If God existed…Question to an atheist! first of many to follow

[Soldier2000]

I know that you don’t believe in the existence of God, but in order to deny something you would have to have some idea of that something-

For example in order to deny that an apple is an orange, you would need to have some idea of what an apple is and what an orange is-

In the same sense in order to deny the existence of God, you would need to have some idea what God is, and the consequences of his existence!

In order to gather information from an atheist on the latter I would like to ask them

If God existed do you believe that it’s only logical he will send down revelations to mankind!

[root]

My honest opinion is if God existed the evidence would be quite easy to find and all around us, unfortunately it just is not. So to answer your question I don't think he would require to send any messages.

Additionally, I would understand how man's wish for absolute proof would inspire a falsification (such as religions) in an attempt to give credibility to what they have constructed.

[Soldier2000]

I don't think he would require to send any messages.

fair enough he does not need to send messages to prove his existance as the signs all around is sufficient, and any many if understanding should be able to deduce his existance from those signs!

But what about revelations to mankind addressing the purpose of his creation?

[Soldier2000]

i should really preview my messages before posting them- what i ment to say any man of understanding not

any many if understanding

fair enough he does not need to send messages to prove his existance as the signs all around is sufficient, and any man of understanding should be able to deduce his existance from those signs!

But what about revelations to mankind addressing the purpose of his creation?

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

[HeiGou]

If God existed do you believe that it’s only logical he will send down revelations to mankind!

No. Why would He? Moreover God, if He existed, is clearly beyond our comprehension, so it is a mistake to talk about logic. It does not apply to God or what He does or does not do. Admittedly, if God were like us in some way and so our logic applied to Him, He might send down revelations, but presumably it would be more logical that He would simply have designed His creation better so it did not need constant reminders of the right and wrong thing to do.

[czgibson]

Greetings Soldier2000,

It seems almost like you're asking two questions - or at least giving an argument then asking a separate question. I'll try to respond to both.

I know that you don’t believe in the existence of God, but in order to deny something you would have to have some idea of that something-

1. For example in order to deny that an apple is an orange, you would need to have some idea of what an apple is and what an orange is-

2. In the same sense in order to deny the existence of God, you would need to have some idea what God is, and the consequences of his existence!

(I've labelled your propositions 1 and 2 for clarity).

Your example of an apple not being an orange is only logically analogous to the question of god's existence in quite an obscure way. If you had compared "I deny that an apple is an orange" to "I deny that god is a turnip", then fine, I would have been able to see your point more easily. But you're questioning something's identity in your first example, whereas in the second you're questioning something's existence. I suppose that if you wanted to include 'existing' and 'non-existing' as part of something's identity then the two propositions would be analogous, but they're still confusing examples to use. It's not as if someone is questioning the existence of apples, after all.

However, I take your point about having to know what it is that one is denying, so all I can do is look up definitions of god and find out about his supposed attributes from those who believe they know. My view is this: I deny the existence of god according to all standard definitions of that term. It is a human construct, and a very successful one at that.

In order to gather information from an atheist on the latter I would like to ask them

If God existed do you believe that it’s only logical he will send down revelations to mankind!

You'd have to ask god, I suppose! After all, from my point of view you're asking about a fictional character, so logic doesn't really come into it. It's a bit like saying "is it logical for Hamlet to contemplate suicide?"

Peace

[Soldier2000]

but presumably it would be more logical that He would simply have designed His creation better so it did not need constant reminders of the right and wrong thing to do.

Like the angels you mean!

any way-

i am talking about mankind, a creation he created and given them the gift of free will, would he send revelations to them?

[Soldier2000]

Greeting czgibson!

yours is pending, unfortunately, iam running out of time, but i will read through your posts and further contributions made by others later Inshiallah!

Take Care my freinds,

[HeiGou]

i am talking about mankind, a creation he created and given them the gift of free will, would he send revelations to them?

Well again, God, if He existed, would be beyond our understanding and so there is no logical answer to that question. You would have to rely on tradition I guess. However if you could apply human logic to God, why? Why would He design creatures that needed constant reminders? Why would He not forsee problems before they occurred? I never get that constantly sending Revelations either - you'd think that once would be enough, but then, as I said, the logic of God is not something humans can deal with.

[ISDhillon]

Well again, God, if He existed, would be beyond our understanding and so there is no logical answer to that question. You would have to rely on tradition I guess. However if you could apply human logic to God, why? Why would He design creatures that needed constant reminders? Why would He not forsee problems before they occurred? I never get that constantly sending Revelations either - you'd think that once would be enough, but then, as I said, the logic of God is not something humans can deal with.

Well said Heigou I have been trying to say that just cos we might be logical that does not mean that the nature of god is logical but Soldier 2000 doesnt want to acknowledge this hmmmmm wonder why?

ISDhillon:)

[wilberhum]

Now a word from your local agnostic.

If God existed do you believe that it’s only logical he will send down revelations to mankind!
One would first have to assume that we are god’s special creatures. It is a common theme among theists that some how we are above all other creatures and god created everything for us. That is why I maintain that religion is as much about glorifying man, first as a species and second as a gender, as it is about glorifying god. I don’t accept the theory of our superiority.

He does not need to send messages to prove his existence as the signs all around is sufficient, and any man of understanding should be able to deduce his existence from those signs!
The signs that are all around are sufficient for a theists. Theists see signs every where they look. As for “any man of understanding”, is nothing but your superiority complex showing

But what about revelations to mankind addressing the purpose of his creation?
What revelations? Revelation is just another theist’s concept. I don’t believe that any thing has been reveled by god.

I am talking about mankind, a creation he created and given them the gift of free will, would he send revelations to them?
Only if we are special would the send revelations. Concluding that we are special is again another theist theory.

Now I have some questions for you.
If there is a god and we are his special creation that he created every thing for, why hasn’t he made his intentions and expiations clear?
There is no religion that contains a majority of humanity. If this life is the ultimate test for eternity, why doesn’t he make the rules clear enough that everyone would understand?

How can a perfect god leave us with such an imperfect message?

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:

Br. Soldier2000 has raised to important points. The first point is that before one debates over a concept of denies the existence of an entity, they must ensure they have understood the definition of the concept/entity in question. There is no use in utilizing anti-trinity arguments against a Muslim, because you are arguing against a concept of God to which Muslims do not subscribe.

As far as the issue of revelation is concerned, I agree again. If we accept the existence of an All-Good Creator, He would not abandon His creation to turmoil and confusion. The revelation is not so much about establishing the existence of God - this can be accomplished by someone living on an island who never recieves revelation, simply by following his fitrah (natural human disposition). Revelation is about guiding humanity on how to strive towards God and come closer to Him through righteousness. It is about knowing Our Creator and developing our relationship with Him.

As far as logic is concerned, then logic is not relative. Logic is absolute. It is on this basis that we can reject a concept which is self-contradictory - for it to be valid it must be logically coherent. While the measure and extent of God's attributes is beyond our comprehension, this does not necessitate that the concept of God should be illogical. Actually, I'm rather amazed that atheists would advocate such a view, considering that Atheists have been the foremost in saying that logic forms our basis for examining the validity of concepts! And it is fallacious to say that we cannot examine the concept logically because somepeople view God as fictional - the entire premise of the question is, "what would be the case if an entity with such-and-such attributes did exist?"

Lastly, just a response to Wilber:

If there is a god and we are his special creation that he created every thing for

While Muslims believe that God has honoured humanity (which is visible from a simple comparison amongst all known creation), we do not believe that we are the cause for creation or the supreme creation.

why hasn’t he made his intentions and expiations clear?

Why do you assume He hasn't?

There is no religion that contains a majority of humanity

The imprefection is in the human beings who reject God, not the message of God.

If this life is the ultimate test for eternity, why doesn’t he make the rules clear enough that everyone would understand?

What do you feel is unclear about the Islamic message?

How can a perfect god leave us with such an imperfect message?

Unless you can prove otherwise, I repeat that the imperfection is in some of God's creation, not the message itself.

Regards :)

[ISDhillon]

Satsriakal Ansar Ji:brother:


"this does not necessitate that the concept of God should be illogical"

it doesnt necessitate that the nature of god be logical either, the premise is that man would be unable to accept an illogical god but this is not true i accept it, perhaps man needs to learn humility first before trying to understand the concept of god?

For the following scenarios to be possible is only expected from a logically impossible god:

-If God can create a rock too heavy to lift, then he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift a certain rock.

-If God cannot create a rock too heavy to lift, then he is not omnipotent because he is unable to create a certain rock.

I love a conceptually self-contradictory god,

Gurfateh:)

ISDhillon

[wilberhum]

Why do I assume that god hasn’t made his intentions and expiations clear?
I don’t think it is an assumption. I think that it is obvious because “There is no religion that contains a majority of humanity”. To blame that on the imperfection of humans, to me, is just another theist theory. I still stand by “If this life is the ultimate test for eternity, got would make the rules clear enough that everyone would understand”. To me that is only logical. Since I think god if perfect, I reject an illogical god.
What do I feel is unclear about the Islamic message? My point it not about the Islamic message any more than it is about the Christian message. What makes the whole thing unclear is that there are thousands of messages, many of them contradictory.
Unless you can prove otherwise. In matters of faith there is no proof. That’s why it is called faith. You have no more PROOF than I do.
This is not an attack on Islam or theists, it is an objection to what some claim as obvious.

[Trumble]

Now a word from your local agnostic.

If God existed do you believe that it’s only logical he will send down revelations to mankind!
One would first have to assume that we are god’s special creatures. It is a common theme among theists that some how we are above all other creatures and god created everything for us. That is why I maintain that religion is as much about glorifying man, first as a species and second as a gender, as it is about glorifying god. I don’t accept the theory of our superiority.

And from your local Buddhist;

Very well said. That would be my position, with the slight variation in that mankind may concievably be "special" only in that it is the one form from which escape from Samsara is possible. Emphasis on the "may".

The superiority and 'specialness' of mankind is frequently assumed, but nobody has ever justified it to my satisfaction. In such a vast universe, with no doubt so many amazing things and - who knows - intelligent species, I find it rather odd God would be interested in us at all.

I agree with HeiGou too, talking about logic in this context is absurd. Logic depends on rigidly defined rules; in the case of God (if there is one) we not only don't know the rules but we don't even have the capacity to know them.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Why do I assume that god hasn’t made his intentions and expiations clear?
I don’t think it is an assumption. I think that it is obvious because “There is no religion that contains a majority of humanity”. To blame that on the imperfection of humans, to me, is just another theist theory.

One could say that your view is just another agnostic theory. Do you think a message should spread instantly from the person it is revealed to, to the entire world, if it is true?

I still stand by “If this life is the ultimate test for eternity, got would make the rules clear enough that everyone would understand”.

But you're confusing two issues. On one hand there is the issue of understanding the rules and on the other hand there is the issue of accepting them. Many non-muslims understand the rules for prayer in islam, they just don't accept them to be from God.

Since I think god if perfect, I reject an illogical god.

Absolutely.

What do I feel is unclear about the Islamic message? My point it not about the Islamic message any more than it is about the Christian message. What makes the whole thing unclear is that there are thousands of messages, many of them contradictory.

I agree there are thousands of mutually contradictory messages out there and not all of them can be true. There is only one true message of God; it is the duty of human beings to seek it.

Unless you can prove otherwise. In matters of faith there is no proof. That’s why it is called faith. You have no more PROOF than I do.

I think we discussed this (maybe partially) in another thread, but my view is that faith is constrcuted upon logic and understanding.

Regards

[snakelegs]

another agnostic weighing in.
something i have never understood about atheists is how can you believe in the non-existence of something? you have no more proof than the believer.

[glo]

another agnostic weighing in.
something i have never understood about atheists is how can you believe in the non-existence of something? you have no more proof than the believer.

Does that make atheism another faith ... another religion?

[root]

Does that make atheism another faith ... another religion?

Under my understanding of faith I don't think atheism requires faith.

I define Belief as accepting something as truth without 100% evidence.

I define Faith as accepting something as truth while there is more evidence against it then for it.

[glo]

Under my understanding of faith I don't think atheism requires faith.

I define Belief as accepting something as truth without 100% evidence.

I define Faith as accepting something as truth while there is more evidence against it then for it.

Interesting, root.

According to that statement, there is more evidence against the existence of God than for it?

According to that statement, atheism is a belief, but not a faith?

[Mohsin]

Satsriakal Ansar Ji:brother:


"this does not necessitate that the concept of God should be illogical"

it doesnt necessitate that the nature of god be logical either, the premise is that man would be unable to accept an illogical god but this is not true i accept it, perhaps man needs to learn humility first before trying to understand the concept of god?

For the following scenarios to be possible is only expected from a logically impossible god:

-If God can create a rock too heavy to lift, then he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift a certain rock.

-If God cannot create a rock too heavy to lift, then he is not omnipotent because he is unable to create a certain rock.

I love a conceptually self-contradictory god,

Gurfateh:)

ISDhillon

Sorry bro, in islam God is not self-contradictory

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post159645

[HeiGou]

Sorry bro, in islam God is not self-contradictory

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post159645

Hmm, well Ansar Al-Adl does his usual clear and precise answer, but that still looks like a lot of re-defining the question to me. So you argue that such a stone could not exist. The problem does not go away in general terms if you reject the specific case. How about rephrasing it - Can God send another Prophet if He wants to?

[------]

How about rephrasing it - Can God send another Prophet if He wants to?

God could send another Prophet IF he wants to but the fact is that Muhammad (pbuh) was the seal of the prophets meaning no more Prophets will come.

[Mohsin]

using the Dr Zakir Naik approach,

Yes God can send another Prophet if he wanted, but he won't, because he would contradict himself and that would be ungodly so he would not do it

Similar to the question of can God eat or become human, the answer could be yes, he can do that, but he never would because he would be limiting his powers and that would be ungodly

[IbnAbdulHakim]

My honest opinion is if God existed the evidence would be quite easy to find and all around us, unfortunately it just is not.

:peace: Peace!

I believe perception of some people may be flawed! What you see as the absence of God all around you many see as his fruits and fruitions, of his will! Truth is evidence is all around, its just how you concieve that evidence which matters. For example look at how an ant colonises around, how do a million ants act as one group and how is it they all know there task from the instant there born? How is soldier ants distinguished from normal ants? Just a thought :)

:peace: Peace!

[HeiGou]

using the Dr Zakir Naik approach,

I didn't know Dr Naik comment on this issue. Again, I think I'm original only to find....

Yes God can send another Prophet if he wanted, but he won't, because he would contradict himself and that would be ungodly so he would not do it

Well this is an argument I do not care to have, but surely if it is unGodly, He cannot do it because that would be a contradiction?

Similar to the question of can God eat or become human, the answer could be yes, he can do that, but he never would because he would be limiting his powers and that would be ungodly

So He can't and still be the same God?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

So He can't and still be the same God?

:peace: Peace!

Do you think a baby should study medecine when its born? Then why should we attempt to understand GOD! We should just obey him from the proof his given.

:peace: :)

[Ayesha Rana]

Well this is an argument I do not care to have, but surely if it is unGodly, He cannot do it because that would be a contradiction?



So He can't and still be the same God?

God can do anything. He just chooses not to cos he doesn't want to. He tells us He will not do some things (like send another prophet). God can send another prophet if He wants to but He doesn't want to and knows He will not and He has told us so. Just cos He doesn't want to do something and knows that He won't, doesn't mean that He can't.

[------]

HeiGou can u not ignore my post above please.

[Ayesha Rana]

We are humans after all and God has left some things out of our understanding for his own reasons. We have no right to question him and if we don't understand we should say Allahu'Alam(Allah knows best) which is also an aspect of knowledge.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

HeiGou God could send another Prophet IF he wants to but the fact is that Muhammad (pbuh) was the seal of the prophets meaning no more Prophets will come.

:sl:

Yes this pretty much explains it, no-one should expect God to do that which he has decreed not to!

:w:

[Soldier2000]

Heigou-

Well again, God, if He existed, would be beyond our understanding and so there is no logical answer to that question.

Heigou, the reason why there is no logical answer to the question is because you have created question which is designed to complement your own answer?

I have not created this thread to win the debates Heigou, Just wanted simple answers to my question, and ultimately to understand atheism

My question was if God existed would he send down revelations, not comprehending the source of the revelation?

In a nutshell Your answer to my question

If God existed would he send down revelations was

No-

Your reason

Because God is incomprehensible, beyond our logic

In what way does God being incomprehensible and beyond our logic prevents him from sending down comprehensible revelations to the rational mind?

If god existed then one of the attributes of and God would be all knowing, he is well acquainted to what is and what is not comprehensible to his creation- and if he chose to send down revelation to Guide Mankind and you believe in an all Good creator, you will have to admit the revelations would have to be in-synch with the rational mind!

