/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Atheist Ideology?



Isambard
09-03-2007, 03:30 AM
Hello

I often hear about Atheism have some sort of ideological belief, which would imply that there is a value system, ethical model and conduct and some sort of rudimentary belief system.

For those who argue it, I am curious exactly what this mysterious atheist ideology consists of.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Abdul Fattah
09-03-2007, 01:18 PM
Well how does an atheist tell right from wrong? Basically, an atheists is God of his own universe and decides for himself what is right and what is wrong.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-03-2007, 01:38 PM
An Atheist feasts on his own desires.

That might be to look good, to show off, to feel good by doing what he believes to be good, to drink, to smoke, to speak with the opposite gender in a flirty manner, to do bad things secretly believing no one is watching when Allah always watches. Many things.. many many ways to feast on desires. If you dont do what your doing for God then the intention isnt good. This is my opinion ! and i believe in it strongly
Reply

Md Mashud
09-03-2007, 02:32 PM
To be atheist rather than agnostic is an ignorance and I will prove it.

From reading and watching alot of reasonings, debates etc put down by atheists - they fundamentally have had several flaws in their way of life.

They state they have created alternative theories to how we existed other than God. But close inspection on those theories, they have a huge GAP and are not complete - while the God theory is absolute and would explain everything. Not only this, none of the theories would disprove God in any way in the unlikely chance they would be true. These theories include evolution, natural selection/orders created by randomness, multiple universes and theories involving quantum mechanics etc - EVEN if they was true, they would not contradict God. All of these theories have required either matter, energy or meaningless forces (as described by them in their own words) - So what atheists do is say if X and Y existed, this could do process Z via Y and create M... Thats what all their theories are. You see the gap? Not one atheist has explained where X and Y came from or even a cause to them! If anything these only say God must exist to me

Even if these were true, it would not disprove God. Atheists are trying to explain a process rather than a cause. No arguement to this day, has yet to do different. This is fact, undisputable and I hold my word on this and challenge you on the issue.

When an atheists can give plausible reasons why such things can exist to begin with, only then can they realistically call themselves atheists rather then theist or AGNOSTIC. But, they themselves know, they will never work it out. They live in a world where they think process theories disprove God, when infact it never does.

So why does God belief have credibility? With our understanding of existance, matter and energy, we see that there to be an absolute, that absolute must be independant of the materialsm that we see everything as. Only then, could it explain why X and Y existed and then went through process Z - which was allowed due to the laws having been designed for it to be able to happen. Existance is design and design without intelligence is impossible.

Is it ignorant to believe in God? No, Il explain. You say we can't see him or really prove his existance. But we can make a proof by deduction that is, without any other explanations to explain my existance, I must accept what I have at the time (scientists should be familiar with this methodology). I can't even consider other options because they have yet to exist - as said above people claimed to have created alternatives but they havn't. Fine, you don't have to accept God exists but how can you say he doesn't? You must be theist or agnostic to not be ignorant. Theists would only be ignorant if they did not consider all options - but i'll repeat there has been no selection to choose from!

The whole idea of morality and ethics makes no sense in the atheistic world, rather survival of the fittest would seem much more appropriate.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
Isambard
09-03-2007, 03:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Well how does an atheist tell right from wrong? Basically, an atheists is God of his own universe and decides for himself what is right and what is wrong.
Well it really depends on which ethical model they are following.

There big differences in right and wrong among these groups (not entire list)
-Communitarians
-Liberals
-Negative rights theorists
-Positive rights theorists
-Utilitarians (difference again in personal and macro level)
-Classical republicanism (very similar with communitarianism with some key differences)
-Justice (5 different kinds) theorists
-Nihilists/Relativists <----Thats me! :D

Being atheist doesnt mean youll be one in particular, and being a theist doesnt bar you from using any of these ethical models either. They are neutral (secular) but depending on which religion you adhere to will make you more likely to favor one of these ethical models over another.

There is also combo's which make the thing more complicated as well as intrinsic and extrinsic application.:statisfie
Reply

Isambard
09-03-2007, 03:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
An Atheist feasts on his own desires.

That might be to look good, to show off, to feel good by doing what he believes to be good, to drink, to smoke, to speak with the opposite gender in a flirty manner, to do bad things secretly believing no one is watching when Allah always watches. Many things.. many many ways to feast on desires. If you dont do what your doing for God then the intention isnt good. This is my opinion ! and i believe in it strongly
Its usually done in varying degress depending on which ethical model you follow and some things are justified within the contexts of said model.
Reply

Trumble
09-03-2007, 06:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Well how does an atheist tell right from wrong? Basically, an atheists is God of his own universe and decides for himself what is right and what is wrong.
Mankind is an intelligent species which is perfectly capable of determining what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' by itself. 'Right', roughly speaking is, the "golden rule", don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you. It isn't difficult to work out that on balance everyone would be happier that way, and it therefore makes sense for everybody to live according a code of ethics that includes it. Of course, not everybody does so in practice.. some think they might do better by being 'bad' on the assumption everyone else will be 'good', but that's equally true wherever you think your ethical system may have originated. Such ethics were essential to form even the earliest societies, long before the Torah, Bible, or Qur'an. They just include what was generally recognised as 'good' in the socities in which they were authored... the 'God' part is added just to add a little more authority. Or at least that would be the atheistic position.

As an aside Buddhism has a highly developed system of ethics in no way inferior to that of theistic religions. No God was required to form it, just reason, common sense and an atheistic soteriology.
Reply

wilberhum
09-03-2007, 07:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Well how does an atheist tell right from wrong? Basically, an atheists is God of his own universe and decides for himself what is right and what is wrong.
It is obvious to me atheist have no morals. :skeleton:

You have to have morals to "Kill for god". :-\
Reply

Md Mashud
09-03-2007, 07:50 PM
You have to have morals to "Kill for god".
Where does God ask us to kill for him? Or did you find that in your Dawkin book?
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-03-2007, 07:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
Its usually done in varying degress depending on which ethical model you follow and some things are justified within the contexts of said model.
it amazes me that you can state this without following a religion. You should know humans are not capable of building a sufficient ethical model!
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 08:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
I often hear about Atheism have some sort of ideological belief, which would imply that there is a value system, ethical model and conduct and some sort of rudimentary belief system.
It is false. There is no ideology inherent to Atheism.

format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Well how does an atheist tell right from wrong? Basically, an atheists is God of his own universe and decides for himself what is right and what is wrong.
Assuming the Atheistic viewpoint is correct, then all ideas regarding morality are decided by man.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
An Atheist feasts on his own desires.
Unsubstantiated generalisation.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
That might be to look good, to show off, to feel good by doing what he believes to be good, to drink, to smoke, to speak with the opposite gender in a flirty manner, to do bad things secretly believing no one is watching when Allah always watches.
Although this is meaningless to me and other Atheists, because I and other Atheists deny the existence of Allah.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
To be atheist rather than agnostic is an ignorance and I will prove it.
Le sigh.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
They state they have created alternative theories to how we existed other than God. But close inspection on those theories, they have a huge GAP and are not complete
There are theories indeed. No Atheist though would though proclaim to know everything about the universe, or about how we came to be.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
while the God theory is absolute and would explain everything.
Assuming of course that the God theory is even correct. It is very convenient to simply proclaim that God is the cause of X but it has no bearing on whether such is actually true.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
Not only this, none of the theories would disprove God in any way in the unlikely chance they would be true.
Correct.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
These theories include evolution, natural selection/orders created by randomness, multiple universes and theories involving quantum mechanics etc - EVEN if they was true, they would not contradict God.
Yes.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
So what atheists do is say if X and Y existed, this could do process Z via Y and create M... Thats what all their theories are. You see the gap? Not one atheist has explained where X and Y came from or even a cause to them! If anything these only say God must exist to me
Eh?

