in their instinct. Every higher animal values life, it will try to avoid getting eaten, humans are the same, just more complex, so it includes free thought and being stolen from.
On the other hand, the majority of humans appear to posses certain universal values animals do not, like most people will feel bad when they see a murder, even if they have never met the person. That's empathy, which is a natural state of the human mind and again, certain universal values do not mean they're actually universal.
And as trumble said, most morals is aquired through socail upbringing, even those morals derive from what I talked about above, it comes from us being humans and the weay we are and function.
That's an assumption of course.

[Musliman]

Personally speaking, only the progressions that science has made are quite convincing :)

[waqas maqsood]

Atheism really baffles me..

They don't believe in God because they can't see Him

but they believe theres air and oxygen around us... yet you cannot see it

[aamirsaab]

Atheism really baffles me..

They don't believe in God because they can't see Him

but they believe theres air and oxygen around us... yet you cannot see it

That's not what they argue actually.

[Supreme]

Atheism really baffles me..

They don't believe in God because they can't see Him

but they believe theres air and oxygen around us... yet you cannot see it

It's not because God can't be seen- it's that objective evidence for Him can't be found. Air (and obviously, oxygen), can be measured, and they can easily be proven to be true- deprive something of air, you won't be able to hear soundwaves. Deprive a human of oxygen, they will not be able to breath. God is much harder to prove.

Now, scientific evidence is off the cards for God. Evidence for God can be, and indeed is, entirely subjective. If it wasn't, we would either all be theists or all be atheists. I do not believe in God because I expect His Holy name to pop up in a High School science Textbook in the next few years as opposed to the Big Bang or evolution. I believe in Him because I have found my own evidence for His existence, subjective, although thoroughly convincing.

[zana]

i really dont think they believe in no god i just think they dont want to

[Skavau]

i really dont think they believe in no god i just think they dont want to

That would be anti-theists...

Anyway, I can assure you I don't believe in a God.

[zana]

I meant that some people rather not believe in God the fact that a higher power watches over them and that they will face judgement one day, it may seem easier not to believe.

[barney]

Short answer. No.

If God could be proved to exist , we would all beleive, not need faith and all of us would be spared from the fire.

As it is God is invisible , unknowable, untouchable and when we ask for some sign, it dosnt happen. Our prayers are answered randomly according to the likelyhood of chance, the mighty miracles of legend dont happen anymore in an age of global communication.
The morals of scripture have been far surpassed by mankind many many years ago.
God would need a bigger god to create him.
The list of reasons why he is imaginary is almost endless. the list of reasons why we should hope that he is is Likewise.

[Uthman]

I noticed a few people saying that, if there was proof of God's existence, we would all be theists. I also used to propagate this idea but there is a fundamental flaw in this view: it incorrectly assumes that, if there were proof of God's existence, everybody would be aware of the proof.

[barney]

I noticed a few people saying that, if there was proof of God's existence, we would all be theists. I also used to propagate this idea but there is a fundamental flaw in this view: it incorrectly assumes that, if there were proof of God's existence, everybody would be aware of the proof.

Not an issue. If god wanted to be proven, he could prove himself every day. Five thousand mile high letters of fire in the sky, instantly killing all Kaffir, painting the moon green or splitting it.

The reason he dosnt is either he dosnt want to prove himself, thus leaving the possibility of faith, or he dosnt exist at all.

[Skavau]

I meant that some people rather not believe in God the fact that a higher power watches over them and that they will face judgement one day, it may seem easier not to believe.

I've never understood this line of reasoning. It is often implied by many theists that some people just aren't committed enough to changing their life to appease God. That they value their own self-interest too much. That they find much more comfort in the hedonistic pleasures of this life.

But this does not make sense. For someone who values their own self-interest above everything else, believing in a theistic rendition of God would make much more sense than not due to the material benefits promised in the afterlife. That is to say that the potential for gain for a hedonist is much greater in an afterlife than it is on earth.

[Ramadhan]

That would be anti-theists...

Anyway, I can assure you I don't believe in a God.

so you don't believe that the universe may have been created by a infinite intelligent being?

Frankly, I just think atheists are allergic to the word "god".

[CosmicPathos]

Short answer. No.

If God could be proved to exist , we would all beleive, not need faith and all of us would be spared from the fire.

As it is God is invisible , unknowable, untouchable and when we ask for some sign, it dosnt happen. Our prayers are answered randomly according to the likelyhood of chance, the mighty miracles of legend dont happen anymore in an age of global communication.
The morals of scripture have been far surpassed by mankind many many years ago.
God would need a bigger god to create him.
The list of reasons why he is imaginary is almost endless. the list of reasons why we should hope that he is is Likewise.

You would come up with godless naturalistic explanations for those occurrences too.

[Pygoscelis]

Anyway, can it be logically proven?

If it could be proved by logic you wouldn't need faith. It can not be proved by mere logic. Perhaps by logic given a certain set of assumptions (usually leading to a circular argument of one sort or another).

[Pygoscelis]

i really dont think they believe in no god i just think they dont want to

You run into this idea every now and then on these boards and I can understand where it comes from. I used to believe the opposite (for many years), that nobody truly believes in a God and that people just pretend to for the communal feelings and cultural norms. Only later did I realize people actually *DO* believe in these Gods. It scared me a little when I realized this.

I still believe a LOT, perhaps even the majority of god believers are not so sure in their beleifs. I sometimes like to test some of them. For example find somebody who believes that the end of the world is nigh, and "knows" that the rapture will come by such and such a date. Offer them $500 today for them to deed you all their stuff after that so called end of the world date they believe in so strongly. If the date is true, it'd be foolish of them not to agree. But they won't... because they don't actually truly believe what they claim to.

There is a funny group of folks who go around offering these people pet insurance, saying they'll rescue and care for their pets after they are raptured for $x today. Another great idea. Don't they want their pets cared for? Yet, suprise!, nobody goes for it. Because they are only pretending to believe.

[CosmicPathos]

You run into this idea every now and then on these boards and I can understand where it comes from. I used to believe the opposite (for many years), that nobody truly believes in a God and that people just pretend to for the communal feelings and cultural norms. Only later did I realize people actually *DO* believe in these Gods. It scared me a little when I realized this.

I still believe a LOT, perhaps even the majority of god believers are not so sure in their beleifs. I sometimes like to test some of them. For example find somebody who believes that the end of the world is nigh, and "knows" that the rapture will come by such and such a date. Offer them $500 today for them to deed you all their stuff after that so called end of the world date they believe in so strongly. If the date is true, it'd be foolish of them not to agree. But they won't... because they don't actually truly believe what they claim to.

There is a funny group of folks who go around offering these people pet insurance, saying they'll rescue and care for their pets after they are raptured for $x today. Another great idea. Don't they want their pets cared for? Yet, suprise!, nobody goes for it. Because they are only pretending to believe.

A nice little nifty experiment. I am afraid it does not apply to Muslims though unless someone is lying. Lying would automatically make his position of being a Muslim weak (from Islamic perspective). So your experiment on a Muslim, who is lying, would not represent the behaviors of "real" Muslims.

[barney]

You run into this idea every now and then on these boards and I can understand where it comes from. I used to believe the opposite (for many years), that nobody truly believes in a God and that people just pretend to for the communal feelings and cultural norms. Only later did I realize people actually *DO* believe in these Gods. It scared me a little when I realized this.

I still believe a LOT, perhaps even the majority of god believers are not so sure in their beleifs. I sometimes like to test some of them. For example find somebody who believes that the end of the world is nigh, and "knows" that the rapture will come by such and such a date. Offer them $500 today for them to deed you all their stuff after that so called end of the world date they believe in so strongly. If the date is true, it'd be foolish of them not to agree. But they won't... because they don't actually truly believe what they claim to.

There is a funny group of folks who go around offering these people pet insurance, saying they'll rescue and care for their pets after they are raptured for $x today. Another great idea. Don't they want their pets cared for? Yet, suprise!, nobody goes for it. Because they are only pretending to believe.

Rapture Ready Pets would prove that not a universal Pygo.

A group of atheists charge $59 a year to insure pets will be looked after post-rapture. They state that once the trib happens they will collect the pet from any mainland US address and look after it. They affirm their members are all fully fleged atheists who will definatly be left behind post rap.

They have made a nice little earner out of it.:hmm:

[Skavau]

so you don't believe that the universe may have been created by a infinite intelligent being?

It might have been. There is no overly persuasive reason to believe that it was and we have no empirical evidence that it was.

Frankly, I just think atheists are allergic to the word "god".

What does that even mean?

[Uthman]

Just as advice to Brothers and Sisters, please don't spend ages and ages debating the existence of God with atheists. In accordance with the "Qur'anic methodology" which I spoke about here, you should spend no more than a few minutes presenting your argument and then move on to do something more worthwhile.

Let me remind you that, as far as Islam is concerned, the "issue" of the existence of a creator is really a non-issue. It's self-evident. It's a given. It's part of our Fitrah. Look around you. Look at the beauty of the universe - the magnificence of the sun as it sets, the planets, the stars. Look at your own selves and the complexity of your own bodies. As Ibn Taymiyyah once said, how does one set about proving the existence of a being, for which everything proves it's existence? The only thing that isn't intuitively obvious is the exact nature of this creator and his attributes (such as benevolence) and for that we need revelation. The final, uncorrupted revelation which was sent to the whole of mankind is the Qur'an. How do we prove that the Qur'an is a revelation from God? By demonstrating it's miraculous nature. In the process, you will also have implicitly proven the existence of God which is relevant if you happen to be presenting your argument to an atheist (as opposed to say, a theist who belongs to another religion).

Atheism has been around for a long time, but interestingly, the rise of atheism as something serious and intellectual is a more recent phenomenon than you might think. The first publication of atheistic thought in the English language was written by Percy Shelley who died as 'recently' as 1822.

No offence to any atheists or agnostics reading by the way. Feel free to reply to this post, but I'm not really interested in a debate.

[Pygoscelis]

The first publication of atheistic thought in the English language was written by Percy Shelley who died as 'recently' as 1822.

I'm doubtful it was the first. It may have been the first widespread and well read, and for good reason. Before around that time they used to kill people for blasphemy and burn witches and other infidels at the stake. This is sort of like when Ahmadinejad said there are no homosexuals in Iran. There are plenty. They just don't want to be slaughtered so they are in the closet.

[barney]

Agree with Pygo.

Although many theists are happy to die for their faith. Atheists, knowing that we have one life, are more reluctant wasting it defending their beleif, because, at the end of the day, it really dosnt matter.

Atheists are certainly more outspoken in this century, buts that due to Theism rocketing the world to its destruction, over who's invisible deity is more mighty.

[Musliman]

I'm doubtful it was the first. It may have been the first widespread and well read, and for good reason. Before around that time they used to kill people for blasphemy and burn witches and other infidels at the stake. This is sort of like when Ahmadinejad said there are no homosexuals in Iran. There are plenty. They just don't want to be slaughtered so they are in the closet.

LGBT people make up generally approximately 10% of any population, we cannot say they exist there and not there, or whatever, this is a general estimate ;)

[Supreme]

LGBT people make up generally approximately 10% of any population, we cannot say they exist there and not there, or whatever, this is a general estimate ;)

I can assure you, gay people make up far less than 10% of the population, They make up 1% at most, if that.

[Froggy]

Just as advice to Brothers and Sisters, please don't spend ages and ages debating the existence of God with atheists. In accordance with the "Qur'anic methodology" which I spoke about here, you should spend no more than a few minutes presenting your argument and then move on to do something more worthwhile.

Let me remind you that, as far as Islam is concerned, the "issue" of the existence of a creator is really a non-issue. It's self-evident. It's a given. It's part of our Fitrah. Look around you. Look at the beauty of the universe - the magnificence of the sun as it sets, the planets, the stars. Look at your own selves and the complexity of your own bodies. As Ibn Taymiyyah once said, how does one set about proving the existence of a being, for which everything proves it's existence? The only thing that isn't intuitively obvious is the exact nature of this creator and his attributes (such as benevolence) and for that we need revelation. The final, uncorrupted revelation which was sent to the whole of mankind is the Qur'an. How do we prove that the Qur'an is a revelation from God? By demonstrating it's miraculous nature. In the process, you will also have implicitly proven the existence of God which is relevant if you happen to be presenting your argument to an atheist (as opposed to say, a theist who belongs to another religion).

Atheism has been around for a long time, but interestingly, the rise of atheism as something serious and intellectual is a more recent phenomenon than you might think. The first publication of atheistic thought in the English language was written by Percy Shelley who died as 'recently' as 1822.

No offence to any atheists or agnostics reading by the way. Feel free to reply to this post, but I'm not really interested in a debate.

As science progressed, more people thought the existence can be expšlained using natural methods. Before major breakthroughs in physics and biology an atheist simply couldn't argue with a theist and propably woulnd't have a reason to argue.