Let me clarify the question

If you believed in the existence All-Good Creator, is it comprehensible that he would send down revelations/Guidance and not abandon His creation to turmoil and confusion ?

Why would He ot forsee problems before they occurred? I never get that constantly sending Revelations either

We can discuss the need for the “constantly” sending revelations in another post later inshiallah-

[IbnAbdulHakim]

:peace: Peace!

I believe perception of some people may be flawed! What you see as the absence of God all around you many see as his fruits and fruitions, of his will! Truth is evidence is all around, its just how you concieve that evidence which matters. For example look at how an ant colonises around, how do a million ants act as one group and how is it they all know there task from the instant there born? How is soldier ants distinguished from normal ants? Just a thought :)

:peace: Peace!

Root please allow me to know what you make of this :), very interested to hear.

[IceQueen~]

Root please allow me to know what you make of this :), very interested to hear.

termites too! and bees-how do they make their nest so perfectly hexagonal without rulers and calculators-and beevers- how did they know that the best shape for dams is semi-circle shape?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

termites too! and bees-how do they make their nest so perfectly hexagonal without rulers and calculators-and beevers- how did they know that the best shape for dams is semi-circle shape?

:sl:

mashAllah. Alhamdullilah. Allahu akbar.

:w:

[HeiGou]

Well again, God, if He existed, would be beyond our understanding and so there is no logical answer to that question.

Heigou, the reason why there is no logical answer to the question is because you have created question which is designed to complement your own answer?

How did I do that given it was your question?

I have not created this thread to win the debates Heigou, Just wanted simple answers to my question, and ultimately to understand atheism

Surely atheism is not hard, and besides, atheism comes in so many different varieties, how could you understand them all?

My question was if God existed would he send down revelations, not comprehending the source of the revelation?

But if He exists He has His reasons which we do not understand. This is Monotheism 101.

In a nutshell Your answer to my question

If God existed would he send down revelations was

No-

Your reason

Because God is incomprehensible, beyond our logic

In what way does God being incomprehensible and beyond our logic prevents him from sending down comprehensible revelations to the rational mind?

That was not my answer. My answer comes in several parts.

Part 1. The question is flawed because God is Unknowable and there is no way for us to know what He would or would not do.

Part 2. Assuming that we accept that God does things for reasons we do understand (for which there is no basis: see Part 1 above) then there is no logical reason for a Divine Being to send down Revelation. The other option is available to Him: building better humans or just letting us get on with it.

If god existed then one of the attributes of and God would be all knowing, he is well acquainted to what is and what is not comprehensible to his creation- and if he chose to send down revelation to Guide Mankind and you believe in an all Good creator, you will have to admit the revelations would have to be in-synch with the rational mind!

Why? They would have to be in-synch with God's mind, but as that Mind is essentially unknowable to us mere mortals, we would have to accept His Rules without questions or thinking too much about them. It would not matter why pork, for instance, was banned. It is banned. I see no reason why His revelations would have to be logical and rational at all.

Let me clarify the question

If you believed in the existence All-Good Creator, is it comprehensible that he would send down revelations/Guidance and not abandon His creation to turmoil and confusion ?

It is possible, but I do not think it is likely. What logical reason would He have to choose that option and not any others?

[HeiGou]

I believe perception of some people may be flawed! What you see as the absence of God all around you many see as his fruits and fruitions, of his will! Truth is evidence is all around, its just how you concieve that evidence which matters. For example look at how an ant colonises around, how do a million ants act as one group and how is it they all know there task from the instant there born? How is soldier ants distinguished from normal ants? Just a thought :)

But we can explain, pretty much, what ants do and why without God. And it comes down to their genes and evolution. It is true that ants seem to know a few simple tasks when they are born, but those seem to come down to simple rules which are easy to follow - they just seem to produce complex behaviour. Soldier ants are distinguished from worker ants by genes and by upbringing.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

But we can explain, pretty much, what ants do and why without God. And it comes down to their genes and evolution. It is true that ants seem to know a few simple tasks when they are born, but those seem to come down to simple rules which are easy to follow - they just seem to produce complex behaviour. Soldier ants are distinguished from worker ants by genes and by upbringing.

:peace:

I find it impossible to believe that such an amazing thing can happen completely by chance. Can you by chance pik out a red marble out of a gigantic jar containing 999 million blue marbles?

:peace:

[root]

Abd'Majid - I believe perception of some people may be flawed! What you see as the absence of God all around you many see as his fruits and fruitions, of his will! Truth is evidence is all around, its just how you concieve that evidence which matters.

To me this means more precisely how I interprit the scientific data.

For example look at how an ant colonises around, how do a million ants act as one group and how is it they all know there task from the instant there born? How is soldier ants distinguished from normal ants? Just a thought

if one believes "behaviour" and "genes" are seperate entities you will find yourself flirting outside our known understanding of such. Your "Ant's" have evolved to be the way they are and are controlled by thier genes. Jut like the mechanism of "how does a skin cell know it is a skin cell". It's behaviour is intructed within it's gene.

An example of why ants are doing what they are doing to my mind mirrors the study of the beaver please allow me to explain.

A beaver was at birth denied access to "beaver behaviour" when it became an adult it was moved and held in isolation, an empty room with four walls. Within a few days the said beaver started doing what beavers do, it started building a damn. It mimicked getting mud and debri and built a dam that must wholly have been constructed in it's mind, it spent most of it's time building it's very own Damn. Deprived of any raw material and any flowing water the Beaver acted on pure "instictive" action which is believed to be genticly inherited since the best beaver damn species were the one's who reproduced. A beaver, like the ant does not need instructions on how to build a damn or a home, they don't need instructions on what role they must fulfil it's all handed to them at the moment they are concieved when the genes of the parents lay in genes most of the characteristics and instincts for the new life.....

genes, don't just seem to give instructions on the design of a species, it lays fundamental foundations of character and instinctive behaviour which it is supected like the form of a species adapts and changes so to can the characteristics of the instinctive behaviour. Good damn beuilding skills appear in the beaver at a genetic level, over time this instinctive skill is passed onto subsequent generations evoultion denies the "not so good damn builders" because they cannot survive as well. Each and every species on this planet is in the business of survival which is why I don't like the term "intermediate" or between species. Every intermediate species by this concept suggest that each and every living species actually is an intermediate, we just never relised that. Half a wing is not plausable is it?

[------]

HeiGou God could send another Prophet IF he wants to but the fact is that Muhammad (pbuh) was the seal of the prophets meaning no more Prophets will come.

How about looking at my post HeiGou?

[Ayesha Rana]

But we can explain, pretty much, what ants do and why without God. And it comes down to their genes and evolution. It is true that ants seem to know a few simple tasks when they are born, but those seem to come down to simple rules which are easy to follow - they just seem to produce complex behaviour. Soldier ants are distinguished from worker ants by genes and by upbringing.

It is all due to instinct. Instinct cannot evolve which was a flaw Darwin accepted. How does a baby elephant evolve to drink it's mothers milk at birth. If the first elephant doesn't drink it how will it survive to produce more offspring. How does every baby mamal know what to do? It is instinct that God gave them and without which they would not have lved to begin with.

[root]

It is all due to instinct. Instinct cannot evolve which was a flaw Darwin accepted.

The evidence simply does not support your position, please provide the data that supports your position not necesarily what Darwin thought (Evolution is not built on 1 mans opinion). Did you read the post three up on the Scientific Beaver damn building experiment.............

[------]

God could send another Prophet IF he wants to but the fact is that Muhammad (pbuh) was the seal of the prophets meaning no more Prophets will come.

How about looking at my post Root?

[IceQueen~]

[QUOTE=root;304215] (Evolution is not built on 1 mans opinion)QUOTE]
nope-its the lies built by a group of men working towards the same goal-someday people will see the truth!
can you please read this site? http://www.thestoneage.org/

[Ayesha Rana]

The evidence simply does not support your position, please provide the data that supports your position not necesarily what Darwin thought (Evolution is not built on 1 mans opinion). Did you read the post three up on the Scientific Beaver damn building experiment.............

What the beaver did is a different case. Sorry. Mabey i should rephrase my comment. Not all instinct can evolve. I was considering the fact that a mamal cannot be instinctively evolved to drink its mothers milk at birth cos the first mamal would not have those instructions in its genes and if it does not do what it is instinctively able to do cos it doesn't have the genes, it will die. No mamal. No genes. Simple as that.

[ISDhillon]

How about looking at my post Root?

Aalima Ji I see at various times you have asked people to read your quote but unfortunately islam does not have a monopoly on the way in which a revelation from god is to brought onto earth, i believe prophethood was one and sure I also believe your prophet was the last one but god may send an avtar which is in no way a prophet and also a guru which he did, your response only applies to prophethood it is not universal when people say it is universal, then they are unwilling to acknowledge that words are exclusive to the thing you are trying to define rasool is not avtar and avtar is not guru and guru is not messenger etc etc.

Also at times people say contradiction is ungodly yet god creates the the ability to contradict also where does the godly and ungodliness start and end?:?

[Ayesha Rana]

Fine you have your own opinion on the Guru and stuff but she was trying to make the point that just cos God can do something it doesn't mean He has to. He decided not to and He has the power to do what He pleases.

[ISDhillon]

Fine you have your own opinion on the Guru and stuff but she was trying to make the point that just cos God can do something it doesn't mean He has to. He decided not to and He has the power to do what He pleases.

Agreed in terms of prophethood:)

[------]

Hmmmmmmm.......... I don't understand any other religion than Islam, and I've studied Hinduism and Christianity....

[ISDhillon]

Sorry bro, in islam God is not self-contradictory

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post159645

Moss I read some of it this is what I think:


“The same is true when asking God to make a circle with four sides.”

A hologram does? So why wouldn’t god?

“Basically, such a stone could not exist.”

Ok then if god is all powerful he first makes himself weak and he cant lift the stone then he uses his power to make himself strong and he picks up the stone:? Why wouldn’t he do this? It comes down to an opinion that he would not and that is an assumption? Is there no end to this madness?

Where will it take us?

Then we venture further into all of this and we find this:

And Allah, over each thing, is omnipotent; all-powerful [al-Baqarah 2:284]

This includes all that is possible. As for what is in intrinsically impossible - such as there being a thing that exists and does not exist at one and the same time - then, this has no reality, nor is its existence conceivable, nor is it termed 'a thing' by agreement of the intelligent ones. Included in this category is: [Allah] creating the likes of Himself, making Himself non-existent, and other impossibilites.


I am in aggreeeance that such a god which I wholly believe in is intrinsically impossible, beyond reality, inconceivable by the intelligent ones and finally impossible – however this cannot be tied into the revelation of Koran either as being incorrect if such a contradiction were to exist because the concept of god is hands-off!, the way you’re supposed to live can be inferred by using you’re intellect because that is what the Koran is for, the Koran is not for figuring out the concept of god if you say it is then you will fail at every step its as impossible as an impossible god.


Isdhillon :)

[Soldier2000]

If god existed then one of the attributes of and God would be all knowing, he is well acquainted to what is and what is not comprehensible to his creation- and if he chose to send down revelation to Guide Mankind and you believe in an all Good creator, you will have to admit the revelations would have to be in-synch with the rational mind!

Hi Heigou

Your response to the above was

Why? They would have to be in-synch with God's mind, but as that Mind is essentially unknowable to us mere mortals, we would have to accept His Rules without questions or thinking too much about them. It would not matter why pork, for instance, was banned. It is banned. I see no reason why His revelations would have to be logical and rational at all.

First of Why?

Because of the reasons I have given in the very above- to highlight

“And if he chose to send down revelation to Guide Mankind”

They would have to be in-synch with God's mind, but as that Mind is essentially unknowable to us mere mortals, we would have to accept His Rules without questions or thinking too much about them. It would not matter why pork, for instance, was banned. It is banned. I see no reason why His revelations would have to be logical and rational at all.

what are these rules that you talk of?

[HeiGou]

I find it impossible to believe that such an amazing thing can happen completely by chance. Can you by chance pik out a red marble out of a gigantic jar containing 999 million blue marbles?

Why do you keep insisting it is by chance when it is no such thing? Evolution has random inputs - variation - but it is not by chance per se. Imagine a flock of gazelles. If they died at random there would be no evolution as such. But if a cheetah came along and ate all the slow ones - that would not be by chance. The cheetah would eat the ones it could catch, and the ones that were too fast for it would escape. Over time the gazelles would get faster and faster as the slow ones would not have any children and the fast ones would. Where is the chance here?

[HeiGou]

Why? They would have to be in-synch with God's mind, but as that Mind is essentially unknowable to us mere mortals, we would have to accept His Rules without questions or thinking too much about them. It would not matter why pork, for instance, was banned. It is banned. I see no reason why His revelations would have to be logical and rational at all.

Because of the reasons I have given in the very above- to highlight

“And if he chose to send down revelation to Guide Mankind”

I don't follow why that follows from the above. God does not need us to udnerstand His purpose. He needs us to obey it. It would, no doubt, help if we understood it because then we could follow it better. But it is not necessary for it to be logical or rational. Indeed I would argue most religions are neither.

They would have to be in-synch with God's mind, but as that Mind is essentially unknowable to us mere mortals, we would have to accept His Rules without questions or thinking too much about them. It would not matter why pork, for instance, was banned. It is banned. I see no reason why His revelations would have to be logical and rational at all.

what are these rules that you talk of?

Well the ban on eating pork. Why? The permission to marry your cousin. Why? The need to circumcise? To allow murderers to pay diya? There are a lot of things about most religions which are not logical or rational, but just are.

[HeiGou]

How about looking at my post HeiGou?

Sorry I am not ignoring your posts, but I am a little swamped. As I answered one a lot like it (random - I got to it first) I did not repeat myself.

That is you isn't it under a new name?

[root]

What the beaver did is a different case. Sorry. Mabey i should rephrase my comment. Not all instinct can evolve.

I don't see how it is a different case. Perhaps one could say that we have clearly demonstrated that quite complexed tasks are well developed genome so the instinct to suckle by comparison is a relative "basic" instinct.

I was considering the fact that a mamal cannot be instinctively evolved to drink its mothers milk at birth cos the first mamal would not have those instructions in its genes and if it does not do what it is instinctively able to do cos it doesn't have the genes, it will die.

Your basing that on the premis that lactating females are already present ready for the young to suckle which could not be the case. When looking for an answer I akways find it best to identify why a current system would have been advantages to it and then look for how it could reasonably be achieved through small steps, Here is the evolutionary advantage of lactating females.

Lactation is Secretion or formation of milk by the mammary glands.

Lactation is a ubiquitous feature of mammalian reproduction. Because lactating females can draw on their nutrient reserves for milk production, it offers mothers and their dependent young independence from fluctuations in their food supplies. However, converting food to reserves and milk is relatively inefficient at delivering nutrients to offspring. We use dynamic programming to contrast the performance of mothers that provision dependent, refuge-bound offspring optimally from their nutrient reserves with otherwise equivalent mothers that do so directly from the food they find. In this way, we demonstrate formally that the selective advantage to lactating mothers, who can provision--at a cost--without having found food recently, can be substantial with uncertain food supplies and few opportunities for future reproduction under a wide range of circumstances. Hence, it is likely that unreliability associated with the lifestyles of the small, primitive mammal-like reptiles that evolved extended maternal care, selected for fully-developed milk production and consumption, prompting the evolution of true mammals. Moreover, this work suggests that selection for coping with unreliable food access during provisioning may underlie key life-history differences between birds and mammals because the mass constraints imposed by flight restrict the level of reserves that mothers can carry and provision from.

Of course, exactly how it occured is not yet known and a couple of theories to this matter do exist here is the link:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...3501.An.r.html

No mamal. No genes. Simple as that.

No genes, no mamal would be a better way of putting it.

[IceQueen~]

hey root- have you read that harun yahya site or not?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Why do you keep insisting it is by chance when it is no such thing?

:peace:

Agreed :p

:peace:

[Soldier2000]

I don't follow why that follows from the above. God does not need us to udnerstand His purpose!

whose talking about understanding Gods purpose, the question address understanding your purpose!

Well the ban on eating pork. Why? The permission to marry your cousin. Why? The need to circumcise? To allow murderers to pay diya? There are a lot of things about most religions which are not logical or rational, but just are.

i like the way you added the why's after each commandment-

BUT are the commandments clear enough to you?, forget the reasons for them but the commandments themself?

[IceQueen~]

I don't follow why that follows from the above. God does not need us to udnerstand His purpose!

whose talking about understanding Gods purpose, the question address understanding your purpose!

Well the ban on eating pork. Why? The permission to marry your cousin. Why? The need to circumcise? To allow murderers to pay diya? There are a lot of things about most religions which are not logical or rational, but just are.

i like the way you added the why's after each commandment-

BUT are the commandments clear enough to you?, forget the reasons for them but the commandments themself?

may Allah guide you! ameen!