A lack of understanding does not justify a fall back to an entity beyond understanding.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
When an atheists can give plausible reasons why such things can exist to begin with, only then can they realistically call themselves atheists rather then theist or AGNOSTIC.
I call myself an Atheist because there is no evidence empirical or otherwise regarding a God (and by God I refer to a cosmic arbiter within or outside of the 'boundaries of the universe). As there is no evidence empirical or otherwise concerning God there is therefore no reason to believe in a God.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
. But, they themselves know, they will never work it out. They live in a world where they think process theories disprove God, when infact it never does.
No theory disproves God anymore than it disproves the celestial teapot, invisible pink unicorn and of course the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
So why does God belief have credibility? With our understanding of existance, matter and energy, we see that there to be an absolute, that absolute must be independant of the materialsm that we see everything as
No - we see only that existence must be eternal. The properties of the universe are only enough to show the universe as it is and nothing more. If a power external from the universe is invoked, it may as well be indefinable as we lack complete knowledge on what such is.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
Existance is design and design without intelligence is impossible.
Is this the Teleological Argument propping up? Existence is necessary, for it cannot not exist by definition.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
The whole idea of morality and ethics makes no sense in the atheistic world, rather survival of the fittest would seem much more appropriate.
How so?
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-03-2007, 08:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Unsubstantiated generalisation.
what code do you live by again? :)


Although this is meaningless to me and other Atheists, because I and other Atheists deny the existence of Allah.
well to agree to his existence will deny your pleasures, then what of your desires will there remain for you to feast upon?
Reply

Md Mashud
09-03-2007, 08:21 PM
Poor refutations Skavou, so poor.
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 08:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
what code do you live by again? :)
What moral code? My moral code is a mixture of Negative Utilitarianism and Kantian thought.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
well to agree to his existence will deny your pleasures, then what of your desires will there remain for you to feast upon?
Eh?
Reply

جوري
09-03-2007, 08:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
Where does God ask us to kill for him? Or did you find that in your Dawkin book?
it was meant as a sally into a world where he can mark his existence, without expenditure of any deep thought ...
You'll find such 'quips' and I use the term loosely on practically every thread...
just meant to derail it down the path of degeneracy..
Each forum has a few professional jesters! You just have to learn to live with it, without much expectations or confidence that you'll get some sort of fulfillment out of it!
:w:
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 08:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
Poor refutations Skavou, so poor.
Rhetoric is no match for substance.
Reply

Md Mashud
09-03-2007, 08:26 PM
Atheism is all rhetoric and no substance, Fact, they believe in somthing that not only can they not explain its cause, it is nigh impossible to.

The day an atheist uses substance will truly be the end of the world.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-03-2007, 08:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
What moral code? My moral code is a mixture of Negative Utilitarianism and Kantian thought.
aah jeremy bentham, we have a whole room dedicated to him in our university (University College of London). Havent heard of kantian thought though, but i ask you, why would you take your moral codes from humans who clearly have many flaws?

Bentham found pain and pleasure to be the only intrinsic values in the world: "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure." From this he derived the rule of utility, that the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Later, after realizing that the formulation recognized two different and potentially conflicting principles, he dropped the second part and talked simply about "the greatest happiness principle."
this doesnt take into account the perversion of hearts at all, the evil of 200 years ago can easily become the good of today due to the gradual slip of shame and modesty!

dont you see the flaws?
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 08:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
aah jeremy bentham, we have a whole room dedicated to him in our university (University College of London). Havent heard of kantian thought though, but i ask you, why would you take your moral codes from humans who clearly have many flaws?
Because I have looked at what Negative Utilitarianism actually contains and what Kantianism involves and have found myself agreeing with them?

The flaws of the humans are irrelevant.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
this doesnt take into account the perversion of hearts at all, the evil of 200 years ago can easily become the good of today due to the gradual slip of shame and modesty!
Provide a specific example please.

I am not a standard Utilitarian. I support Negative Utilitarianism on the basis of minimising suffering, and I take that as a principle.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-03-2007, 08:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Provide a specific example please.
200 years ago it was unthought of for a woman to expose herself in public and now its rampant and deemed to be liberating women. 200 years ago it was unheard of to leave the parents in a home and now the old mans homes are overpopulated and its deemed normal. 200 years ago it was immoral to speak ill or do other then the wishes of a parent and now its common. 200 years ago homosexuals were deemed as foul creatures who have gone against nature and are perverted souls, and now its something natural.


who knows, maybe 200 years later peodophiles will be accepted If you continue to accept the rules made by the desires and low intelligence of mere humans...
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 08:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
200 years ago it was unthought of for a woman to expose herself in public and now its rampant and deemed to be liberating women.
Debatable. But the fact that women now have as much liberty as men in Secular Societies is a good thing.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
200 years ago it was unheard of to leave the parents in a home and now the old mans homes are overpopulated and its deemed normal.
And considering that many pensioners are completely unable to look after themselves, this is a good thing. It was not as necessary 200 years ago to cater for the need of the older generation as the majority did not live as long as the majority do now. Diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinsons were also not understood.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
200 years ago it was immoral to speak ill or do other then the wishes of a parent and now its common.
Yes, because of Liberalisation.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
200 years ago homosexuals were deemed as foul creatures who have gone against nature and are perverted souls, and now its something natural.
So? I do not deem homosexuality as immoral. You ask me these questions and ask me about perversity when you forget I do not see specific actions as you may do as being immoral.

You appear to be assuming that I automatically hold specific acts to be inherently wrong in themselves.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-03-2007, 08:53 PM
you see skavau im saying the only reason you dont see any problem in these acts is because society has moulded you into what you are. You grew up around these acts we deem to be immoral so its natural to you. Nowadays two consenting adults having intercourse is acceptable and fine, marriage is not required.

I ask you how far are mens desires going to take things? If we continue to rule by the rules of men then how long till complete immorality and indecency are rampant. It sickens me that i cant take my own nieces and nephews out without covering their eyes. And yet you see no problem with our society, may Allah open up your eyes.


We need Gods laws, The shariah, only then can we truelly have a justice system worth being implemented in a timeless form, we dont need laws which are changed every year or century !
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-03-2007, 09:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Specifically?
it was a rhetorical question actually lol.

I actually see a lot of problems here in the United Kingdom. However, I will ask you to provide a better period of time for this country throughout its entire history. Does one exist? No.
forget the UK, look at what islam did for the people of arabia 1400 years ago. Fornication and adultery was rampant, indulgance in alcohol was common and such immoral acts such as the burial of daughters was encouraged and it was the conviction instilled by islam which helped rid of all these atrocities. Now i ask you to look through history and find a better time in history then the Arabia of 1400 years ago (during the caliphate of Umar ibn Al Khattab).

The UK is a very comfortable and safe place to live for the masses ultimately, however you look at it. There is freedom for everyone in the nation to decide how they want to live their lives and there is capacity for everyone in the nation to do it.
yes and the feasting of desires fits into this nicely, it doesnt matter that the UK has the highest rates of suicide and rape etc. As long as people can "do what they want".

I abhor theocracy, especially theocratic totalitarianism.

No thanks.
well your man made laws havent worked, its about time you try something different.
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 09:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IbnHakulAbdim
yes and the feasting of desires fits into this nicely, it doesnt matter that the UK has the highest rates of suicide and rape etc. As long as people can "do what they want".
The UK has neither the highest rates of suicide, nor of rape.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnHakulAbdim
well your man made laws havent worked, its about time you try something different.
I have no interest in being under a system which would limit my rights and the rights of others. Not to mention, Secular society across the world is progressing more than it ever has in history. Why should we resort to Totalitarianism?

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashid
I have no reason to babysit someone who gives Thor and spaghetti monster equal value to Allah.
Why ought I not give them equal value? Thor could have just as well created the universe as you assert Allah did.


format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashid
You dug yourself a grave here. I have nothing more to say to someone with such stupid logic other then pray for knowledge, seriously, pray for it.
So don't.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashid
Respect is not deserved by the ignorant. Ad hominems? Can you tell me what am I to attack if not yourself when you bring nothing to the table to be discussed other then your dillusional self?
Although you say I spout ignorance but you offer nothing in response to show how I am, you merely in return spout rhetoric about how I am spouting ignorance.

In my original reply to you on this thread you address hardly any of it at all. If you have nothing nice to say then ultimately do not say anything at all.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-03-2007, 09:31 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3074845.stm

RAPE INCREASE IN UK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5297916.stm

SUICIDE RATE UK (scotland)

you should know that our society is in deep need of reformation.
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 09:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
Our rape is indeed worse than our suicide rate and it may be increasing.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
Yes, that is in proportion to the UK. It is not showing how the UK itself has the one of the highest rates of suicide.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
you should know that our society is in deep need of reformation.
Yes.

But not Islamic Law. I have no interest nor desire in living under theocratic totalitarianism.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-03-2007, 09:36 PM
^ find me an islamic law which if implemented will cause society to become worser then it is?
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 09:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
^ find me an islamic law which if implemented will cause society to become worser then it is?
I'm talking about Islamic Law's restriction of personal liberties. The issue regarding the safety of Apostates, the issue regarding homosexuality, the issue regarding sex outside marriage or adultery. I've received different views from lots of Muslims regarding these issues and as an Atheist I have a sneaky feeling that my rights would be infringed upon (at least publicly).

There is also the fact that I abhor theocracy out of principle. I firmly believe that religion and state should be kept separate.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-03-2007, 09:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
I'm talking about Islamic Law's restriction of personal liberties.
liberties are only restricted with just cause

The issue regarding the safety of Apostates,
you promise alegiance to someone and then betray them openly, and then attack then and you expect safety? and this isnt any old king, this is the lord cherisher and creator. Its logical, does the army not behead traitors?

the issue regarding homosexuality,
homosexuals deprive women of husbands and it is common knowledge that the ratio of women to men is greater them men to women therefore it causes serious problems. Again this restriction makes society better ! Also there are many diseases which can be transmitted via homosexual intercourse, and it is always discouraged to use the anal passage due to its impurity.

the issue regarding sex outside marriage or adultery.
This causes far less STD's to spread, it also teaches self control ! It also maintains the shame and modesty of a society thus increasing its respect and honor.