[tango92]

a home grown African doesnt know that there is land outside the shores of his continent.

with human civilisation being so intwined with the concept and nature of God follows that this (coherent) information must have come from somewhere. in this case only God can reveal that info.

[Sampharo]

Just as advice to Brothers and Sisters, please don't spend ages and ages debating the existence of God with atheists. In accordance with the "Qur'anic methodology" which I spoke about here, you should spend no more than a few minutes presenting your argument and then move on to do something more worthwhile.....

Barakallahu Feek and Jazaka Khairan for this post.

It is truly an advice for brothers and sisters to take notably and understand, that it takes a really high level of self-denial, delibarate discount of overwhelming evidence, and sheer arrogance to arrive at athiesm as a belief. So if you wish to disprove an argument or too, that is fine, but there is no need to indulge their rediculously silly debates that is just too devoid of common sense and sincerity to bother.

As science progressed, more people thought the existence can be expšlained using natural methods. Before major breakthroughs in physics and biology an atheist simply couldn't argue with a theist and propably woulnd't have a reason to argue.

As a matter of fact the scientific knowledge present today have done nothing except weaken the theories athiests use to base their belief in chaotic chance existence, and prove more and more previously unexplained facts mentioned in the Quran.

Your very foundation of this debate as in to discuss if you can "prove God exist" is self-contradicting to your entire belief system that is fundamentally based on unproven theories. Athiests are more than happy to point like children at the obvious and say "there's nothing more to it" and call it a theory: "Big bang, natural selection, etc." or take hundred year old assumptions already disproven and push it hard as facts: "evolution, etc.". When challenged for proof, athiests declare "it's a hypothesis and a sound one till now".

However when God is mentioned, the coin is flipped on its back: NO to authentic witness and documentation evidence, NO to logical evidence, NO to argumentative resolutions that have no rebuttal... You only ask for philosophical evidence (an oxymoron by design) or physical evidence (again a hidden self-contradiction), and amazingly you have not a shred of the five types of evidence to support your own beliefs, which are by analysis so nonsensical, it is amazing that any of you are listened to by even the most feeble of minds.

May they one day "grow up", for it is truly a waste.

[Skavau]

Barakallahu Feek and Jazaka Khairan for this post.

It is truly an advice for brothers and sisters to take notably and understand, that it takes a really high level of self-denial, delibarate discount of overwhelming evidence, and sheer arrogance to arrive at athiesm as a belief. So if you wish to disprove an argument or too, that is fine, but there is no need to indulge their rediculously silly debates that is just too devoid of common sense and sincerity to bother.

Perhaps, if at any point you were to bother to look up the definition of atheism you would learn that it is not necessarily a belief. That it is generally a statement of unbelief.

You, by the way, are in the second part of this rant generalising approximately 20% of the entire planet. You have decreed all atheists as self-delusional and arrogant without a second thought. If I were to do this to Muslims I would rightly be considered at best ignorant - and atheists have even less in common that Muslims have.

For shame.

As a matter of fact the scientific knowledge present today have done nothing except weaken the theories athiests use to base their belief in chaotic chance existence, and prove more and more previously unexplained facts mentioned in the Quran.

Find me a single athiest on the planet who believes in a "chaotic chance existence".

You won't find one.

Your very foundation of this debate as in to discuss if you can "prove God exist" is self-contradicting to your entire belief system that is fundamentally based on unproven theories. Athiests are more than happy to point like children at the obvious and say "there's nothing more to it" and call it a theory: "Big bang, natural selection, etc." or take hundred year old assumptions already disproven and push it hard as facts: "evolution, etc.". When challenged for proof, athiests declare "it's a hypothesis and a sound one till now".

Atheism is not a belief system, it is at best a single belief or claim (there is no God) and at times, and for most it is simply a profession of disbelief.

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution or the origins of the universe. It has everything to do with whether you believe in a God or not.

And, please, can you tell me what "hundred year old assumptions already disproven" that atheists generally push as fact?

However when God is mentioned, the coin is flipped on its back: NO to authentic witness and documentation evidence, NO to logical evidence, NO to argumentative resolutions that have no rebuttal... You only ask for philosophical evidence (an oxymoron by design) or physical evidence (again a hidden self-contradiction), and amazingly you have not a shred of the five types of evidence to support your own beliefs, which are by analysis so nonsensical, it is amazing that any of you are listened to by even the most feeble of minds.

Atheism is not a set of beliefs.

Your insults are noted though. For shame. You mock your own "To teach, to learn" with a passive aggressive and frankly abusive handwaving away of people who disagree on a single point.

[Pygoscelis]

May they one day "grow up", for it is truly a waste.

Part of growing up is discarding fairy tales and fun fantasies your parents taught you, like Santa and the Easter Bunny, and God.

[AhlaamBella]

Part of growing up is discarding fairy tales and fun fantasies your parents taught you, like Santa and the Easter Bunny, and God.

Hardly sounds like a "simple logical argument" to me

[جوري]

Barakallahu Feek and Jazaka Khairan for this post.

It is truly an advice for brothers and sisters to take notably and understand, that it takes a really high level of self-denial, delibarate discount of overwhelming evidence, and sheer arrogance to arrive at athiesm as a belief. So if you wish to disprove an argument or too, that is fine, but there is no need to indulge their rediculously silly debates that is just too devoid of common sense and sincerity to bother.


.

Agreed indeed.. Atheists are capable of one vacuous comment if you have caught it once, what is the point of coming back for more? I think the sadder situation is really for them for wasting their life away on religious forums, firstly not only do they not enjoy their random meaningless lives, but they end up the butt of jokes and repeatedly for inability to carry a jointed adult conversation.. This is just a chance for them to behave like the un-evolved apes they know they are!

6:68 When thou seest men engaged in vain discourse about Our Signs, turn away from them unless they turn to a different theme. If Satan ever makes thee forget, then after recollection, sit not thou in the company of those who do wrong.

:w:

[Sampharo]

Perhaps, if at any point you were to bother to look up the definition of atheism you would learn that it is not necessarily a belief. That it is generally a statement of unbelief.

And the point you seem to be dodging is that their explanation of our existence is still fundamentally belief in the Big Bang, evolution, and natural selection.

However, I like very much that you prefer to declare clearly that athiests SHARE UNBELIEF and have very little shared to actually believe in.

You, by the way, are in the second part of this rant generalising approximately 20% of the entire planet.

Athiests are 7% at best, and reducing. Or were you trying to sneak in all those who write "unreligious" or simply refuse to announce their religion for fear of persecution, agnostics and those whose religions were made up and unrecognized by census bureau, and try to pass them all as athiests? For a group WITHOUT BELIEF and share very little, you were very quick to show solidarity, and still managed to display the typical lack of credibility. I am quite satisfied again.

You have decreed all atheists as self-delusional and arrogant without a second thought. If I were to do this to Muslims I would rightly be considered at best ignorant - and atheists have even less in common that Muslims have.

Muslims beliefs are fundamentally coherent and non-contradicting. A sane person might not believe in it as a whole but they will always utterly fail (as most athiests and others are failing on this forum daily) to find scientific contradictions in the Quran (so some are resorting to fabricating ones that are being exposed diligently as everyone can see)

Athiests fundamentally are contradicting themselves in every single sub category that defines their method of thinking, and are by definition practicing nothing more than attempts at casting doubt, that's all. So yes they are collectively self-dellusional (if they think that self-contradicting non-sense can be turned by argumentative force and misinformation into truth or knowledge or understanding) and arrogant (by fundamental analysis of their methods of communicating with everyone else).

Find me a single athiest on the planet who believes in a "chaotic chance existence".

Close your eyes and point to one, and he would be.

and for most it is simply a profession of disbelief.

And is that something you're actually beaming with pride over?
It doesn't matter that what you claim is disbelief, it is still fundamentally a BELIEF. You BELIEVE there is no God, and BELIEVE that everyone who does got it wrong and should be given the necessary doubts.

Why would you disagree with me then when I said, athiests are self-contradicting?!

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution or the origins of the universe.

No athiest does not subscribe and forcefully propagate evolution. You're only playing again with the whole crappy "we don't believe, we disbelieve".

Like I said before, it is amazing that you think even the feeblest of minds can fall for this rubbish.

You mock your own "To teach, to learn" with a passive aggressive and frankly abusive handwaving away of people who disagree on a single point.

There was nothing passive about my aggression. :) And athiests will receive respect and serious consideration the day they stop their illogical nonsense (which you as an example showed that you cannot see that "it's not belief, it's unbelief" is STILL a belief) and lack of sincerity and mockery in their arguments.

Will not hold my breath. AFter all, as you explained: "it's professional disbelief" so where would the sincerity or desire to understand anything come from.

I actually like this "professional disbelief" thing, it is amazing because it actually came from you as a definition. I would ask that people who ever think about debating athiests thinking that they are actually talking with someone who has a certain idea in mind, to be linked and directed to read this part right there, presented by an athiest in true form, so as to understand where they truly stand and learn that it is useless to debate, for they are "professional disbelievers".

I swear if I was the one who made it up, I could have been told off by the moderators for being too insulting.

Peace

[Musliman]

I can assure you, gay people make up far less than 10% of the population, They make up 1% at most, if that.

Are you serious ? Let's take the US as an example, this is the GLB people estimates , as you can see this ranges from 4.2% to 15.4% in one city only, furthermore it concerns openly homosexual people only, the closeted are not counted. ;)

[Skavau]

And the point you seem to be dodging is that their explanation of our existence is still fundamentally belief in the Big Bang, evolution, and natural selection.

The Raelians are atheistic and do not share the beliefs on the origin of the universe that you claim all atheists agree upon.

However, I like very much that you prefer to declare clearly that athiests SHARE UNBELIEF and have very little shared to actually believe in.

I'm glad it pleases you so. Atheism is really a misnomer. It is not a 'group'. It is just a label we apply to people that do not profess belief in the existence of a God(s).

Athiests are 7% at best, and reducing.

Really? What statistics have you been reading? Almost all census or population statistics on trends in religious adherence suggest that irreligion, non-belief and atheism in general are on a consistent rise.

This is specifically true in many parts of Europe where Atheism, or at least non-religion in general could actually be a majority. I suggest you also click here.

Or were you trying to sneak in all those who write "unreligious" or simply refuse to announce their religion for fear of persecution, agnostics and those whose religions were made up and unrecognized by census bureau, and try to pass them all as athiests?

What are you talking about? Are you living in a parellel universe?

The population of the USA, I think until very recently had labelled atheists as their least trusted minority. In some states where fundamentalism and evangelism are very popular it can be extremely unhealthy to come out and state that you are an atheist (likewise with wicca). If there is any persecution going on preventing people from revealing their beliefs, it is against atheists and not for their favour.

In Europe there is no such persecution problem, and as a result you have much larger figures professing non-belief. Also I should note that many agnostics are also atheist - including myself.

For a group WITHOUT BELIEF and share very little, you were very quick to show solidarity, and still managed to display the typical lack of credibility. I am quite satisfied again.

Solidarity? I am speaking to you, on behalf of no-one else about some of the bigoted comments you made.

Muslims beliefs are fundamentally coherent and non-contradicting. A sane person might not believe in it as a whole but they will always utterly fail (as most athiests and others are failing on this forum daily) to find scientific contradictions in the Quran (so some are resorting to fabricating ones that are being exposed diligently as everyone can see)

I don't believe, in my time on here, I've seen any atheist come onto the forum and fabricate Islamic scripture. I have however, seen many Muslims on here make aggressive and underhanded insulting comments and threads directly at atheists. This is not a trait unique to this forum, or even remotely as bad as I have witnessed in other avenues - but there it remains.

Athiests fundamentally are contradicting themselves in every single sub category that defines their method of thinking, and are by definition practicing nothing more than attempts at casting doubt, that's all. So yes they are collectively self-dellusional (if they think that self-contradicting non-sense can be turned by argumentative force and misinformation into truth or knowledge or understanding) and arrogant (by fundamental analysis of their methods of communicating with everyone else).

This is nothing more than verbal bombasity with no substance.

And, I'm sorry (referencing the part in bold), but are you seriously suggesting that atheists communicate with people in a completely identical manner? That my methods of discussion are exactly the same as every other atheists? You realise most atheists are apathetic to religion, right? That most atheists you might meet on the street and have no idea of their persuasion?

Close your eyes and point to one, and he would be.

I'm waiting for some substance here. Please pinpoint me to a notable atheist that claims that everything is entirely random and chaotic.

And is that something you're actually beaming with pride over?

I like to remind people so often because apparently, everyone likes to forget it. They like to claim atheism is a religion, or a group of people with a series of beliefs. It is not and never was.

I don't beam it with pride, irrespectively.

It doesn't matter that what you claim is disbelief, it is still fundamentally a BELIEF. You BELIEVE there is no God, and BELIEVE that everyone who does got it wrong and should be given the necessary doubts.

No I don't.