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Evolution has random inputs - variation - but it is not by chance per se. Imagine a flock of gazelles. If they died at random there would be no evolution as such. But if a cheetah came along and ate all the slow ones - that would not be by chance. The cheetah would eat the ones it could catch, and the ones that were too fast for it would escape. Over time the gazelles would get faster and faster as the slow ones would not have any children and the fast ones would. Where is the chance here?

:peace:

Survival of the fittest is not by chance, its a system which fits perfectly! Imagine if the system was flawed, things would have just blown completely out of proportion. I dont think humans or "chance" has its way of creatin such a system.

:peace: :)

[Ayesha Rana]

Why do you keep insisting it is by chance when it is no such thing? Evolution has random inputs - variation - but it is not by chance per se. Imagine a flock of gazelles. If they died at random there would be no evolution as such. But if a cheetah came along and ate all the slow ones - that would not be by chance. The cheetah would eat the ones it could catch, and the ones that were too fast for it would escape. Over time the gazelles would get faster and faster as the slow ones would not have any children and the fast ones would. Where is the chance here?

Evolution may not be by chance but do you claim that the creation of the Universe was by chance? What is the chance of having 10 marbles labelled 1 to 10 in a bag and being able to pick out each one in order with your eyes closed. The chance is 1 out of millions. So what is the chance of the Universe falling together by accident. There must be a divine power behind it and that power is God. Subhanallah.
Peace.

[HeiGou]

Evolution may not be by chance but do you claim that the creation of the Universe was by chance? What is the chance of having 10 marbles labelled 1 to 10 in a bag and being able to pick out each one in order with your eyes closed. The chance is 1 out of millions. So what is the chance of the Universe falling together by accident. There must be a divine power behind it and that power is God.

I don't think enough is known about the creation of the Universe to be sure. The chances are 1 in 10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 or 1 in 182,880 which is better than 1 in a million. But you are asking the wrong question - suppose you pull out of a bag 10 marbles labels one to ten. Suppose the order you get them in is 5, 7, 2, 4, 8, 9, 1, 3, 10, 6. Now, with those marbles in your hand, what is the chance that you are hold ten marbles in that precise order? Well precisely one because they are in your hand in that order. The Universe exists already. The marbles have been drawn. We are here, me at my desk, you wherever you are. If it was possible to "rewind the tape" and go back to the Big Bang and start all over again and billions of years later end up with me here and you there, that would be aa miracle. But obviously I am here and you are there or I wouldn't be writing this and you wouldn't be reading this.

[HeiGou]

Survival of the fittest is not by chance, its a system which fits perfectly! Imagine if the system was flawed, things would have just blown completely out of proportion. I dont think humans or "chance" has its way of creatin such a system.

Don't tell me you are becoming an Evolutionist! This forum is for you to convert me not the other way around - I'd be banned in seconds if I actually convinced someone!

Humans do use "natural selection" to find "good enough" solutions where no perfect solution exists. Computers do models and test the model, change it slightly and test it again, and if it is better, change it slightly and test it again. After enough tests they tend to have a pretty good solution.

[IceQueen~]

I don't think enough is known about the creation of the Universe to be sure. The chances are 1 in 10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 or 1 in 182,880 which is better than 1 in a million. But you are asking the wrong question - suppose you pull out of a bag 10 marbles labels one to ten. Suppose the order you get them in is 5, 7, 2, 4, 8, 9, 1, 3, 10, 6. Now, with those marbles in your hand, what is the chance that you are hold ten marbles in that precise order? Well precisely one because they are in your hand in that order. The Universe exists already. The marbles have been drawn. We are here, me at my desk, you wherever you are. If it was possible to "rewind the tape" and go back to the Big Bang and start all over again and billions of years later end up with me here and you there, that would be aa miracle. But obviously I am here and you are there or I wouldn't be writing this and you wouldn't be reading this.

yeah but who brought the 'marbles' in this sense into being in the first place?

[Ayesha Rana]

I don't think enough is known about the creation of the Universe to be sure. The chances are 1 in 10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 or 1 in 182,880 which is better than 1 in a million.

Sorry i heard it on a lecture. Mabey my ears weren't open properly.
But yeah, even then like Marge1 said where did the marbles come from. Who made the elements? I don't know how people can possibly think they were not created by God

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Don't tell me you are becoming an Evolutionist! This forum is for you to convert me not the other way around - I'd be banned in seconds if I actually convinced someone!

Humans do use "natural selection" to find "good enough" solutions where no perfect solution exists. Computers do models and test the model, change it slightly and test it again, and if it is better, change it slightly and test it again. After enough tests they tend to have a pretty good solution.

:peace:

lol funny guy :p, you are nowhere close to convertin me :p. I'd sooner believe pigs can fly :). Yes and someone is CONTROLLING the tests, who is that? The man who created the Tests! so the test has a creator RIGHT? :p Or is it testing on its own? :? lol

:peace:

[root]

My take on the universe is this:

A single existent universe really does put science onto it's back foot, afterall you have one chance and one chance only to "get it right". Of course we just don't know if this universe is indeed ours and recent research offers tantalising suggestions as noted here:

"At present the conventional view is that all of space, time, matter and energy began at a single point, which then expanded and cooled, leaving the Universe as it is today," said Professor Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, New Jersey.

"However, this new theory suggests that there's a continuous cycle of universes, with each a repeat of the last, but not an exact replica.

"It can be thought of as a child of the previous universe."

I actually think that multiple unverse "multiverse" makes logical sense even if by historical repetition. We once thought our Sun was a single entity, our planet was the only planet. Our solar system the only solar system. Last but not least our Galaxy was a single entity. Each time throughout the years and as scientific discovery is made we have come to realise this to be so wrong. Logically, I believe the same fate will become of the idea our universe is a single entity and too will the multiverse give ample chance for the criteria such as our universe to come about.

It's a numbers game afterall, to me this is a logical approach.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

A beaver was at birth denied access to "beaver behaviour" when it became an adult it was moved and held in isolation, an empty room with four walls. Within a few days the said beaver started doing what beavers do, it started building a damn. It mimicked getting mud and debri and built a dam that must wholly have been constructed in it's mind, it spent most of it's time building it's very own Damn. Deprived of any raw material and any flowing water the Beaver acted on pure "instictive" action which is believed to be genticly inherited since the best beaver damn species were the one's who reproduced. A beaver, like the ant does not need instructions on how to build a damn or a home, they don't need instructions on what role they must fulfil it's all handed to them at the moment they are concieved when the genes of the parents lay in genes most of the characteristics and instincts for the new life.....

:peace:

Look at what a complex pattern of behaviour your have just described. Look at how things change, look at how the beaver knows how to survive! You are so knowledgable root, how comes you dont question how all this comes to be?

:peace:

[root]

Look at what a complex pattern of behaviour your have just described. Look at how things change

Scotland gets really cold in the winter, if I throw water outside on a really cold night the water will form a highly complex frozen water crystal of great complexity. Have I just created it or has a spontanious chemical reaction occured? If water "drips" from a rock at night and freezes, will it not form a complex structure because "I" the creator of the first water crystal did not physically throw the water?

besides which, I cannot subscribe to "creationism" no matter how I logically look at the biggest problem for creationists namely matching RVI insertions within primates. Lastly, I firmly believe that "absolute proof" is beyond us so why would I accept "absolute proof" from a souce (religion) that is often shown not to be absolute proof. can you ever trust a lier who claims he never lies? The salvation for me is that science will only offer a probability, it is for me and me alone to logically decide as best I can what the probable fate of myself will be and how I probably came to be in the first place.

It is this uncertainty that drives me to continue to scutinise the scientific discoveries of the day and not scritinise the recent religous writings of yesterday. Progress is ahead of us and not behind. (in my opinion)

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Lastly, I firmly believe that "absolute proof" is beyond us so why would I accept "absolute proof" from a souce (religion) that is often shown not to be absolute proof. can you ever trust a lier who claims he never lies?

:peace:

Same here, i require absolute PROOF, wivout proof i will NOT believe!

Interesting point of view, whos lying to you and how? Wheres the lie? I certainly wouldnt believe a liar i assure you :eek:

If i hav lied im only human, but divine sources dont lie :)

:peace:

[root]

Same here, i require absolute PROOF, wivout proof i will NOT believe!

Maybe this is why you follow Islam since it claims to offer you absolute proof unlike science which does not.

Interesting point of view, whos lying to you and how? Wheres the lie? I certainly wouldnt believe a liar i assure you

Looking at it another way, it's not science that claims to have absolute proof! but religion. It's not religion that says "we might not be quite right here but....."

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

No. Why would He? Moreover God, if He existed, is clearly beyond our comprehension, so it is a mistake to talk about logic. It does not apply to God or what He does or does not do. Admittedly, if God were like us in some way and so our logic applied to Him, He might send down revelations, but presumably it would be more logical that He would simply have designed His creation better so it did not need constant reminders of the right and wrong thing to do.

Do you believe in God? Because sometimes you talk as if you do. Or are you not sure?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Maybe this is why you follow Islam since it claims to offer you absolute proof unlike science which does not.

Islam agrees with science :) or else i wud say science lessons go against my religion and never attend them :rollseyes

Looking at it another way, it's not science that claims to have absolute proof! but religion.

Again science agrees with Islam, every scientific fact will agree with islam, i assure u on this :).

:peace:

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Do you believe in God? Because sometimes you talk as if you do. Or are you not sure?

:sl:

I wanna say it again becoz u hav provided the opportunity :p

I think heigou is very openminded to islam, he seems to question everythin which is in a way good, i wish he just accept the truth one day inshaAllah :).

:w:

[------]

Sorry I am not ignoring your posts, but I am a little swamped. As I answered one a lot like it (random - I got to it first) I did not repeat myself.

That is you isn't it under a new name?

Its me Pagal Kuri HeiGou :rollseyes - This (Aalimah) is my username.

[root]

Alpha Dude - Hi Root, are you aware that in Islam we have the notion that there are seven heavens?

"Have you not seen how God has created seven skies one above the other?" 71:15

"……if you can penetrate through the zones of the skies and the earth, then penetrate, you will not do so without authority." 55:33

<^ talks about the barriers between the different heavens>

"And we have decorated the lowest heaven (universe) with lanterns (stars)." 41:12

Would you consider these verses interesting when considering the concept of "multiverses"?

I would ask first where is the difference here that you have quoted "Seven Heavens" since on this forum and others it refers to the seven layers of the atmosphere. Are you quoting something entirely different in the Koran or the same one that refers to the seven atmospheric levels?

[root]

Hmmm, I have not read any post on this subject on this forum yet so I cannot say whether it is the same quote or not. But what would make me inclined to believe that it is not referring to the atmospheric levels would be the last verse that I posted:

"And we have decorated the lowest heaven (universe) with lanterns (stars)." 41:12

It specifically asserts here that the lowest heaven has been adorned with lanterns - which can assumed to mean the stars.

Harun Hanya (who is very popular on this forum) has already claimed 41:12 as a scientific miracle in reference to the seven heavens being that of atmospheric levels:

"Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke. In two days He determined them as seven heavens and revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate." (The Qur'an, 41:12)

http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/science_07.html

Perhaps someone can clarify

[root]

Here is another,

One fact about the universe revealed in the verses of the Qur'an is that the sky is made up of seven layers.

"It is He Who created everything on the earth for you and then directed His attention up to heaven and arranged it into seven regular heavens. He has knowledge of all things."
(The Qur'an, 2:29)

"Then He turned to heaven when it was smoke. In two days He determined them as seven heavens and revealed, in every heaven, its own mandate."
(The Qur'an, 41:12)

Again this is given as a miracle of the Koran to correctly describe the seven atmospheric levels and further claims evidence of a "creation":

http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/miracles_01_08.htm

[snakelegs]

Does that make atheism another faith ... another religion?

absolutely. belief in non-god-ness is still a belief. so yes, i regard atheism as a religion. in fact, i have even had atheists try to convert me!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

absolutely. belief in non-god-ness is still a belief. so yes, i regard atheism as a religion. in fact, i have even had atheists try to convert me!

I wouldn't describe atheism as a religion, myself. I think 'faith-position' is more accurate. Of course, it depends what you mean by religion, a term that is notoriously difficult to define.

Atheism is a belief, certainly. I don't say that I know there is no god, simply that I believe it is much more likely that there isn't than that there is.

But if atheism is a religion, what are its rituals? Where are its places of worship? What is an atheist prayer like? What are atheism's moral teachings and rulings?

Since atheism solely concerns the existence of god claim, none of these questions have definite answers, as they have nothing to do with atheism.

Peace

[IbnAbdulHakim]

absolutely. belief in non-god-ness is still a belief. so yes, i regard atheism as a religion. in fact, i have even had atheists try to convert me!

:peace:

lol thats quite funny and interesting, personally i wud feel meaningless and empty wivout islam :)

:peace:

[root]

Snakelegs - absolutely. belief in non-god-ness is still a belief. so yes, i regard atheism as a religion. in fact, i have even had atheists try to convert me!

I agree with CZGibson,

I am particulary interested in how I subscribed to this so called religion (atheism) on the sole basis I believe God does not exist. By rejecting a faith how am I then on automatic opt in status as a so called religous atheist

But if atheism is a religion, what are its rituals? Where are its places of worship? What is an atheist prayer like? What are atheism's moral teachings and rulings?

I quite agree with you and would add to this further by saying that all 2religions" subscribe to a "God". So it's ironic religous people call atheism a religion. Who is our god?

"Atheism is religion." When you hear a statement like this, it often comes form a person who has actually done little research or thinking about either Atheism or religion. Most people rarely study or investigate their own religious beliefs, assuming they have any. If they are born in a predominately Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Jewish culture, they will probably reflect the religious beliefs of that society.

Nearly every dictionary will define religion as "belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed a worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe. The definition of all other terms linked to religion employ much the same language -- church, monastery, priest. They are all part of a religious-language universe or "game" that has little to do with Atheism.

There cannot be an Atheist "Church", or an Atheist "priest" anymore than there could be an Atheist "god."

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I agree with CZGibson,

I am particulary interested in how I subscribed to this so called religion (atheism) on the sole basis I believe God does not exist.

:peace:

im gettin dejavu, didnt this happen b4? lol

:peace:

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

On-topic please.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

On-topic please.

Apologies - I suppose us atheists are waiting for the next of the many questions to follow.

Peace

[Philosopher]

Greetings,


Apologies - I suppose us atheists are waiting for the next of the many questions to follow.

Peace

Do you think evolution was by chance or was it guided?

[Trumble]

Do you think evolution was by chance or was it guided?

I can consider the possibility that the mechanism of evolution was designed. As that design, by God presumably, must have been perfect by definition there could be no need for subsequent guidance, addition or indeed any sort of tweaking whatsoever. The idea makes no sense... the initial design would achieve what it was designed to achieve without the need for further intervention.

[ranma1/2]

I know that you don’t believe in the existence of God, but in order to deny something you would have to have some idea of that something-

For example in order to deny that an apple is an orange, you would need to have some idea of what an apple is and what an orange is-

In the same sense in order to deny the existence of God, you would need to have some idea what God is, and the consequences of his existence!

In order to gather information from an atheist on the latter I would like to ask them

If God existed do you believe that it’s only logical he will send down revelations to mankind!

Well i guess you would have to define god. However i dont see any reason why a creator would give a fig about us specifically. If it did I would expect it to do it without any confusion if it mattered to it.

[ranma1/2]

using the Dr Zakir Naik approach,

Yes God can send another Prophet if he wanted, but he won't, because he would contradict himself and that would be ungodly so he would not do it

Similar to the question of can God eat or become human, the answer could be yes, he can do that, but he never would because he would be limiting his powers and that would be ungodly

ok i know this is an old posts but it seems that if he has made it so he cant contradict himself then he is limiting himself. If he made a mistake and he cant correct it then he is limiting himself.

[islamirama]

ok i know this is an old posts but it seems that if he has made it so he cant contradict himself then he is limiting himself. If he made a mistake and he cant correct it then he is limiting himself.

Dr Zakir Naik is ---, mainstream scholars had to correct him and his rulings number of times. No need to go to the weakest link that is not reliable for good info.

btw, anymore ranma coming out after season 7?

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

My honest opinion is if God existed the evidence would be quite easy to find and all around us, unfortunately it just is not.

Just wondering, is it possible for a blind man to see the world around him even if the evidences are all around him and he is unable to see only because of his own blindness?

[جوري]

That’s a philosophical question that tends to avoid the requirement for supporting your argument with fact and precision..