I've received different views from lots of Muslims regarding these issues and as an Atheist I have a sneaky feeling that my rights would be infringed upon (at least publicly).
again, you just want to do what you want to do, little do you care of the consequences.

There is also the fact that I abhor theocracy out of principle. I firmly believe that religion and state should be kept separate.
yes, so that you can do that which you desire :)
Reply

جوري
09-03-2007, 09:56 PM
You plan to be a homosexual who will have an adulterous extramarital affair while publically declaring you are an apostate?
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 10:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
liberties are only restricted with just cause
This is something that we agree on.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
you promise alegiance to someone and then betray them openly, and then attack then and you expect safety?
Except that believing in Allah is a metaphysical viewpoint. I doubt that this is your sincere reason for supporting death for apostasy either. Would you be in full agreement that a Christian who converts to Hinduism ought to be killed by other Christians for being treasonous.

format_quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Treason is a crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor.
All Apostasy from Islam would be doing is renouncing the validity of Islam as a universal truth and no longer believing in it. It would be the same as renouncing any other religion. To define it as treason is to ignore what treason is. Treason is not a renouncement of the principles of a state, or the leaving of a religion - it is an attack on a state itself.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
and this isnt any old king, this is the lord cherisher and creator.
That means nothing to me. I do not accept the existence of the 'lord cherisher' and 'creator'. It is none of my business and it ought not be any of the states business who considers such so or not. Death for Apostasy is an attack on freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
Its logical, does the army not behead traitors?
I can't speak for all countries, but the UK does not do that. Not that I actually agree with beheading anyone let alone traitors of an army.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
homosexuals deprive women of husbands
Their choice. They should not be told what to do by any religion, ideology or otherwise.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
and it is common knowledge that the ratio of women to men is greater them men to women
That depends on where you are.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
This causes far less STD's to spread, it also teaches self control !
Advocating responsibility teaches control. What you propose is draconian and none of your business.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
again, you just want to do what you want to do, little do you care of the consequences.
Do my rights as an Atheist become undermined or do they not? I care about my rights and I care about having my liberty.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
yes, so that you can do that which you desire
Yes. I see no reason why a religion which I don't believe in should control my actions or limit them. I value my liberty and I am forever grateful for it.
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 10:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
You plan to be a homosexual who will have an adulterous extramarital affair while publically declaring you are an apostate?
Nope.

But I don't believe in eradicating the rights of others who wish to.

(Although I do not support Adultery and condemn it)
Reply

Md Mashud
09-03-2007, 10:11 PM
Then you don't believe in collective justice but rather selfish desires. If actions can affects others badly, it should be prohibited as prevention, for prevention is better than cure. They are solutions to life problems, with a few sacrifices, we can make the World a better place. We should not be selfish, for it will lead to problems. We should do actions based on whats best for everyone and not the individual.

Thats what Islam is.
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 10:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
Then you don't believe in collective justice but rather selfish desires.
I see no reason why Apostasy from Islam, Homosexuality, Sex outside of Marriage should be outlawed. I do not believe they are wrong to start off with.

I believe in justice for acts which infringe upon the rights of others. I am a very much in a Libertarian school of thought.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-03-2007, 10:16 PM
^ i just explained how each of the acts mentioned above infringe on others rights, if you dont understand it then you are not a free-thinker at all ! rather you only think towards what benefits you as an individual.

ive wasted my time enough with this
Reply

جوري
09-03-2007, 10:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Nope.

But I don't believe in eradicating the rights of others who wish to.

(Although I do not support Adultery and condemn it)
interesting.. I am willing to bet that you don't know the first thing about Islamic jurisprudence to understand when to punish or ignore an apostate under an ISLAMIC STATE and in that term is the real incite for action.. I'll rather like going along.. you see there exists the same punishment in this here free world, but I don't see you fighting against it-- should I classify that as hypocrisy? You see the Rosenberg's were sentenced to death for just that... treason against the state right here in the good ole U.S of A.


http://www.foia.cia.gov/rosenberg.asp

P.S I enjoy how you condemn adultery, but fight for the rights of people to be adulterers.. interesting!
Reply

Md Mashud
09-03-2007, 10:16 PM
You don't believe they are wrong to begin with is just an opinion, rather then fact in terms of what they have lead to in real life prospects.
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 10:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
interesting.. I am willing to bet that you don't know the first thing about Islamic jurisprudence to understand when to punish or ignore an apostate under an ISLAMIC STATE
You're quite right. I've seen so many different assertions from many Muslims with many different articles - these range from

1. Public Apostasy should be punished.
2. Apostasy in all forms should be punished.
3. Public Apostasy and then attacking the state should be punished.
4. Apostasy should not be punished.

What is your view on the issue?

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
and in that term is the real incite for action.. I'll rather like going along.. you see there exists the same punishment in this here free world, but I don't see you fighting against it-- should I classify that as hypocrisy? You see the Rosenberg's were sentenced to death for just that... treason against the state right here in the good ole U.S of A.
Here is a condemnation right here then. I condemn their death.
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 10:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
You don't believe they are wrong to begin with is just an opinion, rather then fact in terms of what they have lead to in real life prospects.
Eh?

Do you mean what the actions (of Apostasy, Homosexuality..etc) have led to?
Reply

Md Mashud
09-03-2007, 10:21 PM
Also Skavau, like you find among Atheists disunity in some ideas, there will be also disunity in some ideas with Muslims. We should take upon the majority and not minority on the issue - as according to your Prophet :saw: the majority will always be on the right path.
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 10:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
Also Skavau, like you find among Atheists disunity in some ideas
There is no unity in Atheism whatsoever.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
, there will be also disunity in some ideas with Muslims. We should take upon the majority and not minority on the issue - as according to your Prophet :saw: the majority will always be on the right path.
And so what is the correct view on Apostates then?
Reply

strider
09-03-2007, 10:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
I have no reason to babysit someone who gives Thor and spaghetti monster equal value to Allah. You dug yourself a grave here. I have nothing more to say to someone with such stupid logic other then pray for knowledge, seriously, pray for it.

Respect is not deserved by the ignorant. Ad hominems? Can you tell me what am I to attack if not yourself when you bring nothing to the table to be discussed other then your dillusional self? What a joke...
It isn't stupid logic, at all. You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. There are evidences, which can be interpreted either way. At the end of the day, it boils down to your personal belief.

So please don't resort to personal attacks, inshaAllah.
Reply

Md Mashud
09-03-2007, 10:29 PM
Apostate - its an area of great misunderstanding and usually its passed over as inaccurate knowledge - its an area I would not claim that I even have full understanding of... Typically, any deaths resulted in this, would usually involve other facts and not just because they turned away imo... That is the simplicity used though I have never heard of this being practiced before - As for if its practiced now, well thers several things which are practiced wrongly.
Reply

جوري
09-03-2007, 10:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
You're quite right. I've seen so many different assertions from many Muslims with many different articles - these range from

1. Public Apostasy should be punished.
2. Apostasy in all forms should be punished.
3. Public Apostasy and then attacking the state should be punished.
4. Apostasy should not be punished.

What is your view on the issue?
Is this a deflection from grazing over the issue, so that you have no real understanding of what was written? Now you expect a sublimated reponse to gratify you for what people spend years learning and perfecting? Are you kidding me?
these statements are tantamount to someone asking you do you have the time? and you respond by Yes! Pls give some thought to what you write or query so we are not wasting each other's time!
Here is a condemnation right here then. I condemn their death.
Your disapprobation ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE state law in the free world.. don't like it tough, same under an Islamic state, don't like it tough.. you are always welcome to live a lawless life, uni-bomber style some where in the woods, be malodourous and unkempt.
Plenty of people refuse state law and do just that. But frankly you don't have a case here, you'll be mocked at best... Perhaps you fancy Atheists a progressive bunch?.. to me it is a state of decay to animal like lusts, otiose vagabonds with no real purpose in society except to satisfy the immediate!
Reply

Abdul Fattah
09-03-2007, 10:53 PM
Correct usage of argument ad absurdum.
An argument ad absurdum is a technique in debate where you come with an argument that is opposite or alternative but also analogous to your opponents argument. Usually the proponent of this argument knows that his argument is incorrect. A textbook example of this is the flying spaghetti monster.