I do not claim there is no God. I am merely unconvinced of the positive claim that a God must exist. I do not outright contend that all possible deities do not and cannot exist.

Go and observe the difference between strong and weak atheism.

No athiest does not subscribe and forcefully propagate evolution. You're only playing again with the whole crappy "we don't believe, we disbelieve".

Raelians.

The biological theory of evolution has nothing to do with atheism. To claim evolution is true has nothing to do with whether a God exists or not. The exact same is for the Big Bang. That was my point.

There are millions of theists that accept both evolution and the Big Bang.

There was nothing passive about my aggression. And athiests will receive respect and serious consideration the day they stop their illogical nonsense (which you as an example showed that you cannot see that "it's not belief, it's unbelief" is STILL a belief) and lack of sincerity and mockery in their arguments.

How is lacking a belief in any sense of the word the same as a belief? Doesn't that claim completely null the meaning of the word unbelief?

I actually like this "professional disbelief" thing, it is amazing because it actually came from you as a definition. I would ask that people who ever think about debating athiests thinking that they are actually talking with someone who has a certain idea in mind, to be linked and directed to read this part right there, presented by an athiest in true form, so as to understand where they truly stand and learn that it is useless to debate, for they are "professional disbelievers".

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Certainly nothing that I said.

[Danah]

Although many theists are happy to die for their faith. Atheists, knowing that we have one life, are more reluctant wasting it defending their beleif, because, at the end of the day, it really dosnt matter.

Interesting!
I am not here to debate, but this line of yours barney caught my attention.
Is it really not matter to you? You have one life, no more chance...suppose you live that whole one life and at the end you realized that all what you believed in was a lie and you are in front of God at the day of Judgment! will it still be not matter to you?

I am not expecting a long post from you, a simple yes or no with short paragraph is enough here.

[Musliman]

Interesting!
I am not here to debate, but this line of yours barney caught my attention.
Is it really not matter to you? You have one life, no more chance...suppose you live that whole one life and at the end you realized that all what you believed in was a lie and you are in front of God at the day of Judgment! will it still be not matter to you?

I am not expecting a long post from you, a simple yes or no with short paragraph is enough here.

Exactly, each individual on earth has only one chance, imagine that day, you'll be in front of Allah, the Supreme and the Greatest and you'll find out that truth came beside you and you decided to ignore it. Al hamdoulillah, Allah is very merciful, he can forgive anything except Asshirk, you ought to take it into consideration, and may Allah guide you :)

[Supreme]

Are you serious ? Let's take the US as an example, this is the GLB people estimates , as you can see this ranges from 4.2% to 15.4% in one city only, furthermore it concerns openly homosexual people only, the closeted are not counted. ;)

One city is far too unreliable. It could be a heavily gay city, like Brighton, or it could have very few gay people in. Nevertheless, the gene for homosexuality is naturally rare- if it weren't, procreation would be a very ineffient task indeed.

[Musliman]

One city is far too unreliable. It could be a heavily gay city, like Brighton, or it could have very few gay people in. Nevertheless, the gene for homosexuality is naturally rare- if it weren't, procreation would be a very ineffient task indeed.

Definitely, but no one can know the exact percentage of the sexual orientation orientations, because as I said there are many closeted or "non-assuming" people, and it varies from one region,/city to another. But if you check on the net you'll find that the LGBT proportion is of almost 10% of the world, that's just to correct your estimate :)

[CosmicPathos]

One city is far too unreliable. It could be a heavily gay city, like Brighton, or it could have very few gay people in. Nevertheless, the gene for homosexuality is naturally rare- if it weren't, procreation would be a very ineffient task indeed.

I doubt there is a "gay gene" in the first place.

[Froggy]

I doubt there is a "gay gene" in the first place.

So do I. I know two gays who both have straight identical twins.

[Pygoscelis]

Interesting!
I am not here to debate, but this line of yours barney caught my attention.
Is it really not matter to you? You have one life, no more chance...suppose you live that whole one life and at the end you realized that all what you believed in was a lie and you are in front of God at the day of Judgment! will it still be not matter to you?

I am not expecting a long post from you, a simple yes or no with short paragraph is enough here.

I would be shocked if I died and went to some sort of afterlife. I would be double shocked if there was a God. I would be triple shocked if that God was one of the ones people here on earth advocate for. But I do not claim it would be impossible. Just extremely unlikely (invisible aliens may be standing next to me right now too).

That said, if I did appear before a God that judged me as deserving of punishment for not believing in him (rather than say for killing people or something) I would not respect that sort of tyrant God and would stand against him anyway.

[AhlaamBella]

I would be shocked if I died and went to some sort of afterlife. I would be double shocked if there was a God. I would be triple shocked if that God was one of the ones people here on earth advocate for. But I do not claim it would be impossible. Just extremely unlikely (invisible aliens may be standing next to me right now too).

That said, if I did appear before a God that judged me as deserving of punishment for not believing in him (rather than say for killing people or something) I would not respect that sort of tyrant God and would stand against him anyway.

Good luck with that ;D

If at that point you have realised there is a God, what power do you possibly possess that is capable of standing against God?

What amuses me is how people use the word God without actually comprehending what that actually means. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that He doesn't exist - then you can come out with big talk about standing against him

[جوري]

Good luck with that ;D

If at that point you have realised there is a God, what power do you possibly possess that is capable of standing against God?

What amuses me is how people use the word God without actually comprehending what that actually means. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that He doesn't exist - then you can come out with big talk about standing against him

I was about to say the same thing Wallah, but figured it isn't worth it..
as per my other post:
You must remember that atheists aren't very evolved.. in the evolutionary scale, they are still stuck back at ape.. so they have monolithic unrefined beliefs.

to condemn an act = hate for the individual
refined morals = need to look for a loophole to make degenerate behavior more acceptable
beliefs in things that are beyond scientific explanations = fairy-tales
good-manners= antiquated social graces
folks dismissing them for their incessant vulgarity= they are logical and others just can't deal with it..

the faster you reach this conclusion the better off you'll feel!

[Pygoscelis]

If at that point you have realised there is a God, what power do you possibly possess that is capable of standing against God?

If he's all powerful, then clearly I would have no power to oppose him. I'd be like a citizen of North Korea. But so long as I had free will I could defy him in some way or another. Of course he may take that away too.

Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that He doesn't exist - then you can come out with big talk about standing against him

I can't disprove God anymore than I can disprove the forementioned invisible aliens standing beside me (or the IPU, flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot, etc). Not being able to disprove an untestable claim isn't any reason to think it remotely likely to be true.

[AhlaamBella]

If he's all powerful, then clearly I would have no power to oppose him. I'd be like a citizen of North Korea. But so long as I had free will I could defy him in some way or another. Of course he may take that away too.

So basically your screwed.

I can't disprove God anymore than I can disprove the forementioned invisible aliens standing beside me (or the IPU, flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot, etc). Not being able to disprove an untestable claim isn't any reason to think it remotely likely to be true.

So again, you're screwed. You can't disprove it - Quit your arrogant big talk.

[Skavau]

Interesting!
I am not here to debate, but this line of yours barney caught my attention.
Is it really not matter to you?

Look at it from your own perspective. I doubt you hold the truth-claims of Sikhism or Taoism to much importance. I doubt that the claims of Judaism or Scientology mean much to you, nor either the prospect that what if they are true?

You have one life, no more chance...suppose you live that whole one life and at the end you realized that all what you believed in was a lie and you are in front of God at the day of Judgment! will it still be not matter to you?

Ultimately, if you are sincere and realistic you can only shape your life on what you hold to be true and valuable. You hold Islam to be true and valuable and as of such the claims of its divinity make sense to you and need to be observed. An atheist does not share these views. I have no reason from my perspective to fear the prospect of a judgment by Allah in an afterlife anymore than I do the judgment of Yahweh.

Questions like these often asked make no coherent sense because they assume implicitly that belief is arbitrary. People can only act sincerely.

[Skavau]

Good luck with that ;D

If at that point you have realised there is a God, what power do you possibly possess that is capable of standing against God?

This isn't the point.

Pygo never claimed that he would have any power against an omnipotent being. He stated a moral opposition against a being that would support and implement thought-crime. I would also, if given the opportunity or allowed the strength voice my opposition against such a being.

Power does not equal morality. Strength does not dictate righteousness.

What amuses me is how people use the word God without actually comprehending what that actually means. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that He doesn't exist- then you can come out with big talk about standing against him

You understand what the burden of proof is? You also, I hope understand that negatives cannot be disproven? That is to say I can no more disprove God that you can disprove Thor, or Zeus.

[Skavau]

I was about to say the same thing Wallah, but figured it isn't worth it..
as per my other post:
You must remember that atheists aren't very evolved.. in the evolutionary scale, they are still stuck back at ape.. so they have monolithic unrefined beliefs.

Replace the word 'atheist' here with any ethnicity, or any religious belief and I suspect the moderators would deal with you.

[Trumble]

Atheism has been around for a long time, but interestingly, the rise of atheism as something serious and intellectual is a more recent phenomenon than you might think. The first publication of atheistic thought in the English language was written by Percy Shelley who died as 'recently' as 1822.

Hardly. Hume's writing, for example, is full of barely disguised 'atheistic thought' and his atheism was widely acknowledged even at the time, although he never openly actually admitted it being bright enough to know that was a lousy idea from the point of view of self-preservation. Even so he was still charged with heresy, which despite being acquitted still seriously damaged his academic career.

[جوري]

Replace the word 'atheist' here with any ethnicity, or any religious belief and I suspect the moderators would deal with you.

Pls. refrain from replaying to members with incoherent thoughts..It wastes web-space.. also, do remind yourself that you're on an Islamic board which makes you a guest here, so I'd familiarize myself with host/guest n/etiquette before I type!

all the best!

[AhlaamBella]

This isn't the point.

Pygo never claimed that he would have any power against an omnipotent being. He stated a moral opposition against a being that would support and implement thought-crime. I would also, if given the opportunity or allowed the strength voice my opposition against such a being.

Power does not equal morality. Strength does not dictate righteousness.

Firstly, I didn't say he said he had the power. I was clearly pointing out that he would need power to accompany the comments he was spewing.

You understand what the burden of proof is? You also, I hope understand that negatives cannot be disproven? That is to say I can no more disprove God that you can disprove Thor, or Zeus.

Ah but my proof of God and the authenticity of the Qur'an disproves the existence of Thor or Zeus. what you got?

[Skavau]

Firstly, I didn't say he said he had the power. I was clearly pointing out that he would need power to accompany the comments he was spewing.

Yes, but the essence of Pygo's point was that if God was to demand, on pain of torture that he be glorified and worshipped - then he does not and is not deserving of worship.

Ah but my proof of God and the authenticity of the Qur'an disproves the existence of Thor or Zeus. what you got?

I can't help but be reminded of Evangelical Christians (The Bible says it so I believe it) retorts with this comment.

Nonetheless, you believe that the authenticity of the Qu'ran disproves the existence of Thor and Zeus. In order for me to agree with those claims I would first have to accept the divinity of the Qu'ran first. I don't.

[AhlaamBella]

That reminds me. Have you read the Qur'an cover to cover?

[Skavau]

Pls. refrain from replaying to members with incoherent thoughts..It wastes web-space.. also, do remind yourself that you're on an Islamic board which makes you a guest here, so I'd familiarize myself with host/guest n/etiquette before I type!

all the best!

I am very well aware I am on an Islamic Forum. I don't believe that insulting and hateful comments about people based on what they don't believe is at all becoming of this forum either. You do a great disservice to the mature members on here that despite my disagreements with them, come across as polite, sincere and well-meaning.

I would, and have said the same about atheists making insulting remarks about theists and making what would be considered a hate-speech against theists. I say the same to you. Your remarks about atheists in this thread are nothing less that than direct insults that would not be acceptable in any other form.

[جوري]

I am very well aware I am on an Islamic Forum.

Good!

I don't believe that insulting and hateful comments about people based on what they don't believe is at all becoming of this forum either. You do a great disservice to the mature members on here that despite my disagreements with them, come across as polite, sincere and well-meaning.

How is defining what an atheist is by terms they find endearing insulting? You do believe you evolved from apes? you do make your own principles and ethics rejecting those of religion? I'd think you'd be flattered that it is all laid out on the table, so neither party wastes the other' time and I frankly feel an atheist on this forum for that many years holding on to their beliefs is a waste of everyone's time!

I would, and have said the same about atheists making insulting remarks about theists and making what would be considered a hate-speech against theists. I say the same to you. Your remarks about atheists in this thread are nothing less that than direct insults that would not be acceptable in any other form.

I find your speech (collectively) not only hateful to far more important things than mere humans, but disrespectful with no semblance of common sense, respect or decency, and again, calling it like it is hardly qualifies it as hate speech.