How do you apply fact and precision to say your person having a headache? If you presented to the hospital (where scientists congregate) stating you have an occipital or temporal headache the worst you have ever experienced --how can any scientist support your view? it is a subjective report --and they will have to treat you in accordance to symptoms that you profess to, as there is no test to quantify or measure what you are feeling-- no ( headache-O-Meter)!... Though they will not doubt that you are experiencing a headache and will treat you accordingly---unless you are suffering from some type of factitious disorder like Munchausen and just need constant attention! (possible) , they couldn't tell just by looking at you if you are faking it, or really suffering from it! What do you know even science can sometimes miss the fact and precision!

Let me answer your question with another philosophical question.

The only "condemning aspect" of my life is the theistic based idea that as an imperfect being I deserve Hell by default. I'm fairly honest, I work hard, I love my friends and family, etc.-- in short, I'm your average person who lives a quiet life dealing with life's challenges. I cannot imagine rating eternal torment because I don't acquiesce to the Christian / Islamic- defined salvation program. I ask myself:.

and you are entitled to believe that.. no one is forcing religion on you!

"Which is more likely": That there's really this angry god out there who would actually behave that way, or it's really in the religion’s interest to establish a social dynamic where the threat of eternal torment is the outcome for not joining in that religion and btw supporting it financially. What's more likely, man needs a savior for being human, or the religion, an entity of sweeping power for more than a thousand years, needs to convince me I need them and only them?".

Your view of religion is sophomoric as is your view of Muslims in general-- the whole concept of life and death isn't about torment or an angry G-D -- so much as it is about justice!... if you find that someone living up to 87, having committed all sorts of sins, crimes and murder and at the end just lay there in a wooden box to be equated with someone who lived quite a charitable life and died by some reckless driver at the tender age of 24 & to just the same lay there in a wooden box (with no means of justice established)-- on your noted account that religion exists only to boast the ego of a creator as you so describe or as means of establishing some sort of social dynamics using rewards and punishment then so be it..
That is again your subjective view!

I think the answer is really obvious and simple.
If such a thing is the reality (and of course there's no evidence for such) then I'll have to "account for my actions". But my worst "crime" in this realm is being imperfect and not believing that which I find is not supported. I can do nothing about such a god who would condemn me for such a trivial issue, nor can I do anything about the fact (my term) that after death it's nothing but a dreamless sleep. Both are equally depressing, hopeless, and bleak, and there's a marginal difference between condemning most people who ever existed to an eternity of despair versus everyone being condemned to an eternity of nothingness. It's hopeless because if such a god exists, there is no sense in morality, no true justice, and basically we are nothing but minions created to worship an infinite Ego or be consigned to everlasting torment..

What are we to make of this? You have drawn satisfaction out of a simplistic conclusion that is all! but I am afraid isn't as obvious or as simple as all that!

Now, to address your comment:

It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to an unseen designer..

Oh how come? Where did
glycolysis
the Krebs Cycle
oxidative phosphorylation
Cori cycle
lysosomal degradation
nerve myelination
Kidney filtration
Apneustic and pneumotaxic centrs
liver chemical detoxification
Molecular .. translation, transcription, Gene expression...

Media Tags are no longer supported

just to name a few NEGLIGIBLE amount of events that occur flawlessly everyday come from? What drives them to happen? Who set them in motion?
How did evolution produce these phenomenal events and perfect occurrences? Why do they occur the same way every time? Why not a glob of goo with every attempt instead of perfect humans or perfect elephants? or perfect whatever? every organ and every cell to differentiate into what it is meant to and perform its proper function? How is it that though every cell in the body carries the exact genetic information yet a beta cell produces insulin while a fibroblast produces collagen? Actually I'd like an intelligent answer to that.. not one that comes from your cut and paste articles -- sharing genetics with a banana by way of "common ancestry" hardly excludes the presence of an engineer to set it all into motion!

If you or any I.D.er's have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. Intelligent Design advocates are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims. The whole "irreducibly complex" argument is deeply flawed. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of. And those answers do very well..

Show us how the small list above happened naturally then, and we'll consider neglecting the G-D concept.. posing a question and answering it.. or stating otherwise it is deeply flawed, is really the coward's way out...
I also don't think you can speak for scientists... unless you live in some sort of bubble and make up these imaginary hypothetical of what you think a scientist would say not every scientist is an atheists or subscribes him or herself to the "G-D-Delusion"-- some are the most religious human beings that exist..... frankly just seeing your various posts I can tell you subscribe to very linear style of thinking -- you are no scholar you are just filled to the brim with mindless drivel and the occasional drive by shooting with your BB gun...

appeal only to emotion and fear.

I believe indeed that you are very afraid and looking for any form of validation... petty you should seek it on a forum.

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

:sl:

That’s a philosophical question that tends to avoid the requirement for supporting your argument with fact and precision.

Not really. All I wanted to know was whether a blind man can see the world around him. If he cannot, then that is only due to his own blindness, not because the world itself doesn't exist. It's really that simple. Either you're blind or you can see. There is no shade of gray between that.

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

:sl:

You see, I don't need to bring proof, because there's really way too much to bring. So I say, that the problem is not a lack of proof, but the problem is that some are just too blind to see it. If you cannot see it, then it is due to your own blindness, not because a Divine Entity does not exist as you say in order to make an excuse for your own blindness.

How can one ever convince a blind person that the Sun exists if the blind person will use the fact that he 'cannot see evidence of it' as an excuse?

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

Well for one starters we're Muslim which means we go by what is in the Qur'an. Here:
http://beconvinced.com/en/main.php?a...owcat&catid=03

And there's plenty more on this forum you can search for because we've been through this quite alot here. For example:
http://www.islamicboard.com/188288-post1.html

You can search for more.

[جوري]

This is a product of life long research and reflection (we Hope)... I think the perfect thing to do is study each (religion/ideology) at depth and draw your own conclusions-- if the Tree of Yggdrasil or the Hindu god Bhuvaneshwari seems like the most reasonable of all revelations, including the successive 5 books that attest to the same (Abrahamic) concept of creation--then by all means subscribe to it... No one should have to distil down entire doctrines or philosophies to another human being in a short paragraph --only to be received with the same condescending quip...

[جوري]

The top portion of your view reflects psychological and intellectual immaturity, I'll not descend to aruge your subjective opinion or how/why you arrived to them-- so I'll sweep it aside and focus on other parts that need to be addressed!

A god created existence in only 6 days, but did so in such a way to make it look immensely old and left massive clues to support that belief.

I'd like to shed light that we (Muslims) are told through the Quran that a thousand yrs for us isn't but a day by G-D's measure.. the theory of relativity already discussed in the Quran before Einstein made it famous-- yes G-D's laws aren't governed by our laws of physics nor by our sun setting or moon rising ... Any Muslim can tell you that speaking from the Noble book... So by that I hope to dispel myth that Muslims believe the world to be 6 or 7000 yrs old...evidenced in these verses
"A day with your Lord is equivalent to a thousand years in the way you count."
(The Qur'an, 22:47)
and again
Then it will again ascend to Him on a Day whose length is a thousand years by the way you measure."
(The Qur'an, 32:5)
and
The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day whose length is fifty thousand years."
(The Qur'an, 70:4)

nebulas are also described in the Quran-- I don't see any point in their mention centuries ago-- hence the wonders of the Quran never cease!

--

"And when the heaven splitteth asunder and becometh ROSY LIKE RED HIDE - (The Noble Quran, 55:37)--

undoubtedly when this came down people didn't have enough abstraction to understand it.. yet here we are today--I hope you have learned something today from our centuries old book, other than the ready cut and paste ones to which you subscribe!


now let's tackle what you have stated in the name of "science"

or

Existence is natural, patterns form out of the exchange of energy

Natural? as in being in accordance with or determined by "nature"-- why didn't "nature" mandate that the sky be green instead of blue? or that we be born as cyclops?

<< why are we not born like this unfortunate being?

Why is there success in evolution vis a vis this miraculous "energy" so that every time we end up with life and in different forms -- as opposed to say rotting goo? or various badly formed beings-- why do we not cease to exist collectively and become just energy since, You don't believe that any of it is guided? I mean what is your baseline when you make measure of nature? Why so much beauty that we only seem to notice something as not "nature" like only when it comes out of "natural "order" as in the child with anencephaly posted above.. Surely you must see that there is order in the events governing our lives and the thousands of biochemical processes that go on on their own volition? ( if no order existed we'd all be born with all sorts of problems.. you wouldn't just take notice when I post an "unnatural" picture) --why (order) and (functionality) adroned with (beauty)? further -- the mother of all questions--where did this energy come from? by definitions, regarded as the capacity of a physical system to do work! ... Can energy manifest itself as a ceramic plate and appear on your dinner table?

life evolved in some places,

How did life evolve from this energy in some places?

competition for that life implemented social structures,

That is quite a leap-- you have missed a few steps-- to "compete" is to strive for something... it is a bit more if not lot more complicated than just patterns from energy forming--by some magic wand this happened-- who willed it?

sentience ignited that social structure to a more and more complicated degree.

How did this sentience come about? talk about poetic.. and why was it so directed? You are making huge strides without covering all grounds-- How and why? Also--I don't understand how you can tie this with how you've started (energy) further you didn't cover the need of this energy to became more complex?!

and allowed for technology to extend the perceptions of humans to further and further reaches, chipping away at old, perhaps poetic and elegant but nonetheless outdated beliefs created by a ruling class that knew the power of ignorance and fear in people made them vastly more controllable? .

Writing as such .. makes me believe that you are in the half way house... not fully equipped to handle science to a more abstract degree or to elaborate on what you propose-- and a shameful knowlege of history-- I don't know of one messenger who was from the ruling class short of Prophet Solomon and he didn't bring any books... the books came on Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus and Mohammed PBUt (read about their lives, I am sure you'll find them quite full of strife ( if not tragic)--- I can't for the life of me imagine, why they would engage in what seems to many as abject poverty, prophet Mohammed PBUH alone never slept on a full stomach three days in a row.. was ousted from Mecca and was mocked if not disowned by his people even those closest to him (i.e his uncles)-- pls familiarize yourself with history before you make these sweeping generalities-- even in the most decorated words can't hide this load of bull!

Just a side note - we see stars forming today by the way, in the Pleiades-- various stages of stars being formed are quite visible. Knowing the speed of light one can measure distances, showing billions of years is required to establish the size and distances we see..

Do these planets that form today I assume out of (gaining mass) -- form, from nothing or with material already in existence? Also, Can this exchange (form other life) other than new planets that is? like say Helminthes-- as we are to draw from previous statements that this "random energy" gave the essence of (life and sentience) -- for no apparent guided reason to some common ancestor from which all other amazing creatures have come about--

things like Bacteria-- to 17 different types of collagen to 103 different elements on the periodic table, to biochemical processes to Hollyhock for tiny humming birds to feed on.. not to mention that every time this (evolution of energy) happened it did so without error-- in complete exactness-- I can only safely assume that there was no error on the account that we exist--any remote error say in urea cycle alone as a small ex. in the following enzymatic pathways
N-Acetylglutamate Synthase (NAGS)
Carbamyl Phosphate Synthetase (CPS)
Ornithine Transcarbamylase (OTC)
Argininosuccinate Synthetase to name a few, would have led to the complete demise of the specie... but NO!--What you propose is that ranom energy had some sort of guided consciousness and direction-- for what reason ( I have no idea) to make various scientists look really good with new discoveries I suppose?. perfection--- and I am not just talking about kidneys or liver here--I am talking about every little biochemical or physiological or anatomical pathway that occurs; from glial cells in the brain to the brown fat found in new born babies for insulation-- to aorticopulmonary septum rotating about the long axis so we don't end up with transposition of the great vessels, to body organs connected in a series except for the two that need to filter at all times connected in parallel so we don't end up in a toxic coma-- all somehow guided by the nothing... pure randomness, pure perfect luck every single time it works...A never ending story type of fairy tale in the guise of science? That is remarkable man!-- talk about magical .. Am I supposed to buy that as scientific theory or as science fiction? It defies all the laws of logic and probability-- or because you said it with such authority, that I can't resist --how can I not be convinced?! Tell you what if you sprout an extra brain now from energy patterns-- I am willing to buy it--seeing how you are in desperate need of one!

When you look at the very deepest foundation of the entire doctrine, when you go to the theological reason the entire book was written, you are left with this conclusion the holy texts tell us over and over:

Ignorance is bliss.

Spoken like someone who has familiarized himself with cliff notes not even giving them a good read, and came to tackle the world -- All G-D tells us is to reflect and to establish a relationship with him-- from which you've somehow deduced what you wanted-- You are a toxic person who is seeking toxic things to foster an ailing state of mind! I am not sure why you are so angry with those who don't subscribe to your way of thinking or what you are hoping to accomplish here? you make ambiguous assertions which many see as wantonly flawed using an Appeal to Complexity -- Here is the kicker Islam isn't an infringement on science nor is science and infringement on Islam--- The Muslim empire experienced an age on enlightenment unlike that which Europe had ever see in its dark ages-- it did so on the account that religion mandated that we seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave and as far as china-- From the Quran we know G-D favors they who seek knowledge over they who sit all day in hermitage... if you'd read and reflect before you write, you wouldn't be wasting every one's time and energy like so!-- [PIE](I wonder if this energy can form itself into rose and cardamom shai)--[/PIE]
we can agree that ignorance is indeed bliss as far as you are subscribed--your sentiment is perfectly reciprocated here "what I saw was, at least to me, conjecture and grasping at straws to find something to support the conclusion"-- Read a little something other than hate website and learn some ethics on the art of a debate!

http://www.muslimheritage.com/
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...tml#post624315


Peace

[Trumble]

nebulas are also described in the Quran-- I don't see any point in their mention centuries ago-- hence the wonders of the Quran never cease!

--

"And when the heaven splitteth asunder and becometh ROSY LIKE RED HIDE - (The Noble Quran, 55:37)--

undoubtedly when this came down people didn't have enough abstraction to understand it.. yet here we are today--I hope you have learned something today from our centuries old book, other than the ready cut and paste ones to which you subscribe!

Very nice photos. Does the Qur'an tell us which color filters to use? Or the details of the mix to produce the photos?

Such images are photographic creations, they mix and match to produce the most effective results. The more cynical have even increased NASA of over-doing it order to suitably impress those who vote on their budget. Ignorance is indeed bliss. Now how about a picture of a nice purple or green one?

Forgive me a little cut n'paste

It's a merger of science, art — and marketing.


Zoltan Levay, one of Hubble's first photographic artists, describes
the production of the colorful Hubble images as a "reconstruction
process." Hubble sends its snapshots back to Earth in grainy black and
white, and then Levay and other artists at the Space Telescope Science
Institute clean up the images and digitally colorize them.


Sometimes, the colors are close to reality, but often, artistic
liberties are taken. And whenever there exists the option to choose a
color that generates an image of mind-boggling beauty over one that
yields more mundane results, the scientists are unabashed about saying
that the more aesthetically pleasing option always wins.


"It's hard to tell the story if you don't have a stunning image to
back it up," said Ray Villard, the public-relations director for the
$1.5-billion telescope. "You can go out of your way to be incredibly
accurate, but if people come away and haven't learned anything, then
what was the point?"


The point, according to some people, is that by enhancing the hues of
the universe, Levay and Hubble's other photographic artists have
inadvertently created a public misperception that the heavens are
bursting with color — an exciting, enticing, action-packed,
Technicolor cosmos worth spending billions of dollars to see more of.


Any photographer at a newspaper, including this one, would be fired
for using digital technology to substantially alter a picture. And any
scientist doctoring research data would be cast into scientific
oblivion.

Source

Something certainly "never ceases". :)

[Trumble]

Actually I was a keen amateur astronomer for over twenty years, and was perfectly well aware of how such photographs are created - I have a couple of rather splendid coffee-table books full of them. I provided the article merely to back up what I said (the general form here, as an expert on debate such as yourself should know); it is a particularly reputable and knowledgeable newsgroup inhabited by people who are fully aware what they are talking about. Had you bothered to check the actual quote it is from the Times newspaper and itself quotes NASA scientists themselves. The facts presented, far from being "made up", are not remotely disputed. If they are inconvenient to those desperate, for some reason still completely beyond my comprehension, to prove the Qur'an is a hotbed of scientific knowledge, that's just tough. That is quite simply how such images are created - ALL of them. There is no conspiracy. I could provide a list of sources if you really insist?

Of course I looked up Offa and A'ad and Thamud; as you and everybody else did. It is hard to assess a story unless you establish basic facts, which requires a little research, and I make no claim to know much about anything. I would point out that my comments on the "lost cities" were based purely on what was in thread already, and obvious deductions regarding the obvious fact that what is lost now may not have have been then, as indicated by the Bedouin tales that are still around.

I am very sorry that you have to resort to puerile abuse simply because I demonstrated that this particular Qur'anic 'miracle' was complete tosh. I won't bother with dismantling the 'relativity' nonsense as well (no, I don't need to look that up, either) as that would clearly meet the same response. If you insist on unthinkingly presenting such Yahya-esque rubbish without checking your facts you should learn to accept the inevitable consequences in good grace. As it stands you not only make yourself look foolish, but to be brutally honest you make your religion look foolish.