To those whom this technique seems appealing, I would like to point out some points to consider:
* The argument ad absurdum is meant to point out that just because an argument is not easily defeated, that doesn't make it probable. If your opponent doesn't get that there is not much point of continuing your argument and you should tell him that out of courtesy.
* An argument ad absurdum is not meant to indulge, because then it will only trail the discussion of topic.
* If you insist that you believe in this absurdum even when you don't, your opponent will often realize your dishonesty and this will damage mutual trust in the debate.
* Even though the argument is brought forward because of the analogy, to insist that it is equal is offensive. Let's not forget we both agree it's absurd, so in effect you are calling the opponents view equal to absurd. I'd say that's rather offensive.

That being said I would like to give a general reminder that it is under no circumstances acceptable to attack members personally regardless of what they say or what their viewpoints are! I've just removed a total 10 posts of both sides of the debates from just the last few hours. That is a high frequency for insults to be thrown back and forth. One more and the thread gets closed.
Reply

strider
09-03-2007, 10:55 PM
Md Mashud,

There is no evidence to the contrary - I challenge you to show me, I know it doesn't exist, Atheism relies in explaining process not cause. Your comment was highly unneccessary and unappreciated. It is illogical to not believe in God...
In your opinion it may be illogical not to believe in God and no doubt you arrived at that opinion based on your personal religious beliefs. For you, there may be absolute proof of the evidence of God, however it is not a fact written in stone. You may look to the clouds and see an elephant and somebody else may look to the same clouds and see a sheep.

I think my comment was absolutely necessary, even though you may not have appreciated it. :)
Reply

جوري
09-03-2007, 10:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Fine, don't answer me.
too lazy to use the search button, or too lazy to read? Which is it?
would you like to be spoon fed the replies? here it is again, might require some five minutes of your time but will be well worth it so you may avoid being so pleonastic!

In order to understand this issue, we need to examine the Islamic law on apostasy. Since religion is looked on as a personal affair in western society, the notion of state intervention in one's personal choice would naturally seem excessive. However, from the Islamic perspective, a number of points must be observed with regard to apostasy:
1. Islam has never compelled anyone to accept the religion. Anyone who becomes a Muslim does so purely through objective study of the religion. As Allah has informed us in the Qur'an:

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion.
10:99 So would you (O Muhammad) then compel people to become believers?

Likewise, Islam encourages its followers to reflect and contemplate upon the universe around us and to ponder over the beauty of the Qur'anic message:

47:24 Do they not ponder over the Qur'an or are their hearts locked up?

51:20-21. And on earth are signs for those endowed with inner-certainty; and [likewise there are signs] in yourselves, do you not observe?

29:20 Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.

Thus, Islam requires that one's faith be constructed upon logical investigation and study of the universe in which we live. Through logical contemplation, one realizes the supreme authority of the Creator and the veracity of Muhammad's (saws) claim to prophethood. Thus we find that, in the history of Islam, no knowledgeable Muslim has ever left Islam. The only cases we find of former Muslims are people who were never practicing Muslims in the first place, nor did they ever have a good understanding of Islam. Yet on the other hand, the list of educated converts to Islam is immense, and it includes educated leaders such as priests, rabbis and atheists.

2. Those who have left Islam have historically fallen under three categories: those who left having never properly understood the religion often due to social circumstances, those who faked a conversion into Islam in order to undermine the Islamic community from within, and those who left to support opposing forces in battle against the Muslims. Because of the first category, Islam requires that the person who has chosen to forsake the religion be consulted with in order that his doubts may be clarified to him if there is any specific issue of confusion, or so that he may learn the proper Islamic teachings that he may otherwise have not been exposed to. As for the second and third category, this was the original reason behind the Prophet's statement on apostasy. The Qur'an records (3:72) that the Jews of Madinah decided to initiate the practice of pretending to accept Islam and then publicly declare their rejection of it, so as to destroy the confidence of the newly-converted Muslims. Thus, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh ruled that a punishment should be announced so that those who decide to accept Islam do so because of a firm conviction not in order to harm the Muslim community from within.

3. Coming to the actual law of apostasy, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh did say, in the above historical context, "Whoever replaces his religion, execute him" (Bukhari, Abu Dawud) but how exactly do we understand this statement and does it conflict with the principles of freedom? The Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself clarified this statement in another hadith narrated in Sahih Muslim where he mentioned that the one who was to be fought against was the one who "abandons his religion and the Muslim community". It should be noted that every country has maintained punishments, including execution, for treason and rebellion against the state (See Mozley and Whitley's Law Dictionary, under "Treason and Treason Felony," pp. 368-369). Islam is not just a set of beliefs, it is a complete system of life which includes a Muslim's allegiance to the Islamic state. Thus, a rejection against that would be akin to treason. Rebellion against God is more serious than rebellion against one's country. However, one who personally abandons the faith and leaves the country would not be hunted down and assassinated, nor would one who remains inside the state conforming to outward laws be tracked down and executed. The notion of establishing inquisition courts to determine peoples' faith, as done in the Spanish Inquisition, is something contrary to Islamic law. As illustrated by the historical context in which it was mandated, the death penalty is mainly for those who collaborate with enemy forces in order to aid them in their attacks against the Islamic state or for those who seek to promote civil unrest and rebellion from within the Islamic state. When someone publicly announces their rejection of Islam within an Islamic state it is basically a challenge to the Islamic government, since such an individual can keep it to themselves like the personal affair it is made out to be.

4. From Islamic history, we can gain a better understanding of how this law has been implemented. Although the Prophet Muhammad pbuh threatened the death penalty in response to the attempts against the Muslim community, no such executions took place in his time (Imam Shawkani, Nayl Al-Awtar, vol. 7, p. 192) even though there is a report that a Bedouin renounced Islam and left Madinah unharmed in his time (Fath Al-Bari vol. 4, p.77 and vol. 13 p. 170; Sahih Muslim biSharh An-Nawawi, vol. 9, p. 391). Thus, we find that context plays an important role in determining how to deal with apostates. The case of one who enlists nations to fight against the Islamic state is more serious, for example. That is why the scholars of the Hanafi school of thought felt that the punishment only applies to the male apostate and not the female apostate because the latter is unable to wage war against the Islamic state. If someone simply has some doubts concerning Islam, then those doubts can be clarified.
So an Islamic state is certainly justified in punishing those who betray the state, committing treason and support enemy forces. As for anyone else, if they do not publicly declare their rejection of Islam, the state has no interest in pursuing them; if their case does become public, however, then they should be reasoned with and educated concerning the religion so that they have the opportunity to learn the concepts they may not have understood properly and they can be encouraged to repent.

From another of my posts:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Quote:
Originally Posted by blunderbus
If a predominantly Christian country were going to execute a former Christian who converted to another religion (in this hypothetical case, Islam) would you be ok with that?

As a side note, this has already happened, examples include the spanish inquisition. But on to your question...

First of all, the law on apostasy has been explained here (My view on muslims) and here (Islam and Apostasy). It is commonly taken out of context, but the point to note is that the Prophet Muhammad (saws) clarified that the one to be punished was the one who rebelled against the community. This is quite similar to state laws on treason. A state is justified in taking action against those who pose a significant threat. But the idea of setting up an inquisition to examine the beliefs of the people is against Islamic teachings, so someone who personally changes their religious convictions will be insignificant in the eyes of the state. It is the one who publically announces his rebellion, stirring civil unrest, who must be opposed. While the Christian inquisitions were bent on examining (through the use of torture) the beliefs of those Muslims and Jews who outwardly professed conversion to Christianity, in an Islamic state, someone who even outwardly professes acceptane of Islam is left alone because they cause no harm to society, and the Islamic state is only interested in the security of its society.

If someone poses a threat to a state's security, then they are justified in taking action against them. But if someone changes their personal religious views, then it is quite extreme for the state to attempt to pry into the hearts of its citizens to determine their faith and punish them. http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...-apostasy.html
I'll have to continue to live in my ignorance over what the punishment for Apostasy (if any) under Islam is.
read freely and enlighten yourself! You can only be ignorant by choice.. took me 0.02 seconds for search results to come up! I don't see why it is so daunting for you?


Never said it would.
ok then, one state or another wouldn't make all that much difference!


Is that your response to criticisms of the subjugation of civil liberties under Islam? Under an Islamic state, I would like to know how my rights would be affected - and if any of my rights or the rights of others in such a state be affected then I would oppose the creation of such a state.
There is no subjugation of civil liberties in islam! You'll have to bring more to the table than sweeping generalization!



Except I'm not propagating a lawless life. I'm propagating a life where I and others keep our liberties.
To the naked eye, you are actually disseminating hypocrisy-- you can't be for and against something at the same time.. or what else would you call that?
Your adultery disgusts me.. please carry on!

Eh?
which part was hard for you to understand?