Again, so we are not wasting each others' time try to compose a cohesive thought before you write or refrain from pouncing on every member who isn't even addressing you by their remarks!

all the best

[Skavau]

How is defining what an atheist is by terms they find endearing insulting? You do believe you evolved from apes? you do make your own principles and ethics rejecting those of religion? I'd think you'd be flattered that it is all laid out on the table, so neither party wastes the other' time and I frankly feel an atheist on this forum for that many years holding on to their beliefs is a waste of everyone's time!

You know exactly what I mean. You're playing dumb. You meant the term 'unevolved apes' to be hateful and derogative in manner.

I find your speech (collectively) not only hateful to far more important things than mere humans, but disrespectful with no semblance of common sense, respect or decency, and again, calling it like it is hardly qualifies it as hate speech.

This paragraph is nothing more than an insincere justification for hateful remarks.

Again, so we are not wasting each others' time try to compose a cohesive thought before you write or refrain from pouncing on every member who isn't even addressing you by their remarks!

all the best

I suspect if someone was to insinuate or insult all Muslims you would reply in a negative way. And you would have every right to.

[جوري]

You know exactly what I mean. You're playing dumb. You meant the term 'unevolved apes' to be hateful and derogative in manner.

No, I don't know what you mean.. my response is direct result of your collective communications!

This paragraph is nothing more than an insincere justification for hateful remarks.

I don't view them as hateful, I find them fitting and justified!

I suspect if someone was to insinuate or insult all Muslims you would reply in a negative way. And you would have every right to.

You constantly insult Islam and Muslims and aren't given a mere slap on the wrist.. I wonder why when folks paint atheism for what it actually is and stands for without florid terms you get all uptight and unhappy? Are you ashamed of what you are? a product of an ancestral ape who doesn't know why incest or pederasty are view as an abomination?

give me a break mac.. go cry to the atheists on the dawkins forums on your woes here.. I hardly pass a post there that refers to theists without an F word!

all the best

[Skavau]

You constantly insult Islam and Muslims and aren't given a mere slap on the wrist..

No I don't.

I wonder why when folks paint atheism for what it actually is and stands for without florid terms you get all uptight and unhappy?

That's not what you were doing. Here is the direct quotation:

"You must remember that atheists aren't very evolved.. in the evolutionary scale, they are still stuck back at ape.. so they have monolithic unrefined beliefs."

You must believe me to be incredibly naive to assume you meant that as some form of factual analysis. You were using the term 'unevolved ape' to atheists in order to imply that we were mentally inferior, animalistic, barbaric, or possibly even in inhumane. You were not using it to describe the fact that most atheists generally accept the claims of the biological theory of evolution.

The context speaks volumes to that.

give me a break mac.. go cry to the atheists on the dawkins forums on your woes here.. I hardly pass a post there that refers to theists without an F word!

By all means, feel free to begin insulting people based on their beliefs. If the forum allows that, then that's fine. However, I would like to think that it doesn't.

[جوري]

No I don't.

Yes you do!

That's not what you were doing. Here is the direct quotation:

"You must remember that atheists aren't very evolved.. in the evolutionary scale, they are still stuck back at ape.. so they have monolithic unrefined beliefs."

I stand by that comment, I acknowledged it, you don't need to re-quote I am aware of what I wrote and it is indeed what I believe of you as a lot!

You must believe me to be incredibly naive to assume you meant that as some form of factual analysis. You were using the term 'unevolved ape' to atheists in order to imply that we were mentally inferior, animalistic, barbaric, or possibly even in inhumane. You were not using it to describe the fact that most atheists generally accept the claims of the biological theory of evolution.

I don't assume you naive, that is exactly the notion I wanted you to be left with, because it is the truth.. I don't find the truth insulting anymore than you or others like you painting God and everything holy in the most absurd and vile light.. You are actually very lucky that you are painted by something you adhere to and not made up crap, like found on atheist forums.. for instance this:

Re: Creationists will eventually believe Evolution

by Blitzkrebs » Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:02 am
Actually I'm all for engineering the sea monster from Revelations, just to **** with their heads.

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/view...?f=46&t=108479

it is indeed amazing how un-evolved apes have such high ambitions, yet can't cure the common cold or teach their minds beyond condemnation!

The context speaks volumes to that.

Indeed-- and so does redundancy!

By all means, feel free to begin insulting people based on their beliefs. If the forum allows that, then that's fine. However, I would like to think that it doesn't.

This forum stands for truth.. and I will speak the truth unto death!

all the best.. and of course pls. enjoy your stay with us ;D

[Skavau]

Yes you do!

No I haven't. I suspect some of my comments may have caused offense. I can't help that. Irrespectively though: Please point me to a post of mine where you believe I have deliberately set out to insult, ridicule or degrade Muslims please.

I don't assume you naive, that is exactly the notion I wanted you to be left with, because it is the truth.. I don't find the truth insulting anymore than you or others like you painting God and everything holy in the most absurd and vile light.. You are actually very lucky that you are painted by something you adhere to and not made up crap, like found on atheist forums.. for instance this:

We're not talking about the RD forum, we're talking about on here.

Irrespectively, I've made my point. You're going to keep being evasive and pretend it wasn't a slur. That's fine.

[جوري]

No I haven't. I suspect some of my comments may have caused offense. I can't help that. Irrespectively though: Please point me to a post of mine where you believe I have deliberately set out to insult, ridicule or degrade Muslims please.

Yes you have and I am not here to pick up after you!

We're not talking about the RD forum, we're talking about on here.

No, we are talking about the atheist credo in general and whether you feign to be civilized here or there, it really doesn't show.. indeed how I described you collectively in my summed up previous post is an adequate representation!

Irrespectively, I've made my point. You're going to keep being evasive and pretend it wasn't a slur. That's fine.

How am I evasive? I have taken full credit for what I have written and I fully stand by it.. perhaps the directness of that isn't registering with you, but I assure you there is no evasion in that!


all the best!

[Skavau]

Yes you have and I am not here to pick up after you!

So you now assume to know my motives but can't (or won't) reference any post?

Oh the arrogance.

How am I evasive? I have taken full credit for what I have written and I fully stand by it.. perhaps the directness of that isn't registering with you, but I assure you there is no evasion in that!

You have taken credit for it, yes. You offer half-baked rationals as to why you don't deem it an insult. The matter of fact is though, and as I said if you were to substitute 'atheist' for 'muslim' in your post, the moderators would rightly deem it as an insult and propose infractions.

The same is if you replaced 'atheist' for an ethnicity.

[جوري]

So you now assume to know my motives but can't (or won't) reference any post?

Oh the arrogance.

what motives can you possibly have being here?

You have taken credit for it, yes. You offer half-baked rationals as to why you don't deem it an insult. The matter of fact is though, and as I said if you were to substitute 'atheist' for 'muslim' in your post, the moderators would rightly deem it as an insult and propose infractions.

I have acknowledged it and I find it truthful.. I don't think you can substitute another category in this front simply because said description isn't applicable to Muslims but atheists!

The same is if you replaced 'atheist' for an ethnicity.

No, only atheists really.. most folks believe that God is responsible for their creation in the best form and adhere to some moral code of conduct that is refined and universally agreed upon and isn't concocted to suit lowly desires!


all the best

[Sampharo]

Really? What statistics have you been reading? Almost all census or population statistics on trends in religious adherence suggest that irreligion, non-belief and atheism in general are on a consistent rise.

This is specifically true in many parts of Europe where Atheism, or at least non-religion in general could actually be a majority. I suggest you also click here.

Precisely my point again about mis-direction. Just because athiests in North America and Europe (that are collectively less than 20% of the World) are on the rise because of the corrupting society, or because like I explained, it is more appropriate to write "non-belief" or "unreligious" than say "muslim" who may get linched next time there is a hate wave, does not mean they represent any significant percentage in the rest of the World where they are actually practically non-existent. There are less than 3% athiests in India and rest of Asia who command more than 40% of the global population, and they are extremely low elsewhere in Africa or the Middle East.

The population of the USA, I think until very recently had labelled atheists as their least trusted minority.

Rightful label without any doubt, but still, hate crime is leading against jews and muslims, not athiests. So they choose "non-religious" or "other" on census forms to escape headaches. That is what I said about you trying to add the group "non-religious" to the pot you label athiest, just to show increase in number.

And still, the total global census of all labelled "other", "non-religious", "agnostic", are still around 9%, which even if added to athiests will be 16% in total. You're still short on your crazy claims.

This is a good indicative number from ARIS which has collated estimates from all over the World:

"Most current estimates of the world number of secular/nonreligious/agnostic/atheist/etc. are between 800 and 1 billion.

Estimates for atheism alone (as a primary religious preference) range from 200 to 240 million."

Simple math shows that athiesm then accounts for less than 5% according to estimates which have an error margin less than 2%.

Solidarity? I am speaking to you, on behalf of no-one else about some of the bigoted comments you made.

I don't believe, in my time on here, I've seen any atheist come onto the forum and fabricate Islamic scripture......

.

.

.

How is lacking a belief in any sense of the word the same as a belief? Doesn't that claim completely null the meaning of the word unbelief?

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Certainly nothing that I said.

You actually think that after that "professional disbeliever" announcement, I would even be remotely interested in continuing a debate with you on the subject?

You're not really trying very hard to dispel the thoughts about athiests being self-contradicting, feeble-minded, and like Skye said "aren't very evolved.. in the evolutionary scale, they are still stuck back at ape.. so they have monolithic unrefined beliefs."

[Danah]

I would be shocked if I died and went to some sort of afterlife. I would be double shocked if there was a God. I would be triple shocked if that God was one of the ones people here on earth advocate for. But I do not claim it would be impossible. Just extremely unlikely (invisible aliens may be standing next to me right now too).

Thanks for the honest answer...

That said, if I did appear before a God that judged me as deserving of punishment for not believing in him (rather than say for killing people or something) I would not respect that sort of tyrant God and would stand against him anyway.

Well you have a chance to disrespect such God then? or even have the choice to decided what to do? Do you think it will be too late to realize that in such time?
How you will go against such god when you know that you are nothing but a human?

Look at it from your own perspective. I doubt you hold the truth-claims of Sikhism or Taoism to much importance. I doubt that the claims of Judaism or Scientology mean much to you, nor either the prospect that what if they are true?


Ultimately, if you are sincere and realistic you can only shape your life on what you hold to be true and valuable. You hold Islam to be true and valuable and as of such the claims of its divinity make sense to you and need to be observed. An atheist does not share these views. I have no reason from my perspective to fear the prospect of a judgment by Allah in an afterlife anymore than I do the judgment of Yahweh.

I am not speaking from an Islamic view....it was just a general simple question about what you will do if you know the truth about God existence. I am looking for a simple answer like what Pygoscelis posted. What will you do?

Questions like these often asked make no coherent sense because they assume implicitly that belief is arbitrary. People can only act sincerely.

So you have no answer?
Then why you quoted me in the first place?

[Uthman]

Members, please bear this rule in mind when you're posting:

Beef will not be tolerated in any forum. Differences in opinion are expected, but please debate respectfully. (Beef are comments made for the purpose of insulting somebody else with negative intent, looking for a negative reaction, or blatantly insulting somebody)

The rule applies to everybody, irrespective of whether you're right or wrong in this debate.

[Skavau]

Precisely my point again about mis-direction. Just because athiests in North America and Europe (that are collectively less than 20% of the World) are on the rise because of the corrupting society, or because like I explained, it is more appropriate to write "non-belief" or "unreligious" than say "muslim" who may get linched

This is nothing more than paranoia. In the deep south, being both a Muslim or an Atheist is unpopular. Until recently, as I have supported it was actually worse to be an Atheist in the Bible Belt.

Regardless, poll-takers do not advertise who filled out their results and if government ones definitely do not. You have no evidence that there are millions of closet muslims scared to put 'muslim' as their religious preference due to reprisal. You also have no evidence that these alleged muslims put atheist instead (especially if you're interested in safety it would be better to put christian).

does not mean they represent any significant percentage in the rest of the World where they are actually practically non-existent. There are less than 3% athiests in India and rest of Asia who command more than 40% of the global population, and they are extremely low elsewhere in Africa or the Middle East.

Oh absolutely. But this is amusingly ironic.

In states like Saudi Arabia it is extremely unhealthy to come out as anything other than a Muslim, Christian or Jew. Saudi Arabia is not very well known for its religious tolerance and indeed many of the petty dictatorships run into the ground also do not have much tolerance for anything other than a specific sect of Christianity. In fact, you're talking about states where Animism is still a significant minority. You're talking about states where there exists no possible or viable census. We in actuality have no real idea how many atheists are in Africa due to poverty and repression.

Now, if we talk about one of the few Asian countries we do actually know about we learn that Japan does have a significant population of atheists.

Rightful label without any doubt, but still, hate crime is leading against jews and muslims, not athiests.

It is a bigoted label which has been helped by the new fundamentalist movement in the United States. The propertiers and preachers of the mega churches. It is not much backed up with any form of solid evidence of any sort at all. Observe this link.