Some of the Quran'ic 'miracles' are indeed quite interesting and intriguing including the "internal waves" of the sea interpretation and that high altitude dyspepsia (yes, I had to look that up, too) you are so fond of. It genuinely baffles me why someone of your undoubted intelligence doesn't stick with those rather than the uninformed ravings of Yahya and "answering-Christianity".

As you say, peace.


P.S On relativity, I will leave you with this. If those verses, by some remote chance, actually did refer to relativistic events have you considered the theological and logical consequences? Trust me, it's worth a little of your valuable time :)

[جوري]

it is high altitude hypoxia not dyspepsia.--I guess that should already speak volumes of your "knowledge"? -- I don't want to get at it with you at 9 in the morning-- would rather enjoy my cup of coffee--
Your analysis doesn't cut mustard... I don't view you as an expert in any field... If I wanted a keen critical analysis I am already subscribed to JAMA. NEJM as well as the smithonians and National Geographic... your coffee table books and your 20 minute wiki dig are hardly the measure I'd go by-- lastly-- I am not bothered by how a Buddhist receives Islam.

peace!

[ranma1/2]

:sl:



Not really. All I wanted to know was whether a blind man can see the world around him. If he cannot, then that is only due to his own blindness, not because the world itself doesn't exist. It's really that simple. Either you're blind or you can see. There is no shade of gray between that.

Assuming your going with the idea that others see evidence of god.
Imagine what a blind man should think if one person says what they see is a bannana, another sees an elephant, another a tree, another a painting, and hundreds of others see something else. Why should this blind man believe what these hundreds of others see? How can he know that they actually see and arent deluded? What if these poeple have a tendency to see something depending on where they were born?

Now a blind man may ask for evidene. Perhaps he can use other senses such as touch and hearing and smell. And if this tree or elephant is not detectable by anymeans but only by these individuals but not by others ?

So science may be the blind man and like the blind man it uses what it can and others may claim sight but all disagree on what they see.

[Muhammad]

:sl: and Greetings,

I would suggest we go back to the topic of the existence of God and leave aside the one on Qur'anic miracles, since we have a number of threads on this.

As a reminder, we must remember that often some people interpret verses that don't have any scientific references and extract meanings that go against the intent of a verse. So it should be distinguished that while there are those with little knowledge of the interpretation of the Qur'an reading in scientific facts where they do not exist, there is a proper methodology that can be followed in order to extract examples of such verses, and it is these that we should focus on.

Please remember to avoid insulting other members as it does not assist a healthy discussion in any way.

Peace.

[Trumble]

EDIT: Deleted further to Muhammed's post.

[جوري]

repeat

[جوري]

Actually I was a keen amateur astronomer for over twenty years

Good for you!

and was perfectly well aware of how such photographs are created

That has certainly proven itself handy-- can you recognize A rose by any other name/er color?-- surely a well read connoisseur such as your person can recognize the name The Rosette Nebula (NGC2237) even if more dazzling colors are used to enahnce the image?

--

-- take it out with NASA for calling it the Rosette Nebula-- still won't change the fact of the matter ( looks like a rose in black and white or in color) -- maybe you can stop feeling so smug now?

I have a couple of rather splendid coffee-table books full of them.

I am sure that makes for a great ice breaker!

I provided the article merely to back up what I said

ok

(the general form here, as an expert on debate such as yourself should know); it is a particularly reputable and knowledgeable newsgroup inhabited by people who are fully aware what they are talking about.

I am so glad.. why not spend more time fostering learning over there?

Had you bothered to check the actual quote it is from the Times newspaper and itself quotes NASA scientists themselves. The facts presented, far from being "made up", are not remotely disputed.

I have read the source... it still wouldn't change the fact that it is a rosette nebula and so named by NASA for what it resmbles -- Again since repetitions might prove good for you --
can you recognize this

to mean the exact thing as this?

? even if we made the colores more robust?

If they are inconvenient to those desperate, for some reason still completely beyond my comprehension, to prove the Qur'an is a hotbed of scientific knowledge, that's just tough. That is quite simply how such images are created - ALL of them. There is no conspiracy. I could provide a list of sources if you really insist?

This isn't the intended purpose of my quotes... in fact had you read the entire posts instead of taking the excerpt to your liking you'd have learned that already.. Are you threatening us with your sources? go ahead post them to your heart's content.. and calm down a little man I get this image of you

whenever I read one of your numerous monotonous posts...

Of course I looked up Offa and A'ad and Thamud; as you and everybody else did.

Those who post of a topic don't need to look it up-- they know about it... they have come across it in history or from the Quran ... They don't need the ever handy wiki to debunk something or to offer the usual snide subjective reviews.. all armed with "sources"

It is hard to assess a story unless you establish basic facts,

Indeed one wonders where you get your "facts"? try borrowing books from the library under the history or religion section for a change instead of various blogs.. I can honestly tell you-- you only waste my time (I don't learn from you) I am mildly annoyed at best with you popping every where-- you only lead yourself astray with your homely understanding of what is being presented!

which requires a little research, and I make no claim to know much about anything.

Agreed

I would point out that my comments on the "lost cities" were based purely on what was in thread already, and obvious deductions regarding the obvious fact that what is lost now may not have have been then, as indicated by the Bedouin tales that are still around.

I don't understand what that means or how it relates considering that is your own subjective deduction on whether or not it was lost! it was a matter of non-verfiable fiction before its discovery and of course afterwards (oh.. all the bedouins knew about it) Master of hyperbole--... your interpretations of everything presented you comes across as Excuses (not nearly as exciting as the X files) -- and have come to lose all meaning over time

I am very sorry that you have to resort to puerile abuse simply because I demonstrated that this particular Qur'anic 'miracle' was complete tosh.

You really haven't proven anything with your post----any more than you have that the big dipper is a bunch of haphazardly arranged stars with no big dipper pattern... Again--read and look at what is posted above

I won't bother with dismantling the 'relativity' nonsense as well

lol pls go ahead! I am sure it will make for good entertainment!

as that would clearly meet the same response.

one would wonder why you exert so much effort then?

If you insist on unthinkingly presenting such Yahya-esque rubbish without checking your facts you should learn to accept the inevitable consequences in good grace.

The trumblesque rubbish is just as non-presentable-- yet somehow we tolerate you!

As it stands you not only make yourself look foolish, but to be brutally honest you make your religion look foolish.

seems like a one trumble effort--I'd hardly speak of my religion looking foolish knowing what I know of yours. You have heard of the adage of not throwing people with rocks if your house is made of glass? Try applying it here.

Some of the Quran'ic 'miracles' are indeed quite interesting and intriguing including the "internal waves" of the sea interpretation and that high altitude dyspepsia (yes, I had to look that up, too) you are so fond of. It genuinely baffles me why someone of your undoubted intelligence doesn't stick with those rather than the uninformed ravings of Yahya and "answering-Christianity".

Again this wasn't intended as a talk of miracles-- seems like you wish to exercise some catharsis from some previous posts where you didn't get to give us a mile's fill of your psycho babble thus leaving you with residual resentment that you wish to purge out here?... no where did I mention "miracle" in my previous reply-- I did however state as per Quran that 6 days by G-D's measure isn't subject to our laws of physics.. One would wonder however, why Yahya almost inspires you to have grand mal seizure that you cause you to become rabid with your replies...

[Trumble]

Let's try a source you might like, answering-Christianity.com

There are five translations of the Qur'an there;

Pickthall:
"And when the heaven splitteth asunder and becometh rosy like red hide -"

Khalifa:
"When the sky disintegrates, and turns rose colored like paint."

Palmer:
"And when the heaven is rent asunder and become rosy red - (melting) like grease!"

Sale:
"And when the heaven shall be rent in sunder, and shall become [red as] a rose, [and shall melt] like ointment:"

Rodwell:
"When the Heaven shall be cleft asunder, and become rose red, like stained leather:"

In all of those cases bar Sale the rose reference is clearly to colour, not shape, and Sale does not state it explicitly. Even, by even the most liberal 'interpretation' it was extended to include shape that it is ONE nebula that has a vaguely rose-like shape. OK, two, the Cats-eye nebula also vaguely resembles a rose. As well as a cats-eye. But what about the thousands (or hundreds of thousands) that look nothing like one? Does the Qur'an describe heaven as looking like a crab? Or a horse-head? Or a ring? Or an eagle? Or a witch's head?

The colour, as I have made clear, could be red. Or white. Or blue. Or green. Or anything you like. In the case of the Cats Eye nebula - the one usually claimed to actually resemble a rose - all of what you see was actually photographed in the x-ray and infra-red spectrums; the colouring is totally artificial. And even if you still refuse to accept any of that the verse clearly replies to 'heaven' as whole, not tiny pieces of it.

grand mal seizure that you cause you to become rabid with your replies..

Have you read your own? :D :D :D


Sorry Muhammed, couldn't restrain myself. I won't post again.

[جوري]

In all of those cases bar Sale the rose reference is clearly to colour, not shape.

lol-- before you get too happy there-- (No red mentioned)-- I could almost see you needing an end table for your lower jaw!
let's have a look shall we...using the Arabic dictionary (sakhr) included at the bottom...

فَإِذَا انشَقَّتِ السَّمَاء فَكَانَتْ وَرْدَةً كَالدِّهَانِ {37}

*****

Dictionaries - القواميس

Arabic - English

إِذَا

حــــــــــــرف أَداةُ شَرْط
if , when

قَّ فــــعــــــــل اِنْفَصَلَ عَنْ , خَرَجَ عَلَى
separate from
اِنْفَلَعَ , تَصَدَّعَ
rift , split , cleave , crash , crack , fissure , rive , be rimose , be fissured , be or become broken , be burst (open) , be cleft , be or become cleft , burst open , break open , be rifted

سماء اســــــــــــم ما يُشَاهَدُ فَوْقَ الأَرْضِ كَقُبَّةٍ زَرْقاء
firmament , empyrean , sky


Arabic - English
كانَ فــــعــــــــل حَدَثَ
let it be(done) , be , was , were
كَان : فِي التَّصْرِيفِ الثَّالِث
been


Arabic - English

وَرْدَة

اســــــــــــم زَهْرَة
bloom , blossom , rose , flower


Dictionaries - القواميس

Arabic - English

دِهَان

اســــــــــــم طِلَاء
paint , facing , wash , coat , varnish , film , coating
مَرْهَم
ointment , liniment , salve , unguent , unction , cream

دِهَان مـــصــــــدر طَلْي , دَهْن
overlaying , varnishing , smearing , overlay , facing , anointing , anointment , coat , coating , daubing , embrocation , painting
مُدَاهَنَة
flattery , toadyism , blandishment , cajolery , adulation , dissemblance , currying favor with , fawning , lip service , sweet talk , fawning on , compliance

دَهَّان اســــــــــــم الذي يَدْهُن
painter , house painter

when the heaven splits asunder it becomes like a coated/annointed rose-- (fa'beay ala'a rabikouma tokaziban) فَبِأَيِّ آلَاء رَبِّكُمَا تُكَذِّبَانِ which of your lord's signs/favours do you wish to deny? is the proceeding verse... feel free to also stick in in the dictionary word for word!
one sign/favor-- not a cascade of miracles... (the Quran has beautiful poetic language) sure other nebulas exist... this is the one mentioned!


here is Sakhr dictionary-- I am sure you are familiar with cutting and pasting seeing all your handy posts-- just stick it in there word by word and see what comes up---:D http://dictionary.sakhr.com/idrisidi...e5%f3%c7%e4%f6
I think you'd be better off arguing this with someone who wasn't a native Arabic speaker or a bit more timid than my person!

prophet Mohammed could not have known of such a nebula then and it was one of the things mentioned we should look for in the cosmos and reflect upon-- Along with the other things that you seem to have a handy dandy explanation for-- geography/geology/embryology/running a state/ laws of inheritance and marriage/ physiology of high altitude hypoxia/ lost cities.. you'd think he would have lived like a rich king?---
-- we have side tracked long enough--maybe we can get back to original post... if you have nothing more to dance about?

I won't post again.

ah--if only I could believe it!..that would be a trumble miracle right there... ..

last note: of course I read my post.. I wrote it .. :rollseyes

peace!

[Pygoscelis]

"Which is more likely": That there's really this angry god out there who would actually behave that way, or it's really in the religion’s interest to establish a social dynamic where the threat of eternal torment is the outcome for not joining in that religion and btw supporting it financially. What's more likely, man needs a savior for being human, or the religion, an entity of sweeping power for more than a thousand years, needs to convince me I need them and only them?"

This is really well put point, but I don't think it one that most believers will realize or appreciate.

I can do nothing about such a god who would condemn me for such a trivial issue, nor can I do anything about the fact (my term) that after death it's nothing but a dreamless sleep. Both are equally depressing, hopeless, and bleak, and there's a marginal difference between condemning most people who ever existed to an eternity of despair versus everyone being condemned to an eternity of nothingness.

Here I disagree. The atheist who believes that death is nothingness has literally nothing to fear. It isn't like you'll be floating in some dark space for eternity. There will be no you at all. It will feel exactly as it felt during the millions of years before you were born. So that isn't depressing, hopeless or bleak. It isn't joyous either mind you. It simply isn't anything.

[جوري]

Here I disagree. The atheist who believes that death is nothingness has literally nothing to fear. It isn't like you'll be floating in some dark space for eternity. There will be no you at all. It will feel exactly as it felt during the millions of years before you were born. So that isn't depressing, hopeless or bleak. It isn't joyous either mind you. It simply isn't anything.

How so very sad... no two snow flakes share the same design each unique -- yet here you have lumped humanity into a heap of meaningless nothing-- and concluded that to exist or not --it is ultimately for waste (like being erased)... to live for 2 months or to a ripe old age, to have been kind, or to have been wicked as equal...
let's all delight in our ignorance until such a day when things become more apparent for all of us (one way or the other)

peace!

[Pygoscelis]

How so very sad... no two snow flakes share the same design each unique -- yet here you have lumped humanity into a heap of meaningless nothing--

huh? I find a lot of meaning in my life. That it will someday be gone and I won't exist to look back on it doesn't depreciate that meaning in any way.

let's all delight in our ignorance until such a day when things become more apparent for all of us (one way or the other)

Sure. There are many things you don't know yet, and some you may never know. It isn't a weakness to admit that, and it isn't something to be upset about. It certainly isn't cause to make answers up just so you can "know" them.

peace!

Sounds like a rapper. Peace out dude! :coolious: Word.

[ranma1/2]

huh? I find a lot of meaning in my life. That it will someday be gone and I won't exist to look back on it doesn't depreciate that meaning in any way.

...

I have always found the point of view that if life ends and then there isnothing being sad kind of funny.

Its like asking if you order a pizza and you know once you eat it it is gone why order pizza. Because its the experience.. Sure the pizza eventually disappears but eatingit was fun.

[Silver Pearl]

This is really well put point, but I don't think it one that most believers will realize or appreciate.



Here I disagree. The atheist who believes that death is nothingness has literally nothing to fear. It isn't like you'll be floating in some dark space for eternity. There will be no you at all. It will feel exactly as it felt during the millions of years before you were born. So that isn't depressing, hopeless or bleak. It isn't joyous either mind you. It simply isn't anything.

Greetings,

Your statement reminded me of a poem written by Rossetti called Cobwebs, although she was a devote anglican, her poems seemed sometimes too absorbed in this world of nothingness, this realm of eternal emptiness. It seems a tad bit far-fetched (and this is an understatement) that evolution could occur with such stability to the extent that voila, today everything is perfect, the air is perfect for living. If only everything could sort out itself out so magically like this I wouldn't ever need to waste my time on studying, perhaps then everything could just voila happen. You can't bargain on the concept of no life after death, way too many unrealible chance.

Surely if life had no purpose why bother in doing anything properly? Why conform to moral conduct? Why abide by laws? Surely everything should just be excused because after this we will be greeted by a pool of....well according to atheists....nothingness.

[جوري]

Greetings,

Your statement reminded me of a poem written by Rossetti called Cobwebs, although she was a devote anglican, her poems seemed sometimes too absorbed in this world of nothingness, this realm of eternal emptiness. It seems a tad bit far-fetched (and this is an understatement) that evolution could occur with such stability to the extent that voila, today everything is perfect, the air is perfect for living. If only everything could sort out itself out so magically like this I wouldn't ever need to waste my time on studying, perhaps then everything could just voila happen. You can't bargain on the concept of no life after death, way too many unrealible chance.

Surely if life had no purpose why bother in doing anything properly? Why conform to moral conduct? Why abide by laws? Surely everything should just be excused because after this we will be greeted by a pool of....well according to atheists....nothingness.