I have no time to entertain elaborate (yet childish) ad hominems.
Don't engage in a topic then, if you can't handle a proper delineation as to what an Atheist is to most folks!
Reply

Md Mashud
09-03-2007, 10:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by strider
Md Mashud,


In your opinion it may be illogical not to believe in God and no doubt you arrived at that opinion based on your personal religious beliefs. For you, there may be absolute proof of the evidence of God, however it is not a fact written in stone. You may look to the clouds and see an elephant and somebody else may look to the same clouds and see a sheep.

I think my comment was absolutely necessary, even though you may not have appreciated it. :)
Yet again, you dodge my initial proposition - Show me the evidence or deductions that leads to belief of the contrary, nonexistant by miles. Its not merely an opinion, its a factful observation.
Reply

strider
09-03-2007, 10:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
Yet again, you dodge my initial proposition - Show me the evidence or deductions that leads to belief of the contrary, nonexistant by miles. Its not merely an opinion, its a factful observation.
Where is the proof that God exists?
Reply

Md Mashud
09-03-2007, 10:59 PM
Existance.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-03-2007, 11:01 PM
strider, you are like the anti-dawah here lol.....
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-03-2007, 11:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by strider
Where is the proof that God exists?
your kidding me?

as a muslim dont you read the Quran?
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 11:02 PM
I missed this post.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
^ i just explained how each of the acts mentioned above infringe on others rights
You attempted to give a piddly explanation for how homosexuality infringes upon potential brides, but it was flawed. Yours was.

1. Homosexual men could be the husbands of wives
2. Being homosexual eradicates this
3. Therefore they ought to be the husbands of wives
4. Therefore homosexuality ought to be outlawed.

It is the same as:

1. A small proportion of Able bodied men could be bought into slavery to improve the standard of life for the majority.
2. Them being free eradicates this possibility.
3. Therefore they ought to be bought into slavery so the standard of life increases for the rest.
4. Therefore the rights of them ought to be sacrificed.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
if you dont understand it then you are not a free-thinker at all ! rather you only think towards what benefits you as an individual.
Translation: I don't agree with your 'explanations' and therefore I am not a free-thinker.

Considering I am not even a Muslim, why on earth would I support death for Apostatising from Islam?
Reply

Md Mashud
09-03-2007, 11:04 PM
Why not support it, you support homosexuality as it is!
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 11:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
Existance.
That proves only that we exist. Not a God of any description.
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 11:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
Why not support it, you support homosexuality as it is!
I support the right of homosexuals to have relationships and intercourse and to not be discriminated.

Why not support Death for Apostasy? Because I believe it is an attack on freedom of expression and religion.
Reply

strider
09-03-2007, 11:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
Existance.
That isn't proof. That's just a piece of evidence interpreted by you to conclude there is a God.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
your kidding me?

as a muslim dont you read the Quran?
For me personally, the argument for the evidence of God out ways that against the existence of God thus i choose to believe. However, a person can just as well swing the other way. That's the point I'm trying to make, here.
Reply

Md Mashud
09-03-2007, 11:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
That proves only that we exist. Not a God of any description.
Existance proves we exist? No, existance means we exist, get it right.

The ideology behind existance is that everything - in the material/physical world of matter, requires creation, whether by chemicals, forces, or a mixture of whater it may be.

What God means is, the one thing that did not have to be created being out of bound of being mateiral/physically limited - for that alone would be the cause of there being an existance ideology to begin with.

The real difference between a theist and atheist is not if God exists or not, rather if God is intelligent. Its actually improper to discuss if God exists or not.

If you think deep and hard, you would arrive at the conclusion of the previous statement. There is no such thing as no God, even as an Atheist. I believe Richard Dawkin came to this conclusion in one of his talks and tried to justify that God cannot be intelligent, poorly albeit.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-03-2007, 11:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
I missed this post.



You attempted to give a piddly explanation for how homosexuality infringes upon potential brides, but it was flawed. Yours was.

1. Homosexual men could be the husbands of wives
2. Being homosexual eradicates this
3. Therefore they ought to be the husbands of wives
4. Therefore homosexuality ought to be outlawed.

It is the same as:

1. A small proportion of Able bodied men could be bought into slavery to improve the standard of life for the majority.
2. Them being free eradicates this possibility.
3. Therefore they ought to be bought into slavery so the standard of life increases for the rest.
4. Therefore the rights of them ought to be sacrificed.


Translation: I don't agree with your 'explanations' and therefore I am not a free-thinker.

Considering I am not even a Muslim, why on earth would I support death for Apostatising from Islam?

ok now go on to refute the other points such as fornication etc.
homosexuality is only a disease of the minds. if it didnt exist before the time of Lot then it neednt exist now, clearly something ill natured which society had been breeding caused this outbreak of homosexuality.


The Apostacy issue will always have bias and double standards. But you can go ahead and refute my other points, which clearly show how they affect the people. just to remind you:


fornication/adultery/exposure of skin etc: creates a shameless environment unfit for children, makes it harder for young men to control themselves, causes STD's to spread at greater rates, far far greater rates, increases rape etc.
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 11:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
too lazy to use the search button, or too lazy to read? Which is it?
I actually did a search. I typed 'Atheists under Islam' and 'Non-Muslims under Islam'.

I didn't seem to get anything.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
To the naked eye, you are actually disseminating hypocrisy-- you can't be for and against something at the same time.. or what else would you call that?
Eh?

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Don't engage in a topic then, if you can't handle a proper delineation as to what an Atheist is to most folks!
I do not feel that I should have to go into any discussion where I am dehumanised, insulted and generally treated with contempt simply because of metaphysical differences. It is a disgrace and morally condemnable that you deem it valid to treat Atheists as you do.

I am free human and so are you. All humans should be treated with inherent respect irrespective of their metaphysical assertions. You deny this and seem to consider it fine to talk with contempt to a specific group of people who hold a viewpoint contrary to yours.

As of this point I am no longer engaging in discussion with you. I have read your article regarding Apostasy and I still oppose what was outlined. I have nothing more to say to you.
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 11:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
Existance proves we exist? No, existance means we exist, get it right.
No, existence is only evidence that we exist.

I should stop using the word 'proof'. It isn't valid.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
The ideology behind existance is that everything - in the material/physical world of matter, requires creation, whether by chemicals, forces, or a mixture of whater it may be.
No reason to believe this is true of the universe itself.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
If you think deep and hard, you would arrive at the conclusion of the previous statement. There is no such thing as no God, even as an Atheist. I believe Richard Dawkin came to this conclusion in one of his talks and tried to justify that God cannot be intelligent, poorly albeit.
I already have explained my viewpoints on the existence of the universe.

1. The Universe observably exists.
2. Ex nihilo, nihil fit (Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing by definition simply does not
exist and has no property of establishing something that does. A Non-Existence Y cannot achieve a coherent way of ending up to an existent Z)
3. Everything therefore must have its own cause. This includes the Earth, the Solar System and ultimately the Universe.
4. This logically leads to an infinite regression as to assert an uncaused cause negates principle (2) and principle (3).
5. Therefore, existence is eternal.
6. The only 'existence' we know is the Universe around us as demonstrated in (1). It is entirely observable and we constantly interact with it.
7. The evidence for a God regarding existence is simply non-existent. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that a God, of whatever understanding exists.
8. Considering (2) and (5), something must be eternal.
9. The assertion that the Universe is the eternal existence has infinitely more evidence in its favour than assuming that a God is the source of eternal existence because as (1) and (6) demonstrate, the universe is directly observable. There is no evidence for any God.
10. Therefore it is a bold step to assume Allah exists.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-03-2007, 11:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by strider
For me personally, the argument for the evidence of God out ways that against the existence of God thus i choose to believe. However, a person can just as well swing the other way. That's the point I'm trying to make, here.
Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in Allah's plan. But most of them ignore (the truth).


Surah Anaam Verse 111



what im tryin to say is the arguments against the existence of God seem ridiculous, look at what Allah says, if the simplest signs arent enough then the most complex signs wont be enough..
Reply

جوري
09-03-2007, 11:18 PM
I'll have to agree with MdMashud.. it is as simple as a Descartes(ian) dualistic theory of mind and matter.. Anyone who will expend some deep thought in any discipline will reach a point of impossibleness that can only be answered one of two ways. Yes there is a God, no everything came from--- and then will assign an absurd excuse for everything..
Then will quote random dead philosophers to reason with 'equanimity'.. but only the philosophers that will foster their thought process.
When the most credible explanation is usually the simplest one.. at least per another dead philosopher 'Occam's Razor'
the simpler the explanation, the better" or "don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 11:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
ok now go on to refute the other points such as fornication etc.
Sex outside marriage is no more dangerous inherently than sex in marriage.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
The Apostacy issue will always have bias and double standards.
What do you mean specifically? What bias and double standards?

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
But you can go ahead and refute my other points, which clearly show how they affect the people. just to remind you
They only affect those involved in it, and only if there is no responsibility taken by those involved. They are not inherently dangerous.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
fornication/adultery/exposure of skin etc: creates a shameless environment unfit for children
Adultery does.