And still, the total global census of all labelled "other", "non-religious", "agnostic", are still around 9%, which even if added to athiests will be 16% in total. You're still short on your crazy claims.

That does not bother me. The amount of non-religious, secular, humanistic, atheistic, agnostic arguably make up to 20% of the global population.

You actually think that after that "professional disbeliever" announcement, I would even be remotely interested in continuing a debate with you on the subject?

I never used the term 'professional disbeliever'.

You're not really trying very hard to dispel the thoughts about athiests being self-contradicting, feeble-minded, and like Skye said "aren't very evolved.. in the evolutionary scale, they are still stuck back at ape.. so they have monolithic unrefined beliefs."

I refer you to what Uthman recently said.

[Pygoscelis]

Skavau, you need to learn not to feed the trolls. They are only here to express hate for their outgroup, and derail the conversation from the OP and those who actually wish intelligent discussion. Ignore them and you'll see less of these threads derailed into childishness and closed.

Danah, to answer your respectful questions:

Well you have a chance to disrespect such God then? or even have the choice to decided what to do? Do you think it will be too late to realize that in such time?
How you will go against such god when you know that you are nothing but a human?

Well, as I don't believe any gods exist, this is all hypothetical so I really don't know if I'd have my free will taken away or not. But if I could display my disrespect for an evil God (such as one that would punish people for not believing in him or do the other evil things the judeochristian god is said to do) I would feel it my moral obligation to do so. I'd feel that if I did otherwise I'd be endorsing evil, and would ironically then truly deserve punishment.

I sometimes hear people respond to my view on this with "you can't judge God, puny human". But are they not judging God by declaring him "good" and deciding to obey him rather than oppose him? If God is all powerful then I hold him to a very high standard, because with power comes responsibility, with great power comes great responsibility, and with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility.

As for other conceptions of Gods (maybe kinder gods exist, who care more about how we treat our fellow humans than what we believe about the afterlife), I'd probably be ok with them. And as for impersonal god-like forces, such as Tao, I actually think many of them are pretty cool concepts, I just don't believe them to be true.

[Skavau]

I am not speaking from an Islamic view....it was just a general simple question about what you will do if you know the truth about God existence. I am looking for a simple answer like what Pygoscelis posted. What will you do?

I understand you weren't speaking from the Islamic perspective - but my answer took the form of reversing the question. I could ask what would you do if it happens that Christianity is correct, and you come face to face with Yahweh? What would you do?

All I could do is say (if Allah was real, or if any God with a 'judgment' was real) that I was mistaken. I would offer no apologies and no worship, only sincerity. If that God would decree me to hell purely on the basis of ill-judgment, then I would not consider such a God worthy of worship.

But as I asked: What would you yourself do if it turned out another God was true? I suspect your answer may take a similar form to what I might do if Allah was true.

So you have no answer?
Then why you quoted me in the first place?

I do have an answer. I gave it above. I responded specifically in the original response with why I don't think its an entirely prudent question.

[Alpha Dude]

Deceptive argument.

We actually have no idea if the universe is eternal or not (the Big Bang does not describe the beginning of the universe, rather just the universe as we now understand it). This argument is nothing more than speculation.

Irrespectively, the exact same logic can be applied to a God.

The cosmological argument is sound, because it satisfactorily answers the question about the origin of the universe and the reality of the world and proves the existence of a 'First Cause' or Creator.

The validity and soundness of a logical argument depends on the structure of the argument and the soundness of its premises, all of which are met here.

That very proof results in the conclusion which establishes that the first cause is (necessarily) uncaused, hence to ask about its cause is fallacious.

A slight variation of the kalam cosmological argument:

1. Everything we perceive in the universe is limited and finite
2. Everything that is limited and finite is dependent
3. The universe is the sum of limited finite things and is therefore limited and dependent
4. Because infinite regression cannot exist, then everything ultimately depends upon an independent, unlimited being who created everything.

Everything we perceive in the universe is limited and finite. Everything that is limited and finite is dependent on something.

For example, a computer depends upon electricity and electricity depends upon a power station which has a magnet rotating in a metal coil. The rotation of the magnet requires the turbines to spin the magnet, the turbines spin because of the steam produced by the water boiling. The heat is produced by the coal burning and the coal required decay of wood under pressure, the wood required sunlight to produce photosynthesis in converting carbon dioxide into wood, and so on. Thus we see that everything which is limited depends upon something else limited.

The question may arise, does this series of inter-dependent things go on for infinity or does it stop somewhere?

If it did carry on for infinity, we would not exist now. Infinite regression is an impossibility, it must stop with a first cause i.e. something independent.

For this thing to be independent, it must be other than what is dependent i.e. not be limited and finite. Therefore it is unlimited and infinite as well as independent.

[Skavau]

The cosmological argument is sound, because it satisfactorily answers the question about the origin of the universe and the reality of the world and proves the existence of a 'First Cause' or Creator

To accept the claims of the Cosmological argument you have to assume that the universe at one point, came to being. You have to assume that we know for certain that an illusive 'first cause' of some sort preceded it all. In actuality, we don't have that sort of knowledge. Even if we were to discover that the Big Bang was in fact specifically caused by a force, or a being - we would have no knowledge on the makeup of this being, or the constitutents of the force. It is, when you strip down the pseudo-philosophical foundation an appeal to ignorance. A statement that because we don't know, a divine being or force must have done it.

That very proof results in the conclusion which establishes that the first cause is (necessarily) uncaused, hence to ask about its cause is fallacious.

That, sir, is what is referred to as a selective choice of principles. You declare that oh, well, perhaps the universe needs an external mover. Perhaps the universe required a first cause in order to jumpstart it. However, the causer of this? No, he does not require it. No reason is given for this. You simply decree that the 'first cause' (a claim not substantiated at this point, only asserted) was 'uncaused'.

A slight variation of the kalam cosmological argument:

1. Everything we perceive in the universe is limited and finite
2. Everything that is limited and finite is dependent
3. The universe is the sum of limited finite things and is therefore limited and dependent
4. Because infinite regression cannot exist, then everything ultimately depends upon an independent, unlimited being who created everything.

Yes I know the variation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The conclusion in this little syllogism is a massive jump from the other claims. It has not established and assumes we absolutely know that infinite regression cannot exist. Indeed for your position to be consistent you already believe in an infinite being. Did you not just say that you already accept that an 'uncaused first cause' exists? Would that not, for all intents of purposes be an infinite being?

So for all intents of purpose, you already reject the claim that infinite regression is not possible. You simply invoke a God that you decree is beyond rational inquiry, empirical evidence, beyond our understanding and then position it as the absolute infinite. It is passively disingenuous.

Also, to be specific this argument makes a glaringly simple logical error (fallacy). It commits the fallacy of composition. Click here about it.

For example, a computer depends upon electricity and electricity depends upon a power station which has a magnet rotating in a metal coil. The rotation of the magnet requires the turbines to spin the magnet, the turbines spin because of the steam produced by the water boiling. The heat is produced by the coal burning and the coal required decay of wood under pressure, the wood required sunlight to produce photosynthesis in converting carbon dioxide into wood, and so on. Thus we see that everything which is limited depends upon something else limited.

The question may arise, does this series of inter-dependent things go on for infinity or does it stop somewhere?

We don't know.

If it did carry on for infinity, we would not exist now. Infinite regression is an impossibility, it must stop with a first cause i.e. something independent.

For this thing to be independent, it must be other than what is dependent i.e. not be limited and finite. Therefore it is unlimited and infinite as well as independent.

As I said, you don't disagree with infinity.

[barney]

Not to labour the point, but if someone had come up with a logical arguement for god that was simple and clear, then there wouldnt be 22000 different religions. There would be one easy to access understandable god and no atheists.

The corelation between intelligence and Atheism is worth consideration in this question.

[جوري]

The corelation between intelligence and Atheism is worth consideration in this question.

A paradox and a universal negative unfortunately!

as for homogeneity in philosophies and thoughts.. will I guess only an atheist can come up with something that sterile and expects it to magically hold its place amidst 'common sense!'

[Danah]

Thanks Pygoscelis for your further explanation.
Skavau,thanks for finally answering the question .

I just wanted to know how you guys think about it.

[CosmicPathos]

Not to labour the point, but if someone had come up with a logical arguement for god that was simple and clear, then there wouldnt be 22000 different religions. There would be one easy to access understandable god and no atheists.

The corelation between intelligence and Atheism is worth consideration in this question.

Where is the evidence of this intelligence?

I was on the med forums the other day and a med school student had the audacity to call Hitchens an "intellectual" and to prove that he gave me a website of magazine which surveyed people to vote intellectuals. ;D Ayaan Hirsi Ali was also in it. Way to go, INTELLECTUALS!!

[جوري]

Where is the evidence of this intelligence?
!

Not expending any effort to understand or at least concede to the splendor in the creation of man or the universe or remotely offer an level-headed reproducible scientific alternative = intelligence, or haven't you heard?..

welcome to the 21st C. where everything is topsy-turvy..
giant bodies possessing bird brains!

[barney]

Where is the evidence of this intelligence?

I was on the med forums the other day and a med school student had the audacity to call Hitchens an "intellectual" and to prove that he gave me a website of magazine which surveyed people to vote intellectuals. ;D Ayaan Hirsi Ali was also in it. Way to go, INTELLECTUALS!!

this is just one of many studies. They all show that the more intelligent a person is, the less likely they are to beleive in god.
I could pull out a chart to show that the warmer the climate the lower the number of Pirates, but in this case the evidence is substantial.

Oh and Hitch is undoubtadly a massive intellectual. He's a drunk and a chainsmoker and he certainly can turn a phrase to upset the cherished beleifs of others, but Intellectual he remains at 27 in the top 100, a few points behind Dawkins

[جوري]

Oh and Hitch is undoubtadly a massive intellectual. He's a drunk and a chainsmoker and he certainly can turn a phrase to upset the cherished beleifs of others, but Intellectual he remains at 27 in the top 100, a few points behind Dawkins

wow that graph sure is scientific, where did you get it from? some Nudist camp? :haha: you are nothing if not delusional!

all the best

[barney]

wow that graph sure is scientific, where did you get it from? some Nudist camp? :haha: you are nothing if not delusional!

all the best

Why not take a look at its source? then try laughing again?:shade:

[جوري]

Why not take a look at its source? then try laughing again?:shade:

I don't see a source and I doubt you even know how to read graphs or that this wouldn't be ripped apart by anyone with one course in statistics and epidemiology but to humor you, do tell of the formula that raises your IQ once You take a month off and enroll in a community college for a theology course and come back changing your way of life to atheist? lol I'll have to concede that you must really enjoy your job as a board jester.. Here is a thought, let's all change our way of life to atheist so we can be insta. geniuses! ;D

[CosmicPathos]

First of all the definition of intelligence quotient is dubious.

I can pull a similar chart where I can relate people's riches (both dumb and intelligent) with their belief in God. Most well-to-do people seldom pray to God or believe in God in the well-developed countries.

[جوري]

woops I have to apologize.. seeing that you got this from the estemmed wiki, from the esteemed LynnHarveyNyborg, which found atheists to be a whopping 1.95 point higher than an agnostic.. I am so glad that you achieved this 1.95 points from the last time you were on board.. Again, very scientific study with no confounders and a very tight confidence interval. Unfortunately when your IQ is up 1.95 from 35, you still need to enroll in some basic vocational course to foster self-esteem..

all the best

[جوري]

First of all the definition of intelligence quotient is dubious. .

The study focuses on one population so that is one confounder for certainly you see them comparing to libbys conservatives etc. Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and any other group isn't a part of this study. further atheists makeup only 10% of the population, so even if you take a pool of the entire atheist population you can't begin to compare it to 90% of the general population, another confounder, and I can go on and on but don't have the time or interest to humor moronity and the faulty studies they run to cater to their egos!

Already several studies show that the majority of scientists and doctors are religious and as per that poll people with higher education tend to have a higher IQ. so here is yet another self inflicted confounder if the whole thing were nothing but mere negligence of common sense.. but who cares when the esteemed journal you are reading is wiki and the word you hold in high regard is that of a guy who can't do basic math? And at the end of the day, who cares?

:w:

[Froggy]

Already several studies show that the majority of scientists and doctors are religious

:w:

Only doctors which makes sense due to the nature of work.

[جوري]

Only doctors which makes sense due to the nature of work.

No, not only doctors, scientists as well and Br. aamirsaab posted the link earlier.. not that anyone should really care for these kinds of studies.. I find them ludicrous. One shouldn't believe in God because a scientist or a doctor does, or fail to believe because allegedly people with higher IQ's don't.. I can't believe how absurd we are being. We should not be bullied into or out of our convictions. The road to God is a solo journey and not a poll!

all the best

[Froggy]

No, not only doctors, scientists as well and Br. aamirsaab posted the link earlier.. not that anyone should really care for these kinds of studies.. I find them ludicrous. One shouldn't believe in God because a scientist or a doctor does, or fail to believe because allegedly people with higher IQ's don't.. I can't believe how absurd we are being. We should not be bullied into or out of our convictions. The road to God is a solo journey and not a poll!

all the best

I didn't see any link. Where, in this thread?