You know the Adage that states "G-D is in the details"-- I think once people search deeply in any scientific field (biochemistry, physiology, Anatomy, astronomy, pathology, embryology--etc) it will astound them how much can go wrong that doesn't-- Or how much goes on period! Every biochemical process, anatomical or physiological is driven to follow a specific plan-- I am through talking about the minute details that occur in each subject-- even on a superficial level or as limited to the human body, since it seems to fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.

If people are happy with simpleton like conclusions of (Energy having come out of no where to develop thousands-- millions -- no, not even (billions) of perfect detailed events on a cellular, global and universal level-- further giving "sentience" and the "will" to compete and differentiation -- then so be it... It makes me chuckle heartily-- and I find it as ludicrous--as I am sure the aspect of an engineer having set it all in motion is to them.

One day we'll have a chance to look at truth!-- I have no reservations on Atheists holding on to whatever beliefs/ or lack thereof... from the most eloquent I have read in arguing against creation the (Zen of Zero) to (Energy Patterns)-- to those who don't even give it a thought at all... It makes no difference to me one way or the other... when it comes down to it, whatever explanation they give to "creation" even if in the guise of science still boils down to a belief--- yet they come all smug and mocking to those who give thanks to a divine being for having set it all in motion-- deeming them un-scientific or Archaic-- yet they are none the wiser.. Got to wonder what they put so much effort in disproving something they don't believe in anyway?.. seems a little desperate---just live your life away from those who do and be happy in the moment!

[Pygoscelis]

Greetings,

You can't bargain on the concept of no life after death, way too many unrealible chance.

This sounds like pascal's wager yet again. Its flawed in many ways, so many books have been written about it. We could do another thread on it if you would like, but its been done extensively here already, so a search should bring something up to satisfy your immediate curiousity.

Surely if life had no purpose why bother in doing anything properly? Why conform to moral conduct? Why abide by laws?

If your belief in the afterlife is the only thing that keeps you moral and obeying laws, if you'd be out there raping and murdering everybody without your belief in the afterlife (which I very much doubt is true), then I dearly hope you never lose your faith. I'd also hope a person with such a view would find counselling quickly, for they would be a textbook sociopath.

[جوري]

If I strip you of any fear or reprimand, consequence to being caught, then please tell me what it is that would hold you back from committing a crime?

What would keep you from clubbing some guy and stealing his car and raping his wife?... that moral "conscientiousness" I hope we all possess? if you call it instinctive you are already admitting that someone has planted moral seeds in you, in which case you can't deny that whatever or whomever, gave you "sentience" has also enabled you to distinguish what is morally acceptable on a conscious level-- and if you call it just good common sense, then I'd really wonder what would keep you from committing the perfect crime if you knew you'd get away with it?-- at least as far as this world is concerned.

peace!

[Gator]

Surely if life had no purpose why bother in doing anything properly? Why conform to moral conduct? Why abide by laws? Surely everything should just be excused because after this we will be greeted by a pool of....well according to atheists....nothingness.

I believe most people do things properly because there are benefits to living in society. Society punishes those that don't. Their are many different types of people though.

There are those that have no urges to rape and kill (or are able to suppress those urges under extreme circumstances) and follow societies rules because its natural to them.

Then there are those that have urges to rape and kill, but are able to suppress them because they find living in society better.

There are those that can't suppress those urges and they either get away with it or go to prison (removed from society).

Though not comprehensive and with many ranges in each category, this is how I think society functions without and all-knowing God looking down.

Why would everything be excused. If I see someone doing something I think deserves punishment by society, I would do something about it.

Thanks.

[Philosopher]

Atheists:

Where did energy come from??

[Pygoscelis]

If I strip you of any fear or reprimand, consequence to being caught, then please tell me what it is that would hold you back from committing a crime?

Ethics. Empathy. Socialization. Self interest too.

Do you honestly feel that if I stripped you of your god belief and you thought you could get away with it, you'd be out there clubbing people over the back of their heads and taking their cars? You'd be raping women? Murdering people who upset you?

I really don't think you would. And if you seriously consider it I think you'll agree. If you didn't you'd be sociopath, plain and simple.

if you call it instinctive you are already admitting that someone has planted moral seeds in you

Apparently you're not able to consider that perhaps empathy is inate within us but wasn't "planted by a sentient being". Well I'm afraid this is very likely the case. And it isn't just in us. Its in other social animals too, including wolves, dolphins, chimps. Even some insects will sacrifice themselves to protect their communities.

Then there is simple self interest, as noted in the post above, which also leads us to follow most moral rules. We're discouraged from killing not only because of empathy (seeing ourselves in our potential victims) but also because we don't want to be killed ourselves so we push for security measures and laws.

Then there is socialization and social programming, and not just the religious variety. Most people's parents will teach them at a young age not to steal and not to lie. They usually carry that into adulthood and continue to associate those things as being imorral (regardless of the sympathy or self interest factors above and regardless of god belief.)

Social programming can also work against the two above mentioned factors though as well. But it takes a lot of programming actually to completely push self interest and empathy aside, usually it takes religion. Without religion it is hard (though not impossible) to get people to do things like suicide bombings (an example of going directly against one's self interest (killing oneself) and one's sense of empathy (killing others))

The statement is frequently made theists, that without a God there can be no morality. I'm not saying this is your statement exactly, but it seems related. It is offensive and ignorant.

But more importantly it is patently false. If it were true then atheists would have far higher crime rates and a disproportionately high incarceration rate. The opposite is actually what you find in most reports.

[Pygoscelis]

Atheists:

Where did energy come from??

I don't know. You don't either. I can admit it. Can you?

[Gator]

Atheists:

Where did energy come from??

I don't know.

[Gator]

I don't know. You don't either. I can admit it. Can you?

Dang, Pygo, you are quick!

[Philosopher]

I don't know. You don't either. I can admit it. Can you?

I say it's from God.

If you atheists dont even know where energy come from, how can you deny something as huge as God??

[Gator]

I say it's from God.

If you atheists dont even know where energy come from, how can you deny something as huge as God??

I guess the same way I know there is not a monster in my kid's closet.

The question is kinda weird though. To me its like asking since I don't know who won the World Cup in 1958, how can I deny the existence of Santa Claus.

[Pygoscelis]

I say it's from God.

If you atheists dont even know where energy come from, how can you deny something as huge as God??

For the same reason that you can deny something as huge as Russel's celestial teapot, or the invisible pink unicorn, or the flying spaghetti monster.

[Philosopher]

For the same reason that you can deny something as huge as Russel's celestial teapot, or the invisible pink unicorn, or the flying spaghetti monster.

I am defining God in a very broad manner --- basically the creator of the universe.

[Gator]

I am defining God in a very broad manner --- basically the creator of the universe.

I'm sorry I don't understand your repy. Could you rephrase?

[جوري]

Ethics. Empathy. Socialization. Self interest too..

Agreed!

Do you honestly feel that if I stripped you of your god belief and you thought you could get away with it, you'd be out there clubbing people over the back of their heads and taking their cars? You'd be raping women? Murdering people who upset you?.

I have moral consciousness which I believe is innate, like the soul... So I don't see how you can strip me of G-D thereby stripping me of consciousness?-- one can't exist without the other-- I can choose to believe in one and not the other-- but that would be an obvious case of hemineglect! ... I call it by its name... Something that you couldn't measure in a laboratory or science! if you admit somethings are innate then surely you can believe that it isn't something that could be measured. Sort of like feeling pain--or happiness

I really don't think you would. And if you seriously consider it I think you'll agree. If you didn't you'd be sociopath, plain and simple..

You are right... and I explained why above!

Apparently you're not able to consider that perhaps empathy is inate within us but wasn't "planted by a sentient being". .

How so? why are you willing to believe in one but not the other? You are willing to believe in innate which is something you can't measure.. yet take for granted is there... not even explaining its source... but can't do the same for the engineer who designed you to feel these instincts?

Well I'm afraid this is very likely the case. And it isn't just in us. Its in other social animals too, including wolves, dolphins, chimps. Even some insects will sacrifice themselves to protect their communities..

It is true... I have seen a show on animal planet where a predator actually took care of the young of one of its preys... they might not have the size cerebrum or that of our moral consciousness but that isn't saying the one who bestowed us of feelings of hurt and love, hasn't bestowed them with the same. Surely the one who designed us.. has also deigned them, to share similar feats... not just DNA, or chemistry but the "innate" portion of our selves as well?

Then there is simple self interest, as noted in the post above, which also leads us to follow most moral rules. We're discouraged from killing not only because of empathy (seeing ourselves in our potential victims) but also because we don't want to be killed ourselves so we push for security measures and laws..

Yes...the hypothetical whether or not outlandish speaks of a situation where you could potentially completely get away with your crime... You can't tell me perfect crimes haven't taken place? Someone out there murdered a woman named Elizabeth short and left her severed body in a disgusting pose in a dump somewhere... something the mind couldn't conceive-- yet got away with it... so a perfect murder can happen...

Then there is socialization and social programming, and not just the religious variety. Most people's parents will teach them at a young age not to steal and not to lie. They usually carry that into adulthood and continue to associate those things as being imorral (regardless of the sympathy or self interest factors above and regardless of god belief.).

But why do they do that? Why is "goodness" important? what makes us feel that it is? honestly, if life was nothing but a mere series of random events... why do we wish to protect it when it all boils down to nothing? to live or not to live is equal to be good or to be bad also equal -- what makes goodness imperative?

The statement is frequently made theists, that without a God there can be no morality. I'm not saying this is your statement exactly, but it seems related. It is offensive and ignorant. .

Well the ground rules for morality I believe came from religion-- even if society took it... tweaked it, watered it down and made it appear secular. made it appear civilized-- I have learned of these "commandments" if you will through religion... and I believe if we try to find the basis of where each law started we'd find its roots in religion not secularism.

But more importantly it is patently false. If it were true then atheists would have far higher crime rates and a disproportionately high incarceration rate. The opposite is actually what you find in most reports.

I don't believe any criminal thinks of G-D when committing a crime-- I believe people can justify to their person, that they are good, or that they are justified in what they are doing... but G-D isn't a priority--- if so, it would make perfect sense that they not be criminals... for no religion, nor organized ideology fosters a crime against innocence....
There are two factors one of self restraint which comes from the thought of consequences-- one that is innate the same that allows you to go loan a helping hand to someone who is drowning though you bare no relations to them---once both are gone-- Then a person feels free to commit whatever atrocities their lower self dictates to them...
Morality is lost to some just like G-D is lost to others.....

peace!

[Pygoscelis]

You are willing to believe in innate which is something you can't measure.. yet take for granted is there... not even explaining its source... but can't do the same for the engineer who designed you to feel these instincts?

You leap to the conclusion that it must have been designed. You skip over a whole world of other possibilities. Perhaps it gives a survival advantage and therefore evolved. I know you harbour a disdain for evolution, but thats one possibility. There are many others too. You need not leap to any of them. You need not explain how it got there to observe that it is there.

You can't tell me perfect crimes haven't taken place?

Yes. Perfect crimes have taken place. And there is no reason to believe that the non-religious people are more likely to commit them. Religion may actually be used to alleviate some of the guilt from them. We have an amazing capacity at rationalization and religion is one of the major tools to that end.

But why do they do that? Why is "goodness" important? what makes us feel that it is? honestly, if life was nothing but a mere series of random events... why do we wish to protect it when it all boils down to nothing?

Please revisit the posts above. Why do you keep saying it all boils down to nothing? You don't need to believe in an afterlife to value life and society on earth.

what makes goodness imperative?

Self interest, socialization, and empathy. Go back and reread my last post.

Well the ground rules for morality I believe came from religion

No. Religion codified the ground rules of morality. And then added a whole bunch of arbitrary dogma on top of it, including some dogma that goes directly against moral instincts. And having codified all of this in holy books, made it inflexible as the customs and needs society changed.

[جوري]

You leap to the conclusion that it must have been designed. You skip over a whole world of other possibilities. Perhaps it gives a survival advantage and therefore evolved. I know you harbour a disdain for evolution, but thats one possibility. There are many others too. You need not leap to any of them. You need not explain how it got there to observe that it is there..

I am willing to accept other possibilities-- provided they are indeed a product of reason and reproducibility and not just boiling down to a modern day belief ! I don't even see how evolution precludes from a G-D having set it all in motion... I just don't wish to substitute one theory for another, it would make no sense otherwise... perhaps it would be less frowned upon in certain social circles but a belief nonetheless.

Yes. Perfect crimes have taken place. And there is no reason to believe that the non-religious people are more likely to commit them. Religion may actually be used to alleviate some of the guilt from them. We have an amazing capacity at rationalization and religion is one of the major tools to that end..

I believe that crime is completely irrespective of religion... all sorts of people commit crimes-- they can be born to Muslim, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Sikh families -- and be the most abhorrent beings.. they can commit atrocities under the guise of religion-- People can bomb abortion clinics and claim it in the name of G-D... people can bomb a building and claim it in the name of G-D... yet I defy the man who brings me evidence from a holy book that states the killing civilians is ok and encouraged by religion!

Please revisit the posts above. Why do you keep saying it all boils down to nothing? You don't need to believe in an afterlife to value life and society on earth..

indeed... but what if your life is enhanced by a lewd act -- one which you can perfectly get away with? One that would make you rich, famous and have all the best that this life has to offer.. why not commit a crime then? surely value will be added to your life by such enhancement from the perfect crime (that plus the trophy of having outsmarted every one-- we'll go back in circles if you tell me it is innate!

Self interest, socialization, and empathy. Go back and reread my last post. .

What self interest is there in giving charity? Where would socialization exist if the one you are trying to save dies? What/ or whom gave you empathy-- why does that feeling exist in you? seems like an accessory type feeling... like a piece of jewelry -- in other words you can live perfectly happy without it.. yet it is in you.. why is it there?

No. Religion codified the ground rules of morality. And then added a whole bunch of arbitrary dogma on top of it, including some dogma that goes directly against moral instincts. And having codified all of this in holy books, made it inflexible as the customs and needs society changed.

I don't know what religious dogma goes against moral instincts? and pls don't bring homosexuality into this... I think every so-called Archaic religious moral fits perfectly in today's society--- further, I'd find it rather scary if these common religious morals were to become extinct...
Murder Ok if you don't like your next door neighbor
Thievery ok since the supermarket owners are rich *******s and won't miss it
coveting your neighbor's wife since she is some nice piece of meat
giving into any lust or denying it-- is why religion seems inflexible to you-- some things just seem so good and natural why deny them? why be confined when you can be free-- that is the trouble with religion...

peace!

[ranma1/2]

This sounds like pascal's wager yet again. Its flawed in many ways, so many books have been written about it. We could do another thread on it if you would like, but its been done extensively here already, so a search should bring something up to satisfy your immediate curiousity.



If your belief in the afterlife is the only thing that keeps you moral and obeying laws, if you'd be out there raping and murdering everybody without your belief in the afterlife (which I very much doubt is true), then I dearly hope you never lose your faith. I'd also hope a person with such a view would find counselling quickly, for they would be a textbook sociopath.

I agree it sounds like a version of pascals wager.
And as you said we tend to do what we do not because of religious texts or fear of punishment or wanting ot be rewarded but becuase we are social beings.

[جوري]

For the same reason that you can deny something as huge as Russel's celestial teapot, or the invisible pink unicorn, or the flying spaghetti monster.

If Russel's celestial teapot, or the invisible pink unicorn, or the flying spaghetti monster had left us with 5 books detailing every aspect of why and how they govern the universe and came to us in a series of different people centuries apart attesting to the same thing, then I wouldn't deny them as a possibility -- so far I haven't read anything from Sanskrit literature to the Ahura Mazda to equate with what is in the Abrahamic religion-- but to leave that aside for now--

I am sure you can go on perfectly happy not knowing or even believing that there is such a thing as TPR governing your life-- yet the interplay between mean Arterial pressure, cardiac output and total peripheral resistance keeps your system in homeostasis and you alive... if one of them should fail acutely or chronically it would lead to eventual demise... Many people can go on ignoring them--- some might read up a little when stick with meds in the aspects where meds might be needed... some might go against medical advise and just call it bluff and then end up dead with their belief that no such formula can govern my body's homeostasis...

Everyone knows what they know and believe it--- it is fine for some it is beyond a reasonable doubt for others, they live and die not knowing or caring. Either way it is fine, so long as one doesn't infringe on the beliefs of others or makes them the focal point of mockery when they themselves by some other measure might be dwelling in the dark ages.

peace!

[Pygoscelis]

indeed... but what if your life is enhanced by a lewd act -- one which you can perfectly get away with? One that would make you rich, famous and have all the best that this life has to offer.. why not commit a crime then? surely value will be added to your life by such enhancement from the perfect crime (that plus the trophy of having outsmarted every one-- we'll go back in circles if you tell me it is innate!