You'll need to be a bit more clear on 'exposure of skin'.
Reply

Md Mashud
09-03-2007, 11:25 PM
1. The Universe observably exists.
2. Ex nihilo, nihil fit (Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing by definition simply does not
exist and has no property of establishing something that does. A Non-Existence Y cannot achieve a coherent way of ending up to an existent Z)
3. Everything therefore must have its own cause. This includes the Earth, the Solar System and ultimately the Universe.
4. This logically leads to an infinite regression as to assert an uncaused cause negates principle (2) and principle (3).
5. Therefore, existence is eternal.
6. The only 'existence' we know is the Universe around us as demonstrated in (1). It is entirely observable and we constantly interact with it.
7. The evidence for a God regarding existence is simply non-existent. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that a God, of whatever understanding exists.
8. Considering (2) and (5), something must be eternal.
9. The assertion that the Universe is the eternal existence has infinitely more evidence in its favour than assuming that a God is the source of eternal existence because as (1) and (6) demonstrate, the universe is directly observable. There is no evidence for any God.
10. Therefore it is a bold step to assume Allah exists.
The universe is not an eternal existance, how can you make such a silly assumption? This is going back to the stone ages in terms of scientific fact. The universe scientifically had a beginning, end of, thus all of this is nonsense.

Can't believe you jumped into the grave you dug! :D
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 11:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
The universe is not an eternal existance, how can you make such a silly assumption?
It is an assumption which has reason behind it. (Ex Nihilo, Nihilo Fit)

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
This is going back to the stone ages in terms of scientific fact. The universe scientifically had a beginning, end of, thus all of this is nonsense.
No it is not.
Reply

Md Mashud
09-03-2007, 11:29 PM
NO, WOW, I REST MY CASE.

Learn some science about the universe then come back. You have no idea what your talking about, universe being an eternal existance is the joke of the century! Scientists do not believe this, only uneducated people!

Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang.
Reply

جوري
09-03-2007, 11:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
I actually did a search. I typed 'Atheists under Islam' and 'Non-Muslims under Islam'.

I didn't seem to get anything.
well I have done the search for you, if you are replying to with this sort of speed I can safely assume you haven't read it, and I am to see the same questions again posed by your person some time in the near future?


Eh?
this is getting dull


I do not feel that I should have to go into any discussion where I am dehumanised, insulted and generally treated with contempt simply because of metaphysical differences. It is a disgrace and morally condemnable that you deem it valid to treat Atheists as you do.
I don't treat atheists badly at all. If degrading people with respect to their best qualities comes down to the word deficient!-- I don't see what is dehumanizing about that?...and actually I'd feel bad if that is the sentiment evoked.. , it wasn't my intention to make you feel subhuman!
I do however feel that philosophy and religion are what it meant to be in the age of reason and enlightenment.. essentially what severalizes us from animals.. a fine line.. not to cross it, TO ME is to be in a state that is animal like! I don't see why that should bother you in the least since so many Atheists generally speaking are intransigent evolutionists who believe they are indeed the descendants of Apes... by what law or quality then should we differentiate if you reject religion?

As of this point I am no longer engaging in discussion with you. I have read your article regarding Apostasy and I still oppose what was outlined. I have nothing more to say to you.
You can oppose all you want.. No one is holding a gun to your head to accept laws regarding apostacy or regarding this dialogue!
Reply

Skavau
09-03-2007, 11:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Don't engage in a topic then, if you can't handle a proper delineation as to what an Atheist is to most folks!
I saw this statement to be a justification for people to treat Atheists with contempt and your other statements towards me (and others, although I cannot specifically recall them) (all put in to fine detail) as an affirmation of your viewpoint towards Atheists.

I do however feel that philosophy and religion are what it meant to be in the age of reason and enlightenment.. essentially what severalizes us from animals.. a fine line.. not to cross it, TO ME is to be in a state that is animal like! I don't see why that should bother you in the least since so many Atheists generally speaking are intransigent evolutionists who believe they are indeed the descendants of Apes
I am a human being. I do see value in philosophy, ethics, the arts, and civilisation itself. I try to act to my moral standards and in a civilised way. What I may or may not originate from is completely irrelevant to what I am. There is a difference between ought and is.
Reply

جوري
09-04-2007, 12:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
I saw this statement to be a justification for people to treat Atheists with contempt and your other statements towards me (and others, although I cannot specifically recall them) (all put in to fine detail) as an affirmation of your viewpoint towards Atheists.
To treat and to be thought of are separate issues.. if I were to sum up my feelings in one word toward atheists, it would truly fall under pity.. ultimately I believe they are divesting their soul from its inherent rights of solace and spiritual fulfilment.. you can't only consummate all the physical desires and deny your consciousness, and inner self! further compounded by the fact that most if not all Atheists are intransigent evolutionists as stated earlier, who believe they are indeed the descendants of Apes.. why it is Ok when an Atheist concedes the animal roots, but not when a deist points it out?



I am a human being. I do see value in philosophy, ethics, the arts, and civilisation itself. I try to act to my moral standards and in a civilised way. What I may or may not originate from is completely irrelevant to what I am. There is a difference between ought and is.
I think you are on to something here that is very relative to the topic at hand... You see atheists are as dogmatic as theists with gradation and have dissimilar tenets.. frankly we've seen our share in this forum.. they can be quite organized and they can in fact have an agenda yes an 'atheist ideology' 'tis after all human to hold an opinion... I think history has witnessed quite a few of those.. up to and including Enver Hoxha!
What defines you as different has very much included you in.. no different if you'll pardon the expression, than two schizophrenics, one who displays positive symptoms, and another who displays negative symptoms.. at the very end of the day when all is said and done, they are both schizophrenics who are ailing on some level!

peace!
Reply

InToTheRain
09-04-2007, 12:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
9. The assertion that the Universe is the eternal existence has infinitely more evidence in its favour than assuming that a God is the source of eternal existence because as (1) and (6) demonstrate, the universe is directly observable. There is no evidence for any God.
:uuh: you can't be serious! here is a site FYI. The Universe has a beginning and is actually expanding!

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoo...ng/BigBang.htm

Your response to Md Mash being "No it is not" does you know credit as your claims are baseless...

:sl: :ws:
Reply

Skavau
09-04-2007, 12:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Z.AL-Rashid
:uuh: you can't be serious! here is a site FYI. The Universe has a beginning and is actually expanding!

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoo...ng/BigBang.htm

Your response to Md Mash being "No it is not" does you know credit as your claims are baseless...
Evidence for the universe before the big bang is the fact that the universe exists now.

Since ex nihilo, nihil fit (nothing comes out of nothing) there has to have been something prior to the big bang. And that would be (by definition) the universe that existed before the big bang. We do not know anything about it or can have any direct observation of it.
Reply

جوري
09-04-2007, 12:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
that existed before the big bang. We do not know anything about it or can have any direct observation of it.
Why can't that be a description of God?
God as time, as eternal has always been!.. the one as you describe, we don't know anything about but can collectively agree has been there all along?

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


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

Skavau
09-04-2007, 12:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Why can't that be a description of God?
No reason whatsoever.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
God as time, as eternal has always been!.. the one as you describe, we don't know anything about but can collectively agree has been there all along?
Did you read my full opinion regarding this earlier?

1. The Universe observably exists.
2. Ex nihilo, nihil fit (Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing by definition simply does not exist and has no property of establishing something that does. A Non-Existence Y cannot achieve a coherent way of ending up to an existent Z)
3. Everything therefore must have its own cause. This includes the Earth, the Solar System and ultimately the Universe.
4. This logically leads to an infinite regression as to assert an uncaused cause negates principle (2) and principle (3).
5. Therefore, existence is eternal.
6. The only 'existence' we know is the Universe around us as demonstrated in (1). It is entirely observable and we constantly interact with it.
7. The evidence for a God regarding existence is simply non-existent. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that a God, of whatever understanding exists.
8. Considering (2) and (5), something must be eternal.
9. The assertion that the Universe is the eternal existence has infinitely more evidence in its favour than assuming that a God is the source of eternal existence because as (1) and (6) demonstrate, the universe is directly observable. There is no evidence for any God.
10. Therefore it is a bold step to assume Allah exists.
Reply

InToTheRain
09-04-2007, 01:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
We do not know anything about it or can have any direct observation of it.
If you do not know anything about it then why are you so strong in denying it was God? Your Logic makes strong argument for the existence of God, I agree, there must've been an Omnipotent source from which everything came and that source was God.
Reply

Isambard
09-04-2007, 01:07 AM
Wow, Im gone for a few hrs and this thread takes a life of its own lol

Before I make my points Id like to thank Skavau, MD, PA and others for such a heated and interesting dicussion.

Seeing where the thread has arrived, I assume the misconception that atheism is an ideological system of its own has been resolved.