[barney]

Apology accepted Skye.
As you no doubt know with your photoretentive memory
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...f6f8ce4b6001de

The scource which isnt Wiki, the Graph is from wiki, was an exhaustive study which showed 6 g-IQ points higher with atheism than those adhering to a religion.
Also a lesser increase for agnostics.
The study covered nearly 140 countries.

Belittling such a study only belittles your own acceptance of the methods of science. it certainly shows your ready to laugh at something well before you know what it is.
I note from earlier posts your first medicines of choice for personal use include bloodletting/cupping and medicinal urine? That would certainly make sense with such a respect for investagative science.

Thus perhaps you should question who is being the fool in this instance?

[جوري]

I didn't see any link. Where, in this thread?

PM aamirsaab the mod. the search feature is failing me

all the best

[جوري]

Apology accepted Skye.
As you no doubt know with your photoretentive memory
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...f6f8ce4b6001de

The scource which isnt Wiki, the Graph is from wiki, was an exhaustive study which showed 6 g-IQ points higher with atheism than those adhering to a religion.
Also a lesser increase for agnostics.
The study covered nearly 140 countries.

Belittling a study only belittles your own acceptance of the methods of science. it certainly shows your ready to laugh at something well before you know what it is.
I note from earlier posts your first medicines of choice for personal use include bloodletting/cupping and medicinal urine? That would certainly make sense with such a respect for investagative science.

Thus perhaps you should question who is being the fool in this instance?

I have listed the confounders one by one of the so-called study I didn't merely voice my concern over nothing. I doubt very much that you yourself are able to understand what the numbers actually mean in the scheme of things. 1.6 points higher is negligible, if I am to take it at face value.

Now, I do indeed believe in prophetic medicine, however I never said it is a substitute for clinical trials and modern medicine, and the fact that you mention cupping or urine, really shows what an under-educated person you are because I have listed modern therapies that incorporate 'blood letting' and using or both mare and postmenopausal urine for tried and proven medical therapy as such was used millenniums ago!

By the way the article you mention above needs a $37 fee, do you have the full article, I'd be more than happy to point out biases, confounders, P values, confidence intervals etc. etc. in a way I know fully escapes you, because you fail differentiate science from emotionality!
You don't up the ante merely for changing a way of life!

One thing for sure barn. You don't want to take me on if you want to come out of this with some semblance of dignity!

all the best of course!

[CosmicPathos]

"Second, this conclusion raises the question of why should
there be this negative correlation between IQ and belief in God.
Many rationalists no doubt accept the argument advanced by
Frazer (1922, p.712) in The Golden Bough that as civilisations
developed “the keener minds came to reject the religious theory
of nature as inadequate … religion, regarded as an explanation of
nature, is replaced by science” (by “keener minds” Frazer
presumably meant the more intelligent). Others have assumed
implicitly or explicitly that more intelligent people are more
prone to question irrational or unprovable religious dogmas. For
instance, some 60 years ago Kuhlen and Arnold (1944) proposed
that “greater intellectual maturity might be expected to increase
scepticism in matters of religion”.transmitted to much of the present population."

Interesting


@ Skye: let me know if you need the article, just got it.

[Froggy]

I have listed the confounders one by one of the so-called study I didn't merely voice my concern over nothing. I doubt very much that you yourself are able to understand what the numbers actually mean in the scheme of things. 1.6 points higher is negligible, if I am to take it at face value.

Now, I do indeed believe in prophetic medicine, however I never said it is a substitute for clinical trials and modern medicine, and the fact that you mention cupping or urine, really shows what an under-educated person you are because I have listed modern therapies that incorporate 'blood letting' and using or both mare and postmenopausal urine for tried and proven medical therapy as such was used millenniums ago!

By the way the article you mention above needs a $37 fee, do you have the full article, I'd be more than happy to point out biases, confounders, P values, confidence intervals etc. etc. in a way I know fully escapes you, because you fail differentiate science from emotionality!
You don't up the ante merely for changing a way of life!

One thing for sure barn. You don't want to take me on if you want to come out of this with some semblance of dignity!

all the best of course!

Why don't you apply the same criteria to studies saying girls do better in single girls schools?

[جوري]

@ Skye: let me know if you need the article, just got it.

:sl:
No, I really don't care and I am not sure why anyone should be made to care:

consider this as 'intellectual' warfare vs. Intellectual pride, and I read an excellent article on it, which I shall excerpt below in relation to 'evolution':

when Intellectual pride enters into the picture as well. Who among us does not want to present at least the appearance of being smart and well educated? Over the last century, we have been led to believe that if we wish to be considered intelligent, then we should believe in evolution, because intelligent people all over the world believe in evolution. As Henry Morris well stated the issue: “[T]he main reason most educated people believe in evolution is simply because they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution!” (Morris, 1963, p. 26).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/238

When push comes to shove, they will all peddle the same rhetoric, which you are to accept at face value without subjecting it to the same dissection you'd any other field in science. It is no longer about science but becomes a belief all in its own but under the umbrella of science and by virtue of that alone should it is forced upon us that it should hold some weightiness or credence!

:w:

[CosmicPathos]

Only doctors which makes sense due to the nature of work.

I see that there is a certain backlash against doctors, raised by these arrogant PhD scientists.

Doctors have to have at least a Bsc in sciences (or Arts with a certain number of science pre-reqs, most doctors do BSc anyways) in North America before getting into medical schools. If performance on tests and exams (including the standardized MCAT) have anything to do with intelligence, doctors are more-or-less the cream of science students who finish BSc, more so than the arrogant scientists who did relatively poorly in their Bsc days.

Actually, one view among pre-meds is that a person who did not perform well in his Bsc for med school standards should THEN look for going to graduate school.

[barney]

I have listed the confounders one by one of the so-called study I didn't merely voice my concern over nothing. I doubt very much that you yourself are able to understand what the numbers actually mean in the scheme of things. 1.6 points higher is negligible, if I am to take it at face value.

Now, I do indeed believe in prophetic medicine, however I never said it is a substitute for clinical trials and modern medicine, and the fact that you mention cupping or urine, really shows what an under-educated person you are because I have listed modern therapies that incorporate 'blood letting' and using or both mare and postmenopausal urine for tried and proven medical therapy as such was used millenniums ago!

By the way the article you mention above needs a $37 fee, do you have the full article, I'd be more than happy to point out biases, confounders, P values, confidence intervals etc. etc.

One thing for sure barn. You don't want to take me on if you want to come out of this with some semblance of dignity!

all the best of course!

Sounding a little scared there!
But what is this? All prophetic medicine might not be efficacious?
6 IQ points isnt a piddling amount,its a statistical significance.

This , as you will surely know is just one of many studies which confirm that, for whatever reason, the religious are of lower intelligence than the non-religious. Reasons why that might be are not addressed in the study.
Have I got a link to the full study? Naah, it was presented last year in a lecture to me covering its scope and the data produced. I wiki'd it up for your delight.

More than happy to continue this. Perhaps a 6% drop in IQ isnt statistical measured against your own mighty cortex of gargantuan megabrainage, but to the rest of us mere mortals with an average IQ of 100,(Or like my own IQ of 117), it certainly makes you ponder the reasons.

The statistics are not in doubt, and i will no doubt (as you are eager for me to do so!;D ) pull out some more studies. Hmm, but anything not fitting your preconceived dogma would be trashed as worthless, regard;less of what the finest brains on the planet discover!

More honest really though to debate the Why and not the If, for the If is not in doubt.

My own take on it?
Religion is easier to understand. It requires less effort to accept than to disbeleive. Those who take the effort to investigate are those who succeed at post grad level. Those who take the effort to investigate find better explainations for existance than god did it TM

[Holly]

I was about to say the same thing Wallah, but figured it isn't worth it..
as per my other post:
You must remember that atheists aren't very evolved.. in the evolutionary scale, they are still stuck back at ape.. so they have monolithic unrefined beliefs.

Your hoped-for slight directed at Atheism and your slur toward the science of evolution had the opposite effect. You'll find the evidence for major evolution is vast and overwhelming. I'll be pleased to provide additional data sources at your request.

Unfortunately, your entire premise is terribly flawed. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts.

Meaning, of course that the "apes into human beings" nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding and knowledge on your part. Man was never an ape. Man was never descended from an ape. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That's not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

If your hope was to denigrate science and to disparage Atheism, you failed.

[جوري]

Why don't you apply the same criteria to studies saying girls do better in single girls schools?

I have listed several confounders above, one I consider most important happens to be the large disparity between atheists and theists disabling this study from having any real values. However half or slightly more than half the population are girls..and the board of education produces the numbers yearly for your consideration.

This topic is neither about the alleged intelligence of atheists or why girls do better, or how I approach and understand a study. It is about arguments to the existence of God!

pls. don't derail me on every other thread because you desire to jump on a particular opposing bandwagon!

all the best

[جوري]

Your hoped-for slight directed at Atheism and your slur toward the science of evolution had the opposite effect. Y

were you not the maggot that was just annexed from this forum?

someone pls look into this person's account.. I am not in the mood to kid handle every bruised ego!

:w:

[CosmicPathos]

Your hoped-for slight directed at Atheism and your slur toward the science of evolution had the opposite effect. You'll find the evidence for major evolution is vast and overwhelming. I'll be pleased to provide additional data sources at your request.

Unfortunately, your entire premise is terribly flawed. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts.

Meaning, of course that the "apes into human beings" nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding and knowledge on your part. Man was never an ape. Man was never descended from an ape. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That's not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

If your hope was to denigrate science and to disparage Atheism, you failed.

If you wanted to sound intelligent by writing that, then no, YOU failed. You are not smart. You actually failed to discover that man arose from primitives. You just memorized it and posted it on forums as if its your discovery.

[Holly]

were you not the maggot that was just annexed from this forum?

someone pls look into this person's account.. I am not in the mood to kid handle every bruised ego!

:w:

That was quite a compelling rebuttal to my posted comments... or were you thinking that childish name-calling made you sound wiser than your years?

[Holly]

If you wanted to sound intelligent by writing that, then no, YOU failed. You are not smart. You actually failed to discover that man arose from primitives. You just memorized it and posted it on forums as if its your discovery.

Yet another failed attempt to address my comments.

[barney]

Yet another failed attempt to address my comments.

Holly, I dont know who you were, but if you've been booted from a forum its pretty bad form to return for a few more blows.

Just let it lie. There are still som of us here who will carry on the torch for freethought, humanity and rationalism.

Bye and best of luck.

[Holly]

Holly, I dont know who you were, but if you've been booted from a forum its pretty bad form to return for a few more blows.

Just let it lie. There are still som of us here who will carry on the torch for freethought, humanity and rationalism.

Bye and best of luck.

I have not been booted from this forum. I think the prior poster was suffering some hurt feelings at being taken to task for rude and obnoxious behavior.

[جوري]

Sounding a little scared there!
But what is this?

You are able to hear sounds on a forum? interesting!

All prophetic medicine might not be efficacious?

Do you have something in specific you wish to discuss here?

6 IQ points isnt a piddling amount,its a statistical significance.

Where is the 6 points? and how was the study done? random calls to dawkin vs. bubbah from the deep south? or a random double blind?

This , as you will surely know is just one of many studies which confirm that, for whatever reason, the religious are of lower intelligence than the non-religious. Reasons why that might be are not addressed in the study.
Have I got a link to the full study? Naah, it was presented last year in a lecture to me covering its scope and the data produced. I wiki'd it up for your delight.

It is unfortunate how often you confabulate on these threads and how desperate for establishment!

More than happy to continue this. Perhaps a 6% drop in IQ isnt statistical measured against your own mighty cortex of gargantuan megabrainage, but to the rest of us mere mortals with an average IQ of 100,(Or like my own IQ of 117), it certainly makes you ponder the reasons.

I never considered you a contender.. I find your entire approach hilarious. If all else fails look for something so intangible to make a non-point which doesn't even relate to the topic.. I mean where do I begin?

The statistics are not in doubt, and i will no doubt (as you are eager for me to do so!;D ) pull out some more studies. Hmm, but anything not fitting your preconceived dogma would be trashed as worthless, regard;less of what the finest brains on the planet discover!

You do that!

More honest really though to debate the Why and not the If, for the If is not in doubt.

I don't understand drivel.. try to form cohesive, complete sentences.. it is good to laugh at your own wit, but even better when folks get your wit lest you be deemed a nut!