Again, you are speaking as if we are sociopaths. A person who did as you describe would be haunted by guilt. You don't need religion for that. Simple socialization that they'd done wrong and empathy for those you wronged will do it in spades.

What self interest is there in giving charity?

Sometimes it wouldn't apply and the two other factors I named would instead. Other times it would very much apply. Giving to charity feeds into the societal value on charity, one that you may yourself someday need to take advantage of if you become impovrished.

Where would socialization exist if the one you are trying to save dies?

Why would socialization not apply if the one you are trying to save dies? You've been socialized, programmed to think that trying to save them is good, so you did it.

What/ or whom gave you empathy

You're trying to sneak that in again. Your assumption is faulty, as I noted in my previous post. Perhaps nobody gave me empathy. Nor does it matter how I got it. I have it.

Empathy can actually in a way be explained via self interest. Empathy is feeling the pain of another, by seeing yourself in another. Studies have been done on this and have shown that those most like yourself and those you have gotten to know best will draw the most empathy. This is why people are able to look at death statistics without much care, but are distraught if they learn more details about each of the victims - especially if they are people they can relate to. Its also why we care more about bunnies (mammal) getting tortured in laboratories than aligators (reptile) getting skewered in swamps.

A lot of theories and studies have been done on empathy. Some think it is a survival advantage for your tribe or genes, looking after like minded people etc. Its a whole area of study, and an interesting one at that.

in other words you can live perfectly happy without it..

I'm not so sure that is true. It may be, but it may not be. I see no reason to think it is.

I don't know what religious dogma goes against moral instincts?

Oh come now, you don't really want me to answer that do you? It could be its own thread. Could write a book on it.

Well - since you did ask, how about just one example. Can give more of them all day if you'd like though.

Human sacrifice is a fun one. How many religions throughout the ages demanded that one? Ya, even the old testament bible has a God smiling on the idea and the whole christian religion is based on it in a less direct way (Jesus).

and pls don't bring homosexuality into this...

Ok, I'll let you do that. lol. You just did. Its one example of a rather arbitrary "moral value" that leads people directly away from peoples' desire for equal treatment. The same can be said of the male chauvenism that is rampant in some religions.

I think every so-called Archaic religious moral fits perfectly in today's society

I don't know the Quran well so I can't really speak to your own religion.

But I do know the bible. There is lots in that book that is down right sickening. I'm glad most Christians don't follow it. If they did, we'd be running out of stones by now - with all that stoning people to death God purportedly demands of us for the silliest of things.

--- further, I'd find it rather scary if these common religious morals were to become extinct...

The ones you listed are not "common religious morals", they are "common morals". Religion is irrelevant to them.

[Pygoscelis]

If Russel's celestial teapot, or the invisible pink unicorn, or the flying spaghetti monster had left us with 5 books detailing every aspect of why and how they govern the universe and came to us in a series of different people centuries apart attesting to the same thing, then I wouldn't deny them as a possibility -- so far I haven't read anything from Sanskrit literature to the Ahura Mazda to equate with what is in the Abrahamic religion-- but to leave that aside for now--

No Gods I have heard of have written any books either. Have you noticed how it is always some human being doing the actual ink to paper? Oh, they claim that God is talking to them, but then... who are you to say that the teapot and unicorn don't talk to people too?

In fact, the existence of these books seems to me to be direct evidence AGAINST the existence of their purported gods. A real god would not need such books. A real one would simply have people know whatever it wanted them to know. And we'd all know the same message, and we wouldn't have all these divides between catholic and protestant or sunni and shia. That the books exist shows either that the gods don't exist or that they don't wish to be clearly understood.

[جوري]

No Gods I have heard of have written any books either. Have you noticed how it is always some human being doing the actual ink to paper? Oh, they claim that God is talking to them, but then... who are you to say that the teapot and unicorn don't talk to people too?

In fact, the existence of these books seems to me to be direct evidence AGAINST the existence of their purported gods. A real god would not need such books. A real one would simply have people know whatever it wanted them to know. And we'd all know the same message, and we wouldn't have all these divides between catholic and protestant or sunni and shia. That the books exist shows either that the gods don't exist or that they don't wish to be clearly understood.

I was about to address your other post but seeing how this is taking a bit of my time we'll leave the other one until tomorrow or so--let's start with this one...

How can the existence of these books be a measure against G-D? I don't understand-- I'd accept such a remark from a devout theologian who has spent a great deal of his life studying religion along with scientific theory and can argue clearly his reasons to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt ... I argue vigorously against the notion that in order for you to be a scientist you have to reject G-D and to be a theist by default you have to accept and look for him. I think it belittles the psychology of both the scientists and the theists seeing how I have seen members of both crowds do exactly what is expected from the other-- but I digress--
Further all 5 books speak of the same one G-D whether or not people resort to colorful allegorical or fundamental understanding of what is written ( there is no room for doubt of whom we are speaking) -- undoubtedly if anyone has studied theology for a long time can come forth and comment on this--

Now, I don't see why G-D would need to make himself visible to us? what is the point of life then? we'd all be in a blissful abode in heaven's high mead smiling that we are free from all mysteries of the world along with its strife ( this is the human condition)-- if everything was so apparent we wouldn't have this diversity... there wouldn't be people like you or people like me... There would be no cause for free will and reflection... What is the point of having photos of a vacation if you didn't go on the trip?
I believe if people get back to basics they wouldn't need innovations in religion (there can only be room for one correct one) There is only one form of Islam and it makes up 90% the rest are standing in highlight for political interest and personal agendas, but I will not get into that now... all can be very easily verified on a personal level this needn't be a communal effort... Abraham and Lut were the only two monotheists of their entire people--- just pick up the proper original books and go to scholars with your questions not lay men!-- in Islam in general we all use the same book in Islam Muslims or shiites, there is very little room for error--- unless one chooses error--- there is one visible apparent message, which one can arrive to after much thought and study...No one can do that for anyone-- You don't wake up one day and decide to be an Atheist or a Muslim (I hope) it is a product of deep thoughts and reflections..... I'll use Doyle's words to "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"-- that is the essence of what G-D is asking you to do in the last testament anyhow--- go bring all your proof, follow every road, check out every theory exhaust all your possibilities check out all the options... go over every point of interest again and again... there will always be one thing left at the end and a very basic thing at that... you either choose to remain exactly where you started in doubt or accept something that is beyond your comprehension.

I'll leave with these two verses from the Quran on the account you'd want G-D to make himself visible to you! and on this note call it a night

هَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلاَّ أَن يَأْتِيَهُمُ اللّهُ فِي ظُلَلٍ مِّنَ الْغَمَامِ وَالْمَلآئِكَةُ وَقُضِيَ الأَمْرُ وَإِلَى اللّهِ تُرْجَعُ الأمُورُ {210}

[Pickthal 2:210] Wait they for naught else than that Allah should come unto them in the shadows of the clouds with the angels? Then the case would be already judged. All cases go back to Allah (for judgment).

بَلْ يُرِيدُ كُلُّ امْرِئٍ مِّنْهُمْ أَن يُؤْتَى صُحُفًا مُّنَشَّرَةً {52}

[Pickthal 74:52] Nay, but everyone of them desireth that he should be given open scrolls

they certainly describe that your wants of a visible G-D aren't any different from those preceeding you! You should seek him for questions not the other way around

peace and g'night

[Pygoscelis]

I argue vigorously against the notion that in order for you to be a scientist you have to reject G-D

Not sure where this is coming from all of a sudden. I don't disagree.

and to be a theist by default you have to accept and look for him.

Actually, isn't this the very definition of theist? One who accepts and looks for gods?

Now, I don't see why G-D would need to make himself visible to us?

Fair enough. But if he doesn't want to be known, why would he write us books? This is my point. The whole idea of holy books is that Gods are sending humans messages. Well, I doubt that, because if they actually were sending us messages they would not need books. It fits much more the theory that the books are just writings of men claiming to speak for Gods.

I believe if people get back to basics they wouldn't need innovations in religion (there can only be room for one correct one)

As soon as you start telling me that your God is the only God and your way is the only way, I start to get concerned. That is the birth of intolerance and it is only a short trip to nastiness.

just pick up the proper original books and go to scholars with your questions not lay men!

So God not only had to write a book instead of just having us know what he wanted us to know, but the book he wrote is so cryptic that we need experts to study it and tell us what it says? If a God actually did this, she'd clearly not want us to understand her. She'd be playing some peculiar game.

[جوري]

Not sure where this is coming from all of a sudden. I don't disagree..

A general comment to a sentiment I felt echoed here in this thread in general -- not necessarily by your person!

Actually, isn't this the very definition of theist? One who accepts and looks for gods? .

Some theists end up too saturated with religion and take a hiatus!

Fair enough. But if he doesn't want to be known, why would he write us books? This is my point. The whole idea of holy books is that Gods are sending humans messages. Well, I doubt that, because if they actually were sending us messages they would not need books. It fits much more the theory that the books are just writings of men claiming to speak for Gods.

How else do you propose you learn of him?-- I mean once you recognize that you can perform a Roux-en-Y do you just cut some guy up and start chopping at will or do you follow ASBS standards as documented in the books? How sad that he'd give us life and not leave us with out any clues on how to find him

As soon as you start telling me that your God is the only God and your way is the only way, I start to get concerned. That is the birth of intolerance and it is only a short trip to nastiness..

There is only one G-D for all... Islam doesn't deny that which is before it.

So God not only had to write a book instead of just having us know what he wanted us to know, but the book he wrote is so cryptic that we need experts to study it and tell us what it says? If a God actually did this, she'd clearly not want us to understand her. She'd be playing some peculiar game.

That is merely to avoid yourself innovations, since that is how sectarianism starts! when you don't understand something, instead of asking your next door neighbor-- you may ask a learned theologian-- however it isn't a requirement-- it isn't at all cryptic on a basic level-- depends on how deep you want to go. By the way let's avoid anthropomorphism when addressing G-D-- I understand you don't feel the need to show respect... but he is of neither gender we use (he) in general since English deficient but in no way is G-D a male or a female. I have no need to worship something human!

peace

[Pygoscelis]

How else do you propose you learn of him?-- How sad that he'd give us life and not leave us with out any clues on how to find him

If a God wanted to be found and understood, he would be found and understood. There would be no need for cryptic books or other obscure potentially misleading clues.

however it isn't a requirement-- it isn't at all cryptic on a basic level-- depends on how deep you want to go.

So, your God wants to be understood, but only a little bit?

By the way let's avoid anthropomorphism when addressing G-D-- I understand you don't feel the need to show respect... but he is of neither gender we use (he) in general since English deficient but in no way is G-D a male or a female. I have no need to worship something human!

I use he, she, it, them, interchangably, because I'm not refering to your particular God, or any particular God, but to the concept of Gods in general.

[جوري]

If a God wanted to be found and understood, he would be found and understood. There would be no need for cryptic books or other obscure potentially misleading clues. .

I am not going through this circular argument again

so, your God wants to be understood, but only a little bit?.

The G-D, can be understood by all-- common man and well learned folks... it is not a big mystery

I use he, she, it, them, interchangably, because I'm not refering to your particular God, or any particular God, but to the concept of Gods in general.

Again-- one G-D-- Not feminine, not plural, not over powered by a bigger G-D... not a G-D of the people of the east... G-D of all, heaven and earth and what is in between. The one who gave you (SA nodes, AV Nodes, And Purkinje fibers)-- so when one mal-functions the others take over!... I am not going to sit here and justify anything to you... you can be mindless of him until the cows come home-- It makes not one bit of a difference to me one way or the other--- and just so we aren't doing this again tomorrow
don't ask me Why G-D would want us to know of him or why do we need to worship him?-- my reply to that would simply be (why do you think you are entitled to all of this for free?)

peace!

[Pygoscelis]

I am not going through this circular argument again

Nothing circular about it, but ok.

The G-D, can be understood by all-- common man and well learned folks... it is not a big mystery

Yet a few posts upthread you were writing how we should seek scholars to explain it to us. Doesn't sound so straight forward to me. Sounds like a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Not a way a God would communicate if he wanted you to know something.

Again-- one G-D-- Not feminine, not plural, not over powered by a bigger G-D... not a G-D of the people of the east... G-D of all, heaven and earth and what is in between. The one who gave you (SA nodes, AV Nodes, And Purkinje fibers)-- so when one mal-functions the others take over!... I am not going to sit here and justify anything to you... you can be mindless of him until the cows come home-- It makes not one bit of a difference to me one way or the other---

Great. And you can continue to believe in your God and it makes no difference to me either. We can peacefully co-exist. Thats refreshing.
Just don't expect me to adjust my terminology to fit your particular God when I am in fact refering to the concept of Gods in general (which is what your previous post looked like it was demanding).

why do you think you are entitled to all of this for free?

Now there is an interesting thought.

By "all of this" do you mean your existence?

Why do you think you need to pay somebody for it (much less invent somebody to pay for it)?

For the sake of this thought experiment lets say for the moment that God does exist and did give you your life. I'm still not sure that would mean you have any obligation to pay for it. Did you contract for it in the womb before birth? Did you have any choice at all as to whether you'd get it or what shape it took? DId giving it to you cost this hypothetical all powerful creator being anything? Can you somehow reverse time and give it back?

[ranma1/2]

No Gods I have heard of have written any books either. Have you noticed how it is always some human being doing the actual ink to paper? Oh, they claim that God is talking to them, but then... who are you to say that the teapot and unicorn don't talk to people too?

In fact, the existence of these books seems to me to be direct evidence AGAINST the existence of their purported gods. A real god would not need such books. A real one would simply have people know whatever it wanted them to know. And we'd all know the same message, and we wouldn't have all these divides between catholic and protestant or sunni and shia. That the books exist shows either that the gods don't exist or that they don't wish to be clearly understood.

Very good point, surely a god could write the knowlege in our minds so we would have no doubt that that was what god wants. This would still allow us free will to good or bad. So why does such an omni potent being make it such a gamble for others. For those that never even hear of that god? Or those that cant tell which one is right from the milliions out there?

Very good point.

Of course to played the flawed devils adovocate.

God did send gold tablets to John Smith. He just translated them... Um.. why did he need to translate it ......

[Ayesha Rana]

Oh Mankind what keeps you from your Lord most Generous... just out of curiosity (and im not trying to create an argument) how many of the atheist brothers and sisters on this thread, if any, have read the Qur'an:? and would you consider it please? because we muslims follow the Qur'an because we find it a miraculous book... thats why we follow it

It would be nice to know what you thought of the Qur'an after reading it. I mean with all the other books we read it cant hurt can it? Id be very grateful if some of you would give feedback on what you think Insha'Allah
Wassalam:)

[جوري]

Yet a few posts upthread you were writing how we should seek scholars to explain it to us. Doesn't sound so straight forward to me. Sounds like a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Not a way a God would communicate if he wanted you to know something.

What is difficult about seeking council in the matters that aren't clear to you? How many times must I clarify that?

Great. And you can continue to believe in your God and it makes no difference to me either. We can peacefully co-exist. Thats refreshing.
Just don't expect me to adjust my terminology to fit your particular God when I am in fact refering to the concept of Gods in general (which is what your previous post looked like it was demanding).

I have no expectations from you whatsoever-- I have already stated that and repeatedly!-- further you are the one who has graced us with your presence on an Islamic forum not vice versa---it is when one of you comes here feigning being a cognoscente that we reply-- not out of love of getting into vain discourse with you-- -- and good for you otherwise-- you already have a three member fan club and you can all take turns stroking each other's egos!

Now there is an interesting thought.
By "all of this" do you mean your existence?
For the sake of this thought experiment lets say for the moment that God does exist and did give you your life. I'm still not sure that would mean you have any obligation to pay for it. Did you contract for it in the womb before birth? Did you have any choice at all as to whether you'd get it or what shape it took? DId giving it to you cost this hypothetical all powerful creator being anything? Can you somehow reverse time and give it back?

I don't understand what that means? The things you do have in existence not just existing ( if you don't wish to exist you can always end your life).. I'd think it is very obvious what is free in this world-- ... your ability to breathe even when you are asleep.. do you think nothing at all goes into that?? you don't think there are things working around the clock to keep you from being goo? intrinsic rhythmicity, DRG units projecting into the VRG, your Pneumotaxic Center, your Apneustic Center, your ability to filter out toxins... your ability to see, enjoy the sun, the sea, the forests, the ability to eat-- plus the gazillion other things you take for granted, every cell in your body working round the clock for you.. your heart, your liver, your kidneys--- you'd pay $60,000 for a heart donation should yours not function for you that plus hospital costs and doctor fees... how about giving thanks to the one who gave it all to you for free?-- Anyhow I am through with this topic... you wanna bow down to energy or zen of zero or the nothing that took form then so be it... there is nothing more on this topic that I wish to impart....

[...]