I respectfully ask the mods to keep this thread open because of the interesting pts and counter-pts being raised :)
Reply

Skavau
09-04-2007, 01:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Z.AL-Rashid
If you do not know anything about it then why are you so strong in denying it was God?
Because there is no evidence that God exists.

There is evidence that the universe exists.

format_quote Originally Posted by Z.Al-Rashid
Your Logic makes strong argument for the existence of God
I don't see how.

format_quote Originally Posted by Z.Al-Rashid
, I agree, there must've been an Omnipotent source from which everything came and that source was God.
I'm not saying that.
Reply

جوري
09-04-2007, 01:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
No reason whatsoever.
I am not sure if I should take this in the positive or the negative.. no matter let me read along while replying....


Did you read my full opinion regarding this earlier?
reading now

1. The Universe observably exists.
Ok
2. Ex nihilo, nihil fit (Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing by definition simply does not exist and has no property of establishing something that does. A Non-Existence Y cannot achieve a coherent way of ending up to an existent Z)
You'll have to forgive that I am a bit slow and first to admit it.. what does that mean to you?

3. Everything therefore must have its own cause. This includes the Earth, the Solar System and ultimately the Universe.
Indeed everything has a cause!
4. This logically leads to an infinite regression as to assert an uncaused cause negates principle (2) and principle (3).
well this really goes both ways for the Atheist and the theist.. you'll have to assume some sort of truth at some point to build all else upon, as I see you are doing it here successivly!
5. Therefore, existence is eternal.
The existence of whom or what I should say? plus this is sort of a non sequitur to your previous conclusions!
6. The only 'existence' we know is the Universe around us as demonstrated in (1). It is entirely observable and we constantly interact with it.
Do you believe that you have indeed observed all that is in the universe and interacted with it? Is everything in the universe indeed discernible and observable? we can strip everything to a low common denominator, but there will be so much you are not accounting for.
for instance let me give you an example we can all relate to.. surely at some point in your life you've felt pain or a headache.. was that observable or even quantifiable save by your own subjective scale? in fact if you were to present some to an ER some where, and tell them, I have a really bad headache, everyone would understand what you are talking about, but no one will be able to quantify it for you. You'l then say on a scale from one to ten it is a six.. then someone will take your word for it and treat you accordingly!
the headache/pain existed-- you bet
entirely observable? no way
could other interact with it, the way you were? no way!
could others relate to it in universality-- I will have to say with assertion, unless you were physically born with CIPA or HSAN5 type 5 in which case you have complete insensitivity to pain, I guarantee that it is a global experience!
thus I conclude that your original conclusion is faulty! you know not accounting for everything and in one of those tiny things you didn't account for, could lie your answer!
7. The evidence for a God regarding existence is simply non-existent. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that a God, of whatever understanding exists.
Why is that in your own words without referencing me back to the labyrinthian part A or part B... You know the adage 'God is in the detail' How do you explain all the details.. I'd bore you with tiny scientific bits of infinite multitudes called synthetic thinking... very difficult for any small part to foregather correctly and repeatedly without error over all these millenniums without some guided process perhaps if you take the micro approach it would be better than the macrocosm one!
8. Considering (2) and (5), something must be eternal.
Indeed God is!
9. The assertion that the Universe is the eternal existence has infinitely more evidence in its favour than assuming that a God is the source of eternal existence because as (1) and (6) demonstrate, the universe is directly observable. There is no evidence for any God.
evidence of God is observed in tiniest cell to fall-blooming annuals to the grandest of galaxies.. it would be a shame to miss it!
10. Therefore it is a bold step to assume Allah exists.
I rather think the converse.. a sheer bluff to deny his existence!

That was good.. was it your own work? I believe humans can reason without relying too heavily on someone else's conclusions and draw their own!

peace!
Reply

ranma1/2
09-04-2007, 01:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
….
They state they have created alternative theories to how we existed other than God. But close inspection on those theories, they have a huge GAP and are not complete - while the God theory is absolute and would explain everything.
The god theory is a non answer and explains nothing. Not to mention the complete lack of evidence.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
….
Not only this, none of the theories would disprove God in any way in the unlikely chance they would be true.
Its hard to disprove anything. Disprove zeus doesn’t exists. The easter bunny. My invisible friend bob. Etc…

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
….
These theories include evolution, natural selection/orders created by randomness, multiple universes and theories involving quantum mechanics etc - EVEN if they was true, they would not contradict God.
Nor would they contradict Yanyyug guash, Its hard to contradict something that has no definite definition and varies from one person to another.
We can look at certain claims and evaluate them with what we know. Claim. The earth was made in 6 days, global flood, we were created from nothing.etc..
These claims science has pretty much established as false.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
….
All of these theories have required either matter, energy or meaningless forces (as described by them in their own words) - So what atheists do is say if X and Y existed, this could do process Z via Y and create M... Thats what all their theories are. You see the gap? Not one atheist has explained where X and Y came from or even a cause to them! If anything these only say God must exist to me.
There is nothing wrong with saying we don’t know.
“GOD did it!” is not an answer though. Where did god come from? typical answer. It has always existed. What made god. Nothing….. etc. etc..
As for explaining where X or Y came from , scientists have ideas and not one scientific answer is GOD did it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
….
Even if these were true, it would not disprove God. Atheists are trying to explain a process rather than a cause. No argument to this day, has yet to do different. This is fact, undisputable and I hold my word on this and challenge you on the issue.
Give us some credible evidence for a gods existence and perhaps give a definition of god. And support this with evidence. Till then disprove that Zeus didn’t do it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
….
When an atheists can give plausible reasons why such things can exist to begin with, only then can they realistically call themselves atheists rather then theist or AGNOSTIC.
We have discussed this to death in another thread. One deals with belief one with knowledge. Like wise by your logic you can’t really call your self a Muslim but only an agnostic.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
….
But, they themselves know, they will never work it out. They live in a world where they think process theories disprove God, when in fact it never does.
We are still waiting for evidence that a god exists “not to mention clear agreed upon criteria and definitions of god/s”

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
….
So why does God belief have credibility? With our understanding of existence, matter and energy, we see that there to be an absolute, that absolute must be independent of the materialism that we see everything as.
An absolute what? And evidence for this claim?

Only then, could it explain why X and Y existed and then went through process Z - which was allowed due to the laws having been designed for it to be able to happen. Existence is design and design without intelligence is impossible. [/QUOTE]
Evidence?

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
….
Is it ignorant to believe in God? No, Il explain. You say we can't see him or really prove its existence. But we can make a proof by deduction that is, without any other explanations to explain my existence, I must accept what I have at the time (scientists should be familiar with this methodology). I can't even consider other options because they have yet to exist - as said above people claimed to have created alternatives but they haven’t. Fine, you don't have to accept God exists but how can you say he doesn't?
Where is this proof?
And. I don’t think or believe a god as commonly defined by most religions exists. I find creation myths to be contradictory to the scientific knowledge we have and thus false.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
….
You must be theist or agnostic to not be ignorant. Theists would only be ignorant if they did not consider all options - but i'll repeat there has been no selection to choose from!
Ignorant of what?
Evidence? What knowledge does agnostics or theism provide? I find we are all ignorant of a lot of things. I find many people are even willing ignorant and put on blinders to knowledge.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
….
The whole idea of morality and ethics makes no sense in the atheistic world, rather survival of the fittest would seem much more appropriate .
Right and wrong. Atheism only deals with a belief in god/s. Morality is defined by society just as it for anyone else.
Reply

Skavau
09-04-2007, 01:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Ok
Yes.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
You'll have to forgive that I am a bit slow and first to admit it.. what does that mean to you?
It means that every cause must have its own cause.

If we break this and assert an uncaused cause then the premise becomes void and if we do not break it then it must become infinite.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Indeed everything has a cause!
Yes.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
well this really goes both ways for the Atheist and the theist..
Yes it does.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
The existence of whom or what I should say?
Existence itself.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
plus this is sort of a non sequitur to your previous conclusions!
If an infinite regression of causes exists then it follows that existence must be infinite from it. If you break it and assume an uncaused cause (or a beginning of existence) of some description then the idea of every cause must have a cause becomes void.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Do you believe that you have indeed observed all that is in the universe and interacted with it?
No.