My own take on it?
Religion is easier to understand. It requires less effort to accept than to disbeleive. Those who take the effort to investigate are those who succeed at post grad level. Those who take the effort to investigate find better explainations for existance than god did it TM

Do you need validation that you constantly have to tinkle your pearls even though it is clearly elucidated, that there is no effort whatsoever goes into becoming an atheist.. you've neither conceded the obvious nor shared a lucid, coherent, reproducible scientific evidence to the world we find ourselves in.

all the best and try not to be so emotionally invested in things said here.. it would be a shame you'd die early of an ulcer or heart disease when you only get one stab to make it worth while!

all the best

[barney]

I have not been booted from this forum. I think the prior poster was suffering some hurt feelings at being taken to task for rude and obnoxious behavior.

Umm, you have four posts. They all pertain to a previous conversation.

That methinks is pretty good evidence?

Just let it lie, find somewhere else. I returned here after a few years away to carry on debates, but I left of my ownn accord. Getting kicked means "dont come back" Its quite rude to just make a new account?
Thats giving atheists a bad name IMO.

[Froggy]

I have listed several confounders above, one I consider most important happens to be the large disparity between atheists and theists disabling this study from having any real values. However half or slightly more than half the population are girls..and the board of education produces the numbers yearly for your consideration.

That's what I mentioned it, the confounders are similar. The disparity between girls who go to girls school and those in mixed environments is also large.
This is a case of favoring certain studies over others because they fit what one already believes.

[جوري]

Yet another failed attempt to address my comments.

who are you? you inject yourself half way through a thread and expect a salutation? If you have a grievance try to post a separate thread and see if a member here takes interest. I can't be made to humor every gadfly that comes in the middle of as thread to meander it in some other direction.


all the best

[CosmicPathos]

Yet another failed attempt to address my comments.

There is nothing to address. Just some stupid claims.

[Holly]

who are you? you inject yourself half way through a thread and expect a salutation? If you have a grievance try to post a separate thread and see if a member here takes interest. I can't be made to humor every gadfly that comes in the middle of as thread to meander it in some other direction.


all the best

Actually, who are you? I posted a comment in response to your uneducated comment regarding Atheism and apes which you sidestepped by hurling childish insults.

Several posts later, you are still falling to floor and stomping your feet like a scolded child for an inability to address my comments. You're displaying very bad form.

[Holly]

There is nothing to address. Just some stupid claims.

Is this board drenched with spammers who can't address posted comments?

[CosmicPathos]

Actually, who are you? I posted a comment in response to your uneducated comment regarding Atheism and apes which you sidestepped by hurling childish insults.

Several posts later, you are still falling to floor and stomping your feet like a scolded child for an inability to address my comments. You're displaying very bad form.

She actually understands what you are "trying" to say.

Be it ape ancestor or that apes and humans share a common ancestor, its all the same for Barney. He is just evolved from animals. Actually, apes are still a bit smarter than lets say, a boar?

[CosmicPathos]

Is this board drenched with spammers who can't address posted comments?

Is this board drenched with atheist spammers who keep on spreading the spam?

[Holly]

She actually understands what you are "trying" to say.

Be it ape ancestor or that apes and humans share a common ancestor, its all the same for Barney. He is just evolved from animals. Actually, apes are still a bit smarter than lets say, a boar?

Is it really all the same for Barney? Are you authorized to speak on his behalf?

[Holly]

Is this board drenched with atheist spammers who keep on spreading the spam?

And still no ability to address my comments.

[CosmicPathos]

Is it really all the same for Barney? Are you authorized to speak on his behalf?

Well, he himself said that he is a product of long chain of evolution from primitives. I am just restating what he said about himself.

Any doubt?

[CosmicPathos]

And still no ability to address my comments.

hey man, I cannot address foolish comments.

[Holly]

Well, he himself said that he is a product of long chain of evolution from primitives. I am just restating what he said about himself.

Any doubt?

Yes, I have doubts. Why not post a link to the thread with that exact statement? Or should we expect a lot af backtracking as you hope to revise your comment?

[جوري]

That's what I mentioned it, the confounders are similar. The disparity between girls who go to girls school and those in mixed environments is also large.
This is a case of favoring certain studies over others because they fit what one already believes.

They are not similar at all..
you really need to familiarize yourself with types of studies, power of study and choice test, for instance you do a cross sectional when interested in prevalence, cohort provides incidence to relative risk, case control for odds ratio (between two binary datas) which treats two variables symmetrically (these are all observational) while randomized control are the only ones with experimental type design--sample size is very important to give power and statistical significance to the study, plus define the purpose of your study, number of groups you are using, level of measurements and distribution of the data.
Now can you tell me the type of research that was done for Barny's little manifesto to hold any credence compared to data collected annually by the board of education, before I can find some semblance of similarity?

all the best

[Holly]

hey man, I cannot address foolish comments.

I haven't seen any ability to address any comment, man.

[CosmicPathos]

I haven't seen any ability to address any comment, man.

That's because you are blinded from seeing my mighty powers and herculean abilities.

[جوري]

Actually, who are you? I posted a comment in response to your uneducated comment regarding Atheism and apes which you sidestepped by hurling childish insults.

We you are your hosts here and you are the guest. When folks enter into a forum, they usually introduce themselves and state their purpose, they don't inject themselves into topics and expect others to take interest.

Do you believe in freedom of speech and press? I find that atheists are all staunch defenders of many a childish things under those banners and expect applause, stating truthful observation is hardly akin to childish remarks, insinuating yourself in the middle of the debate with worse manners that those that make you cringe is!

Several posts later, you are still falling to floor and stomping your feet like a scolded child for an inability to address my comments. You're displaying very bad form.

You tell yourself whatever you need to feel better...

there there!

all the best

[Holly]

That's because you are blinded from seeing my mighty powers and herculean abilities.

Impotence doesn't define the attributes you have self-identified.

[CosmicPathos]

Impotence doesn't define the attributes you have self-identified.

well sicne you cant see things, I doubt you can know who is impotent and who is not.

Hush away, baboon. I am bamboozled that you could use internet to post verbal feces while talking about your animal ancestry with great pride!

[Holly]

We you are your hosts here and you are the guest. When folks enter into a forum, they usually introduce themselves and state their purpose, they don't inject themselves into topics and expect others to take interest.

Do you believe in freedom of speech and press? I find that atheists are all staunch defenders of many a childish things under those banners and expect applause, stating truthful observation is hardly akin to childish remarks, insinuating yourself in the middle of the debate with worse manners that those that make you cringe is!


You tell yourself whatever you need to feel better...

there there!

all the best

"insinuating yourself"? Could someone help out our journeyman english student by lending a dictionary?

With a dictionary in hand, do a search for terms such as "Evolution" and "Science". Don't look for those terms with the quote symbols, I added those for clarification. Report back to us what you find. Do you remember that I wanted you to address your confusion regarding evolution and science? This will help you... maybe.

[جوري]

Let's find out if there is a morsel of common sense or queries in what you posited expecting fanfare!

Your hoped-for slight directed at Atheism and your slur toward the science of evolution had the opposite effect. You'll find the evidence for major evolution is vast and overwhelming. I'll be pleased to provide additional data sources at your request.

1- I haven't made a slur toward atheism, I have posted my observation from the behavior of most atheists of which you are a poster girl or guy!
2- I haven't discussed evolution, I have pointed out the bullying that goes on to make folks believe in evolution without science. If you wish to discuss evolution than I urge you to visit out health and science section, familiarize yourself with 30-40 pages worth of debates before sprinkling your pearls.
3- stating that evidence is vast and overwhelming isn't in and of itself an argument nor proof, it is a statement of assurance, I fear there is no weight to empty assurances.
4-if you wish to provide data, then do it in the appropriate section and define your terms. Macro vs. micro-evolution or is it all the same to you and you are only looking for show of pugilism?

Unfortunately, your entire premise is terribly flawed. I see this frequently. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to believe the religious tales and fables in lieu of hard facts.

How do you know what my premise to know that it is flawed? if you have already reached a conclusion then there is really nothing left for us to discuss here!

Meaning, of course that the "apes into human beings" nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding and knowledge on your part. Man was never an ape. Man was never descended from an ape. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That's not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

Ok, good!

If your hope was to denigrate science and to disparage Atheism, you failed.

And what have you managed to do? give us a hearty guffaw?

[Holly]

well sicne you cant see things, I doubt you can know who is impotent and who is not.

Hush away, baboon. I am bamboozled that you could use internet to post verbal feces.

"sicne" Who is it that is posting the stuff you mentioned? As with your friend who is "challenged", consult a dictionary, please.

Oh, and there are medications for impotence.

[Holly]

Let's find out if there is a morsel of common sense or queries in what you posited expecting fanfare!


1- I haven't made a slur toward atheism, I have posted my observation from the behavior of most atheists of which you are a poster girl or guy!
2- I haven't discussed evolution, I have pointed out the bullying that goes on to make folks believe in evolution without science. If you wish to discuss evolution than I urge you to visit out health and science section, familiarize yourself with 30-40 pages worth of debates before sprinkling your pearls.
3- stating that evidence is vast and overwhelming isn't in and of itself an argument nor proof, it is a statement of assurance, I fear there is no weight to empty assurances.
4-if you wish to provide data, then do it in the appropriate section and define your terms. Macro vs. micro-evolution or is it all the same to you and you are only looking for show of pugilism?


How do you know what my premise to know that it is flawed? if you have already reached a conclusion then there is really nothing left for us to discuss here!


Ok, good!

And what have you managed to do? give us a hearty guffaw?

I would describe a hearty guffaw as your flailing around, hoping to avoid addressing your utter lack of knowledge regarding subjects you cannot hope to fathom.

[Pygoscelis]

Members, please bear this rule in mind when you're posting:

Beef will not be tolerated in any forum. Differences in opinion are expected, but please debate respectfully. (Beef are comments made for the purpose of insulting somebody else with negative intent, looking for a negative reaction, or blatantly insulting somebody)

The rule applies to everybody, irrespective of whether you're right or wrong in this debate.

Quoted for those of you who obviously missed it the first time.

[CosmicPathos]

"sicne" Who is it that is posting the stuff you mentioned? As with your friend who is "challenged", consult a dictionary, please.

Oh, and there are medications for impotence.

Did those medications work for you, baboon?

[barney]

You do that!

1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward… atheism."

3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.

4. Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability… There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence…"

5. Vernon Jones, 1938
Tested 381 students, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together."

6. A. R. Gilliland, 1940
At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."

7. Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores

test
scores 100
50%
119
80%
%
rank
test rank test rank
believers non-believers
8. Brown and Love, 1951
At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

9. Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

10. Jeffrey Hadden, 1963
Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the University of Wisconsin.

11. Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.

12. James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.

13. C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

14. Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

15. Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.

mean
SATs 1022
1108
1119
1148

group religious slightly
anti-
religious moderately
anti-
religious strongly
anti-
religious
16. Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly anti-
religious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly anti-religious (1108), and religious (1022).

17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STUDENT BODY COMPARISONS

1. Rose Goldsen, 1952
Percentage of students who believe in a divine god: Harvard 30; UCLA 32; Dartmouth 35; Yale 36; Cornell 42; Wayne 43; Weslyan 43; Michigan 45; Fisk 60; Texas 62; North Carolina 68.

2. National Review Study, 1970
Percentage of students who believe in a Spirit or Divine God: Reed 15; Brandeis 25; Sarah Lawrence 28; Williams 36; Stanford 41; Boston U. 41; Yale 42; Howard 47; Indiana 57; Davidson 59; S. Carolina 65; Marquette 77.

3. Caplovitz and Sherrow, 1977
Apostasy rates rose continuously from 5 percent in "low" ranked schools to 17 percent in "high" ranked schools.

4. Niemi, Ross, and Alexander, 1978
In elite schools, organized religion was judged important by only 26 percent of their students, compared with 44 percent of all students.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STUDIES OF VERY-HIGH IQ GROUPS

%
among
IQ>140 10%
18%
62%
57%
28%
23%

belief ♂ ♀ ♂ ♀ ♂ ♀
strong little none
1. Terman, 1959
Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important."

2. Warren and Heist, 1960
Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have been effected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the basis of intelligence or grades alone, but also on "leadership" and such like.

3. Southern and Plant, 1968
Studied 42 male and 30 female members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or adult.


All these studies were rubbish.
Reason? They dont fit a theists comfort zone. forget the technique, forget the control groups, forget the peer reveiw.

[جوري]

"insinuating yourself"? Could someone help out our journeyman english student by lending a dictionary?

Main Entry: insinuating : Introduce or insert (oneself) in a subtle manner

amongst other meanings, I have a dictionary, question is do you have a point?

With a dictionary in hand, do a search for terms such as "Evolution" and "Science". Don't look for those terms with the quote symbols,

And then what?

I added those for clarification. Report back to us what you find. Do you remember that I wanted you to address your confusion regarding evolution and science? This will help you... maybe.

I believe I have addressed your platitudes, again what is your point?

all the best

[Holly]

Did those medications work for you, baboon?

No need to be shy about asking for help. Impotence occurs in men for many reasons. I'm unaware if those medications have been used in studies involving primates. If you perform a search, you may find enlightenment.