[quote]Very good point, surely a god could write the knowlege in our minds so we would have no doubt that that was what god wants. This would still allow us free will to good or bad. So why does such an omni potent being make it such a gamble for others. For those that never even hear of that god? Or those that cant tell which one is right from the milliions out there?

Very good point.
quote]

How can we question the Will of God? He knows what we do not know and there is a reason for everything.

Allah is going to test the believers and only those who are true to their faith will persevere. Otherwise what is the difference between the one who says i believe and those who actually strive towards whats right.

And yes we can tell whos right from the millions out there because of all the signs we are sent and the messengers that were sent to mankind

A person who seeks the truth with sincerety, Allah will show them the true way inshaallah

:peace:

[- Qatada -]

Very good point, surely a god could write the knowlege in our minds so we would have no doubt that that was what god wants. This would still allow us free will to good or bad. So why does such an omni potent being make it such a gamble for others. For those that never even hear of that god? Or those that cant tell which one is right from the milliions out there?

Very good point.

Infact, its there. It's called the Fitrah which God places in every servant of His.

We know the concept of good/bad because He has placed that within us, He has placed in us the logic of understanding that God does only what befits His Majesty, so those who claim that God is a man, or that God is within the creation are saying things which are illogical and therefore they find it hard to accept. We know that God is outside of His creation and is aware of His servants, and He does not kill himself as some religions claim etc.


Our fitrah [natural disposition] fits in with Islaam, the guidance and man's creation goes hand in hand. And therefore anyone who finds Islaam will come to realise that, since it isn't illogical at all.



Regards.

[zoro]

Ayesha Rana:

After reading the Qur’an, my conclusion was that it was horrible. You asked for “feedback”; I couldn't write anything so well as did Robert Ingersoll, more than a hundred years ago (who was writing about the Bible, but his points are equally applicable to the Qur’an):

Where did that doctrine of eternal punishment for men and women and children come from? It came from the low and beastly skull of that wretch in the dug-out. Where did he get it? It was a souvenir from the animals. The doctrine of eternal punishment was born in the glittering eyes of snakes -- snakes that hung in fearful coils watching for their prey. It was born of the howl and bark and growl of wild beasts. It was born of the grin of hyenas and of the depraved chatter of unclean baboons. I despise it with every drop of my blood. Tell me there is a God in the serene heavens that will **** his children for the expression of an honest belief! More men have died in their sins, judged by your orthodox creeds, than there are leaves on all the forests in the wide world ten thousand times over. Tell me these men are in hell; that these men are in torment; that these children are in eternal pain, and that they are to be punished forever and forever! I denounce this doctrine as the most infamous of lies.

When the great ship containing the hopes and aspirations of the word, when the great ship freighted with mankind goes down in the night of death, chaos and disaster, I am willing to go down with the ship. I will not be guilty of the ineffable meanness of paddling away in some orthodox canoe. I will go down with the ship, with those who love me, and with those whom I have loved. If there is a God who will **** his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant. I make my choice now. I despise that doctrine. It has covered the cheeks of this world with tears. It has polluted the hearts of children, and poisoned the imaginations of men. It has been a constant pain, a perpetual terror to every good man and woman and child. It has filled the good with horror and with fear; but it has had no effect upon the infamous and base. It has wrung the hearts of the tender; it has furrowed the checks of the good. This doctrine never should be preached again. What right have you, sir, Mr. clergyman, you, minister of the gospel, to stand at the portals of the tomb, at the vestibule of eternity, and fill the future with horror and with fear? I do not believe this doctrine; neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment. Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake, and the conscience of a hyena.

[- Qatada -]

We don't believe God has children, since that doesn't befit His Majesty. :)


This is infact a refutation to the christians and jews in the Qur'an:

(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"

[Qur'an 5:18]

We've also explained that if a person saw the clear proofs, and still turned away - then if given an eternal life, they would remain in that state of disbelief and ungratefulness to God forever - for all the good which He has bestowed upon them in this life, so the punishment of the hereafter would be forever also since they were warned of that, yet they were rebellious. Yet if they obeyed - they would be given glad tidings of Paradise which is reserved for God's obedient servants who obey Him.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

My honest opinion is if God existed the evidence would be quite easy to find and all around us, unfortunately it just is not.

peace n all that SIR

just out of curiosity i wanted to ask, have you ever actually completely opened up your mind and thought, "you know what, its very likely there might be a God and im going to try to find him!" or anything of this sort? Or have you forever been the "there is no God, otherwise i would have seen Him/Somthing/An Evidence!"


this also goes out to all other aethiests, whats with the closeminded approach? Rejecting God completely is something strange, it always has been and it still is.

[Gator]

peace n all that SIR

just out of curiosity i wanted to ask, have you ever actually completely opened up your mind and thought, "you know what, its very likely there might be a God and im going to try to find him!" or anything of this sort? Or have you forever been the "there is no God, otherwise i would have seen Him/Somthing/An Evidence!"


this also goes out to all other aethiests, whats with the closeminded approach? Rejecting God completely is something strange, it always has been and it still is.

I consider myself open minded. I've looked and am still looking. If I find evidence or a reasonable proposition of a God I would look into it.

My curiosity is how we can look at the same stuff and come to such wildly different conclusions.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

My curiosity is how we can look at the same stuff and come to such wildly different conclusions.

its the background which lead to seeing the same stuff. I might have had certain events happen to me which strengthened me for the creator, whilst you might have had certain events which completely opposes you towards accepting a creator.


God truelly guides who he wills, i just wish humanity would see the perfection in Gods laws, how can they see it when its not implemented though. The only perfectly implemented state was when 'Umar the second Caliph of islam reigned, read up on that period in which a man wouldnt abuse a cat due to the leader half way across the world. That is true justice.

[Pygoscelis]

Oh Mankind what keeps you from your Lord most Generous... just out of curiosity (and im not trying to create an argument) how many of the atheist brothers and sisters on this thread, if any, have read the Qur'an:? and would you consider it please? because we muslims follow the Qur'an because we find it a miraculous book... thats why we follow it

It would be nice to know what you thought of the Qur'an after reading it. I mean with all the other books we read it cant hurt can it? Id be very grateful if some of you would give feedback on what you think Insha'Allah
Wassalam:)

A perfectly fair point. I have tried to read the Quran but I don't speak arabic so I could only read an english translation. I found it very hard to read. I suspect is loses a lot in translation.

And to Purest Ambrosia, you really should try to tone down on the ad hom attacks. Don't be insecure. Address the points people make, don't try to attack the people making them. The latter only makes you look bad and I won't play that game.

Please note that this is a thread in which atheists were specifically invited to participate. I am not here to disrupt dialogue between muslims. I restrict myself to the comparative religion and world affairs sections for that reason.

[Pygoscelis]

My curiosity is how we can look at the same stuff and come to such wildly different conclusions.

Confirmation bias. A pretty common phenomenon.

[جوري]

And to Purest Ambrosia, you really should try to tone down on the ad hom attacks. Don't be insecure. Address the points people make, don't try to attack the people making them. The latter only makes you look bad and I won't play that game.

Please note that this is a thread in which atheists were specifically invited to participate. I am not here to disrupt dialogue between muslims. I restrict myself to the comparative religion and world affairs sections for that reason.

Thanks for the free diagnosis--How about some new material?

[Pygoscelis]

peace n all that SIR

just out of curiosity i wanted to ask, have you ever actually completely opened up your mind and thought, "you know what, its very likely there might be a God and im going to try to find him!" or anything of this sort? Or have you forever been the "there is no God, otherwise i would have seen Him/Somthing/An Evidence!"


this also goes out to all other aethiests, whats with the closeminded approach? Rejecting God completely is something strange, it always has been and it still is.

I'd be open to the existence of a God, but it isn't the default position to believe in one, and especially not a specific one. One may naturally and individually come to surmise that there is a great power (sentient or not) that formed the world, but to believe it has a particular name and/or wants you to do certain things and not others - that takes a lot of idoctrination. And atheists who've never been religious missed that during childhood. In adulthood, it makes no more sense to them than elves or unicorns, and no I'm not belittleing god belief when I say this, i mean it literally. They find God as likely as the flying spaghetti monster or IPU.

You also should know that a high percentage of atheists are apostates, who WERE raised in a religion and believed it at one time, later doubting it and finally breaking free of it. This deconversion process can be very painful for a lot of people especially if the religion is one where threats of hell are part of the doctrine. Some religions even preach the killing of apostates. Imagine how harrowing deconversion is for them. I immagine they try very hard to remain believers.

[Pygoscelis]

If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.

I disagree. THe child wouldn't become a member of a known religion, but the child could very well invent her own. All religions had to start somewhere, and religion is pretty universal across the globe. People like this child start wondering about lightning bolts. They are scared out of there wits and need to feel a sense of control over their environment, so they invent Gods and make sacrifices and prayers to win devine favour (control over their environment). Later the leaders of their communities find God belief useful and shape it to better control their people. Eventually something gets written down or etched on a wall - and voila. A religion is born.

[zoro]

IbnAbdulHakim:

just out of curiosity i wanted to ask, have you ever actually completely opened up your mind and thought, "you know what, its very likely there might be a God and im going to try to find him!" or anything of this sort? Or have you forever been the "there is no God, otherwise i would have seen Him/Somthing/An Evidence!"

this also goes out to all other aethiests, whats with the closeminded approach? Rejecting God completely is something strange, it always has been and it still is.

In response, I’d ask you if you’ve ever tried to estimate the probability that your god exists?

Granted that making such an estimate is fraught with huge uncertainties, yet some progress can be made. One example is given in Stephen Unwin’s recent book “The Probability of God”, but as I show elsewhere (at http://zenofzero.net/docs/IhHypothes...babilities.pdf ), his analysis (based on Bayes’ method) is plagued with major errors.

Another approach (at least to estimate the probability for the existence of a specific god, namely, one claimed to have created our universe) is to estimate probabilities for different ways our universe (and ourselves!) could have been created and then seek confirmatory evidence of the different possibilities. This approach, too, is fraught with huge uncertainties, but as I show elsewhere, some progress can be made. I won’t go into details here (for them, see http://zenofzero.net/docs/IiIndoctri...nIgnorance.pdf ), but let me at least sketch some of the results.

First, the probability that you would come into existence is almost certainly less than 10^(-100) [i.e., 0.0000…1 (with a total of 99 zeros)], yet the probability that you do exist can be confirmed to within about 1 part in 10^25 [i.e., the probability that you exist is about 0.9999… (with a total of 25 nines]. To obtain the result for the probability that you would come into existence, I assumed (with essentially no justification) that the probability that the universe could “pop into existence”, presumably by a symmetry-breaking fluctuation in a total void, leading to the Big Bang, was 10^(-40) – but a more accurate number may be hugely different, e.g., 10^(-400). Yet, for reasons that I describe in the reference, the final answer (re. god) actually doesn’t depend on what value one uses for the probability for the “spontaneous, natural” creation of the universe.

Then, if one examines the possibility that a god created our universe, more uncertainties enter. Thus, one needs to estimate the probability not that our universe could “just” pop into existence out of “total nothingness”, but that “total nothingness” could first pop a god into existence, who then would proceed (when so inclined) to create our universe (and us). Estimating such a probability is, of course, hugely subjective, but given the assumptions that the probability that the universe got around to making us (after about 10^10 years!) is essentially certainly less than 10^(-100), then if nothing else, it “seems fitting” that the probability that a god could have been created is less than at least 10^(-200) – although if that’s not small enough, if it underestimates the “power and glory” of God, the final results of the analysis aren’t modified if one chooses a probability as small as 10^(-1,000) or even smaller.

The final step in the analysis is to seek confirmatory evidence of the possibility that such a god exists. Here, it seems appropriate to invoke Sagan’s idea that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and since one’s own existence can be confirmed to within about one part in 10^25, it thereby seems appropriate to seek confirmation of the existence of god to within one part in, say, 10^50. Yet, instead of such confirmation, one finds claims for the existence of god (e.g., by all the theists in the world) to be supported NOT to within 1 part in 10^50 or even 1 part in 10^25, but only by about 1 part in 2 (i.e., about half the people in the world – and even this “confirmatory evidence” is extremely weak)!

Further, when evidence of god was claimed to be more available and reliable, the confirmation is even weaker. For example, the Bible’s New Testament states that, after Jesus died, only 120 people (from among what, a million Jews?) “believed” in him, and in the Qur’an, it’s stated that, at first, only the prophet’s wife “believed” him (from among what, a million Arabs?). Given such “evidence”, it then seems that the probability that any such god exists is the same as the probability that he could exist, namely, almost certainly smaller than 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
(assuming I counted all those zeros correctly).

But then, maybe I shouldn’t have responded to your question, since it was addressed to “atheists”, and clearly I’m not one. Instead, I admit that I don’t know if any god exists, but add that the probability seems extremely small – far too small to have any influence, whatsoever, on how people choose to live their lives. Yet in contrast, approximately half the people do consider the matter to be important enough to influence (even dominate!) their lives. But I expect that, as the critical thinking skills of people improve, the “god idea” will disappear, as did the primitive idea that the Earth is a flat plate around which the Sun circled. Of course, all the clerics of the world will object to such “heathen ideas from infidels”, but surely after not too many more generations, the clerics will fail to maintain their privileged positions supported by the people’s ignorance. And what a glorious change for the better it will be when all the pompous, pious, arrogant clerics of the world finally do something useful for humanity!

[czgibson]

But I expect that, as the critical thinking skills of people improve, the “god idea” will disappear, as did the primitive idea that the Earth is a flat plate around which the Sun circled.

I absolutely agree, but don't underestimate the credulity of humans. See here: The Flat Earth Society. I think they're serious!

Sadly, I think the idea of god will be with us for a long time to come.

Peace

[------]

Given such “evidence”, it then seems that the probability that any such god exists is the same as the probability that he could exist, namely, almost certainly smaller than 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
(assuming I counted all those zeros correctly).

:salamext:

Well, someone is in for a very big surprise when they die...

[ranma1/2]

:salamext:

Well, someone is in for a very big surprise when they die...

Well lets say one god is true out of all of the gods that have existed. Chances are everyone will be surprised. Of course thats not even including religions without gods. Reincarnation, scientologists, forms of buddhism...
And of course the agnostics and atheists.

[Pygoscelis]

I absolutely agree, but don't underestimate the credulity of humans. See here: The Flat Earth Society. I think they're serious!

Sadly, I think the idea of god will be with us for a long time to come.

Peace

Flat earth is a good example of how science adapts and religion resists change. If you look around and have no access to any fancy doodads, it makes sense to think the earth is flat. It certainly appears to be. Run around, gallop around on horseback, and you don't seem to be running on a slant. THe horizon appears flat. The only clue they had in ancient times was the shadow of the earth on the moon (and only a few used that to surmise that the earth is a sphere).

But as science and technology improved we got more information and we found the earth is spherical. Religion still resisted this idea. In the bible it refers to the 4 corners of the earth after all. And those who introduced the ideas that the earth is round and that the earth goes around the sun instead of the sun around the earth were branded heretics.

[root]

:salamext:

Well, someone is in for a very big surprise when they die...

Or not!

[poga]

My honest opinion is if God existed the evidence would be quite easy to find and all around us, unfortunately it just is not. So to answer your question I don't think he would require to send any messages.

Additionally, I would understand how man's wish for absolute proof would inspire a falsification (such as religions) in an attempt to give credibility to what they have constructed.

:sl: now root wants to know what is the fruit so he started to understand the seed:w:

[ranma1/2]

peace n all that SIR

just out of curiosity i wanted to ask, have you ever actually completely opened up your mind and thought, "you know what, its very likely there might be a God and im going to try to find him!" or anything of this sort? Or have you forever been the "there is no God, otherwise i would have seen Him/Somthing/An Evidence!"


this also goes out to all other aethiests, whats with the closeminded approach? Rejecting God completely is something strange, it always has been and it still is.

This sounds like the true scottsman fallacy. Many an atheist have been very religous in the past and believed absolutly in a god but then things changed. wether they lost faith due to a tramatic event or through lack of evidence or what have you , they did believe. Me myself i was brought up in a liberal christian atmosphere and through my own searching i found nothing and i reasoned that with all the religions out there there is no reason to believe mine is right. After looking at the history of christianity and other religions i saw nothing divine about them. I saw nothing holy or fantastic.

As for close mineded, atheists in my experience are some of the most open minded people out there. Just because we dont have your faith does not mean we have not opened out minds. And personally i dont care to learn about every single of the thousands of religions out there. I could ask the same thing about you, why are you close minded about buddhism, bahai, scientology, christianity, GFSM, ect.... Perhaps you havent opened your mind to the greatness of Zues?

Of course another assumption you are making is that even if there is a god you assume it gives a peach pit about us.

[Balthasar21]

The question should be where did God come from .