[جوري]

1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in g

All these studies were rubbish.
Reason? They dont fit a theists comfort zone. forget the technique, forget the control groups, forget the peer reveiw.

thank you for those 1927 to 1968 studies, you really proved a point with these quotes and dates-- why do you remain on an Islamic forum when dawkin net is really up your ally?

all the best

[CosmicPathos]

1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward… atheism."

3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.

4. Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability… There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence…"

5. Vernon Jones, 1938
Tested 381 students, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together."

6. A. R. Gilliland, 1940
At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."

7. Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores

test
scores 100
50%
119
80%
%
rank
test rank test rank
believers non-believers
8. Brown and Love, 1951
At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

9. Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

10. Jeffrey Hadden, 1963
Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the University of Wisconsin.

11. Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.

12. James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.

13. C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

14. Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

15. Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.

mean
SATs 1022
1108
1119
1148

group religious slightly
anti-
religious moderately
anti-
religious strongly
anti-
religious
16. Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly anti-
religious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly anti-religious (1108), and religious (1022).

17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STUDENT BODY COMPARISONS

1. Rose Goldsen, 1952
Percentage of students who believe in a divine god: Harvard 30; UCLA 32; Dartmouth 35; Yale 36; Cornell 42; Wayne 43; Weslyan 43; Michigan 45; Fisk 60; Texas 62; North Carolina 68.

2. National Review Study, 1970
Percentage of students who believe in a Spirit or Divine God: Reed 15; Brandeis 25; Sarah Lawrence 28; Williams 36; Stanford 41; Boston U. 41; Yale 42; Howard 47; Indiana 57; Davidson 59; S. Carolina 65; Marquette 77.

3. Caplovitz and Sherrow, 1977
Apostasy rates rose continuously from 5 percent in "low" ranked schools to 17 percent in "high" ranked schools.

4. Niemi, Ross, and Alexander, 1978
In elite schools, organized religion was judged important by only 26 percent of their students, compared with 44 percent of all students.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STUDIES OF VERY-HIGH IQ GROUPS

%
among
IQ>140 10%
18%
62%
57%
28%
23%

belief ♂ ♀ ♂ ♀ ♂ ♀
strong little none
1. Terman, 1959
Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important."

2. Warren and Heist, 1960
Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have been effected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the basis of intelligence or grades alone, but also on "leadership" and such like.

3. Southern and Plant, 1968
Studied 42 male and 30 female members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or adult.


All these studies were rubbish.
Reason? They dont fit a theists comfort zone. forget the technique, forget the control groups, forget the peer reveiw.

I know three atheists with below 2.5 gpa. lol. I know many Muslims (orthodox) with >3.9 gpa in the same institution and programs. Not that its a statistical test but not sure how valid the studies posted by Barney The Baboon are and if they depict today's reality. Most of them are from 1940s? What the heck. Outdated studies.

[Holly]

Main Entry: insinuating : Introduce or insert (oneself) in a subtle manner

amongst other meanings, I have a dictionary, question is do you have a point?





And then what?


I believe I have addressed your platitudes, again what is your point?

all the best

You have addressed only your lack of knowledge regarding evolutionary science.

Again, if your hopelessly adrift in a sea of ignorance, don't hurl the anchor overboard without first making sure you are not tied to the rope.

and all the best to you. You are in desperate need.

[جوري]

I would describe a hearty guffaw as your flailing around, hoping to avoid addressing your utter lack of knowledge regarding subjects you cannot hope to fathom.

What is that? nothing of substance to impart? Yeah.. it is a pity pithy phrase, I fear however your personal anguish is no substitute for common sense which I am sure if you sit there and sprinkle some what and air and dash of hydrogen and pray to the porcelain god a framshift mutation will happen upon you can carry you over to fully human some day!

all the best

[Holly]

What is that? nothing of substance to impart? Yeah.. it is a pity pithy phrase, I fear however your personal anguish is no substitute for common sense which I am sure if you sit there and sprinkle some what and air and dash of hydrogen and pray to the porcelain god a framshift mutation will happen upon you can carry you over to fully human some day!

all the best

And still no ability to address my comments. This is difficult for you, right?

all the best. You need the best help. I'm here to help.

[جوري]

You have addressed only your lack of knowledge regarding evolutionary science.

and you have addressed what? your Erythroplasia of Queyrat? give it two days it will fall off by itself!

Again, if your hopelessly adrift in a sea of ignorance, don't hurl the anchor overboard without first making sure you are not tied to the rope.

Even if you up the dose of your meds this scatology you spew will not sound any more scientific!

and all the best to you.

Thanks

[CosmicPathos]

You have addressed only your lack of knowledge regarding evolutionary science.

Again, if your hopelessly adrift in a sea of ignorance, don't hurl the anchor overboard without first making sure you are not tied to the rope.

and all the best to you. You are in desperate need.

everything in biology makes sense EXCEPT in the light of evolution. ;D

[جوري]

And still no ability to address my comments. This is difficult for you, right?

all the best. You need the best help. I'm here to help.

You fail to read, and fail to see, and fail to comprehend, how can we possibly help that?
I don't think you need a forum, but psychiatrist who enjoys a challenge!

all the best

[Pygoscelis]

People, GET OVER YOURSELVES!

... this started as a halfway decent thread.

[CosmicPathos]

No need to be shy about asking for help. Impotence occurs in men for many reasons. I'm unaware if those medications have been used in studies involving primates. If you perform a search, you may find enlightenment.

But did they work for you? Something wrong with your spermatogensis, brother? I might kick start it if you allow so. ;D

[CosmicPathos]

You have addressed only your lack of knowledge regarding evolutionary science.

Again, if your hopelessly adrift in a sea of ignorance, don't hurl the anchor overboard without first making sure you are not tied to the rope.

and all the best to you. You are in desperate need.

evolutionary science is pseudo-science. Based on mental conjectures of deluded people like you.

[جوري]

But did they work for you? Something wrong with your spermatogensis, brother? I might kick start it if you allow so. ;D

thought this might come in handy for you while you fix him/her up

[Holly]

and you have addressed what? your Erythroplasia of Queyrat? give it two days it will fall off by itself!


Even if you up the dose of your meds this scatology you spew will not sound any more scientific!


Thanks

If you're not able to address my comments with a coherent response, it's best that you retreat from the thread and avoid further embarassment.

Odd that you are versed with such things as "scatology" yet you have never embraced knowledge that you could share in adult company.

all the best... with your "scatolog'ical" endeavors. Wash up before dinner though, OK?

[Holly]

thought this might come in handy for you while you fix him/her up

You're on your way to a cure for your condition. Good for you. Both hands on the wheel when driving, though.

[CosmicPathos]

thought this might come in handy for you while you fix him/her up

Thank you for the great tool.

Baboon, everything will be fine. Just have faith and let me do my work. ;D

[جوري]

If you're not able to address my comments with a coherent response, it's best that you retreat from the thread and avoid further embarassment.

another adequate assessment of self.. Thanks and btw the correct spelling is: embarrassment
since you like speaking of dictionaries, you ought to have one handy!

Odd that you are versed with such things as "scatology" yet you have never embraced knowledge that you could share in adult company.

I learned all about scatology from atheists.. they love cavorting in it, displaying it, sharing it, hurling it..

all the best... with your "scatolog'ical" endeavors. Wash up before dinner though, OK?

Oh, I always wash up, what about you-- you have been stinking for so long I am not sure you even realize it.. People do get used to the smell after 15 minutes, and this sac must have been anatomically stuck to your back it needs surgical debridement!

all the best

[Holly]

Thank you for the great tool.

Baboon, everything will be fine. Just have faith and let me do my work. ;D

By "work', do you mean the "scatology" thing like your partner?

Is that a muslim thing?

[جوري]

You're on your way to a cure for your condition. Good for you. Both hands on the wheel when driving, though.

Alright, I am driving now, get ready and open wide!

[CosmicPathos]

By "work', do you mean the "scatology" thing like your partner?

Is that a muslim thing?

Well, I have to kill bacteria to stop it from killing a man. I guess same with atheists?

[جوري]

By "work', do you mean the "scatology" thing like your partner?

Is that a muslim thing?

Yes, we are both proctologists about to retrieve your brain!

[Holly]

another adequate assessment of self.. Thanks and btw the correct spelling is: embarrassment
since you like speaking of dictionaries, you ought to have one handy!

I learned all about scatology from atheists.. they love cavorting in it, displaying it, sharing it, hurling it..
Oh, I always wash up, what about you-- you have been stinking for so long I am not sure you even realize it.. People do get used to the smell after 15 minutes, and this sac must have been anatomically stuck to your back it needs surgical debridement!

all the best

I'm concerned with your fascination regarding "scatology". There are sexual perversions and then there are pathologies that you seem to have more than a passing interest with.

You do wash your hands before eating, right?

all the best... and use a good soap after your... umm... adventures.

Are you a pitcher or a catcher?

[جوري]

I'm concerned with your fascination regarding "scatology". There are sexual perversions and then there are pathologies that you seem to have more than a passing interest with.

There is money to be made in catharsis and brain retrieval.. it is just good business sense!

You do wash your hands before eating, right?

We have already covered that!

all the best... and use a good soap after your... umm... adventures.

always do, especially when encountering your ilk

Are you a pitcher or a catcher?

It depends on the case, but I think you are a mix of both!

[Holly]

Yes, we are both proctologists about to retrieve your brain!

Your fascination with certain parts of the anatomy are really disturbing.

all the best... with getting your head out of that part of your friends anatomy

[جوري]

Your fascination with certain parts of the anatomy are really disturbing.

all the best... with getting your head out of that part of your friends anatomy

You are not my friend.. are you suffering from hemiagnosia? wow so much to pity!

all the best

[CosmicPathos]

Your fascination with certain parts of the anatomy are really disturbing.

all the best... with getting your head out of that part of your friends anatomy

Well, better than have animals as ancestors? Do you have the pictures of your ancestors hanging on walls in your house? You know, monkey-like hairy great great great grand pas and hmm boar cousins?

[Holly]

There is money to be made in catharsis and brain retrieval.. it is just good business sense!

We have already covered that!
always do, especially when encountering your ilk


It depends on the case, but I think you are a mix of both!

Getting back to your inability to address my comments regarding evolution and science, why did you feel a need to impose your "scatology" preferences into this thread?

all the best... with explaining that one. Is this part of islamist dawa; "scatology"? That doesn't seem like a real draw to me.

[جوري]

Getting back to your inability to address my comments regarding evolution and science, why did you feel a need to impose your "scatology" preferences into this thread?

wow we can now add destruction of the mammillary bodies to your list of woes.. You are really good for business!

all the best... with explaining that one. Is this part of islamist dawa; "scatology"? That doesn't seem like a real draw to me.

we don't cast pearls before swine.. I wouldn't use that card if I were you!

[Holly]

You are not my friend.. are you suffering from hemiagnosia? wow so much to pity!

all the best

None of my friends share your desires for such things as "scatology". Is that practiced among the ummah'ists as much as you might portray it?

all the best... with cleaning up the mess you make.

[جوري]

None of my friends share your desires for such things as "scatology". Is that practiced among the ummah'ists as much as you might portray it?

You are not a friend, you are just a case.. I thought that was clear?

all the best... with cleaning up the mess you make.

that all depends on you, the sooner you buzz off the easier everyone's job will be!

all the best

[Holly]

wow we can now add destruction of the mammillary bodies to your list of woes.. You are really good for business!


we don't cast pearls before swine.. I wouldn't use that card if I were you!

Speaking of casting, I can't imagine (well, maybe I can), that your religion is so promoting of the "scatology" practice you have such an interest in. Can you cite some verses where this practice of yours is recommended?

all the best... with keeping your messes to a minimum, (as best you can), OK?

[Holly]

You are not a friend, you are just a case.. I thought that was clear?


that all depends on you, the sooner you buzz off the easier everyone's job will be!

all the best

I'm still waiting for you to admit your failures regarding addressing my post and your fascination with "scatology".

all the best... with your religious convictions regarding "scatology".

[جوري]

Speaking of casting, I can't imagine (well, maybe I can), that your religion is so promoting of the "scatology" practice you have such an interest in. Can you cite some verses where this practice of yours is recommended?

I learned about it all from the atheist manifesto, you should familiarize yourself with your credo to be able to shoulder your clan
I believe it was your 5th commandment?
Thou shalt cavort in scatology

all the best... with keeping your messes to a minimum, (as best you can), OK?

you should take care of that echolalia as well.. a laundry list of maladies.. you poor guy.. atheists really are to be pitied!
crap hole of a life and then end up dead!

[جوري]

I'm still waiting for you to admit your failures regarding addressing my post and your fascination with "scatology".

How is that wait working out for you? you should at least address a few of your ailments, you seem like you are completely falling apart, along with stinking!

all the best... with your religious convictions regarding "scatology".

Those are your religious convictions not mine.. the fifth commandment of the atheist manifesto :shade:

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Ok kumquats and zucchinis, time to call this a night.