But we know that the universe does exist.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Is everything in the universe indeed discernible and observable?
Possibly, possibly not.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
for instance let me give you an example we can all relate to.. surely at some point in your life you've felt pain or a headache.. was that observable or even quantifiable save by your own subjective scale? in fact if you were to present some to an ER some where, and tell them, I have a really bad headache, everyone would understand what you are talking about, but no one will be able to quantify it for you. You'l then say on a scale from one to ten it is a six.. then someone will take your word for it and treat you accordingly!
the headache/pain existed-- you bet
entirely observable? no way
I'm not seeing the relevance.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
thus I conclude that your original conclusion is faulty! you know not accounting for everything and in one of those tiny things you didn't account for, could lie your answer!
This is incoherent. I really don't follow and I suspect it might be a language barrier.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Why is that in your own words without referencing me back to the labyrinthian part A or part B... You know the adage 'God is in the detail' How do you explain all the details.. I'd bore you with tiny scientific bits of infinite multitudes called synthetic thinking... very difficult for any small part to foregather correctly and repeatedly without error over all these millenniums without some guided process perhaps if you take the micro approach it would be better than the macrocosm one!
You forget that this is meaningless if the conclusion of my idea is correct.

This appears to be an Argument From Design?

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
evidence of God is observed in tiniest cell to fall-blooming annuals to the grandest of galaxies.. it would be a shame to miss it!
Except that is only evidence of God to you. Not to me.

I notice that your actual comments on the strain of logic are not referring to the actual point of the argument, which was to demonstrate that infinite existence is necessary. You simply refer me to what I can only see as being the Design Argument throughout the ending stages. You did not actually challenge the logic behind the argument.
Reply

Basirah
09-04-2007, 01:59 AM
But we know that the universe does exist.
In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.

Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser. To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.
The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts. A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.

This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.

To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration. Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side. As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them. When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.

This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment. According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality. Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.

In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected.The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky. Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.

In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order. At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past.

What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is."

Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a "mere stage" beyond which lies "an infinity of further development".

Bohm is not the only researcher who has found evidence that the universe is a hologram. Working independently in the field of brain research, Standford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram has also become persuaded of the holographic nature of reality. Pribram was drawn to the holographic model by the puzzle of how and where memories are stored in the brain. For decades numerous studies have shown that rather than being confined to a specific location, memories are dispersed throughout the brain.

In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. The only problem was that no one was able to come up with a mechanism that might explain this curious "whole in every part" nature of memory storage.

Then in the 1960s Pribram encountered the concept of holography and realized he had found the explanation brain scientists had been looking for. Pribram believes memories are encoded not in neurons, or small groupings of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes the brain is itself a hologram.

Pribram's theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in so little space. It has been estimated that the human brain has the capacity to memorize something on the order of 10 billion bits of information during the average human lifetime (or roughly the same amount of information contained in five sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage--simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information.

Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word "zebra", you do not have to clumsily sort back through some gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like "striped", "horselike", and "animal native to Africa" all pop into your head instantly. Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information--another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with every other portion, it is perhaps nature's supreme example of a cross-correlated system.

The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram's holographic model of the brain. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions.

Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions.

An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram's theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists.

Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently extended the holographic model into the world of acoustic phenomena. Puzzled by the fact that humans can locate the source of sounds without moving their heads, even if they only possess hearing in one ear, Zucarelli discovered that holographic principles can explain this ability. Zucarelli has also developed the technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism.

Pribram's belief that our brains mathematically construct "hard" reality by relying on input from a frequency domain has also received a good deal of experimental support. It has been found that each of our senses is sensitive to a much broader range of frequencies than was previously suspected. Researchers have discovered, for instance, that our visual systems are sensitive to sound frequencies, that our sense of smellisin part dependent on what are now called "osmic frequencies", and that even the cells in our bodies are sensitive to a broad range of frequencies. Such findings suggest that it is only in the holographic domain of consciousness that such frequencies are sorted out and divided up into conventional perceptions.

But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion.

We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.


This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the-holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature. Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many para-psychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm.

In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level.

It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolvedpuzzles in psychology.

In particular, Stanislav Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness. In the 1950s, while conducting research into the beliefs of LSD as a psychotherapeutic tool, Grof had one female patient who suddenly became convinced she had assumed the identity of a female of a species of prehistoric reptile. During the course of her hallucination, she not only gave a richly detailed description of what it felt like to be encapsuled in such a form, but noted that the portion of the male of the species's anatomy was a patch of colored scales on the side of its head. What was startling to Grof was that although the woman had no prior knowledge about such things, a conversation with a zoologist later confirmed that in certain species of reptiles colored areas on the head do indeed play an important role as triggers of sexual arousal. The woman's experience was not unique. During the course of his research, Grof encountered examples of patients regressing and identifying with virtually every species on the evolutionary tree (research findings which helped influence the man-into-ape scene in the movie Altered States). Moreover, he found that such experiences frequently contained obscure zoological details which turned out to be accurate.

Regressions into the animal kingdom were not the only puzzling psychological phenomena Grof encountered. He also had patients who appeared to tap into some sort of collective or racial unconscious. Individuals with little or no education suddenly gave detailed descriptions of Zoroastrian funerary practices and scenes from Hindu mythology. In other categories of experience, individuals gave persuasive accounts of out-of-body journeys, of precognitive glimpses of the future, of regressions into apparent past-life incarnations.

In later research, Grof found the same range of phenomena manifested in therapy sessions which did not involve the use of drugs. Because the common element in such experiences appeared to be the transcending of an individual's consciousness beyond the usual boundaries of ego and/or limitations of space and time, Grof called such manifestations "transpersonal experiences", and in the late '60s he helped found a branch of psychology called "transpersonal psychology" devoted entirely to their study.
Although Grof's newly founded Association of Transpersonal Psychology garnered a rapidly growing group of like-minded professionals and has become a respected branch of psychology, for years neither Grof or any of his colleagues were able to offer a mechanism for explaining the bizarre psychological phenomena they were witnessing. But that has changed with the advent of the holographic paradigm.

As Grof recently noted, if the mind is actually part of a continuum, a labyrinth that is connected not only to every other mind that exists or has existed, but to every atom, organism, and region in the vastness of space and time itself, the fact that it is able to occasionally make forays into the labyrinth and have transpersonal experiences no longer seems so strange.


The holographic paradigm also has implications for so-called hard sciences like biology. Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Virginia Intermont College, has pointed out that if the concreteness of reality is but a holographic illusion, it would no longer be true to say the brain produces consciousness. Rather, it is consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain -- as well as the body and everything else around us we interpret as physical.

Such a turnabout in the way we view biological structures has caused researchers to point out that medicine and our understanding of the healing process could also be transformed by the holographic paradigm. If the apparent physical structure of the body is but a holographic projection of consciousness, it becomes clear that each of us is much more responsible for our health than current medical wisdom allows. What we now view as miraculous remissions of disease may actually be due to changes in consciousness which in turn effect changes in the hologram of the body.

Similarly, controversial new healing techniques such as visualization may work so well because, in the holographic domain of thought, images are ultimately as real as "reality".

Even visions and experiences involving "non-ordinary" reality become explainable under the holographic paradigm. In his book "Gifts of Unknown Things," biologist Lyall Watson describes his encounter with an Indonesian shaman woman who, by performing a ritual dance, was able to make an entire grove of trees instantly vanish into thin air. Watson relates that as he and another astonished onlooker continued to watch the woman, she caused the trees to reappear, then "click" off again and on again several times in succession.

Although current scientific understanding is incapable of explaining such events, experiences like this become more tenable if "hard" reality is only a holographic projection. Perhaps we agree on what is "there" or "not there" because what we call consensus reality is formulated and ratified at the level of the human unconscious at which all minds are infinitely interconnected. If this is true, it is the most profound implication of the holographic paradigm of all, for it means that experiences such as Watson's are not commonplace only because we have not programmed our minds with the beliefs that would make them so. In a holographic universe there are no limits to the extent to which we can alter the fabric of reality.

What we perceive as reality is only a canvas waiting for us to draw upon it any picture we want. Anything is possible, from bending spoons with the power of the mind to the phantasmagoric events experienced by Castaneda during his encounters with the Yaqui brujo don Juan, for magic is our birthright, no more or less miraculous than our ability to compute the reality we want when we are in our dreams.

Indeed, even our most fundamental notions about reality become suspect, for in a holographic universe, as Pribram has pointed out, even random events would have to be seen as based on holographic principles and therefore determined. Synchronicities or meaningful coincidences suddenly makes sense, and everything in reality would have to be seen as a metaphor, for even the most haphazard events would express some underlying symmetry.

Whether Bohm and Pribram's holographic paradigm becomes accepted in science or dies an ignoble death remains to be seen, but it is safe to say that it has already had an influence on the thinking of many scientists. And even if it is found that the holographic model does not provide the best explanation for the instantaneous communications that seem to be passing back and forth between subatomic particles, at the very least, as noted by Basil Hiley, a physicist at Birbeck College in London, Aspect's findings "indicate that we must be prepared to consider radically new views of reality".

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/hologram.html
Reply

جوري
09-04-2007, 02:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
It means that every cause must have its own cause.

If we break this and assert an uncaused cause then the premise becomes void and if we do not break it then it must become infinite.
Every event that provides a generative force that is the origin of something will have to stop at some point. The point where your mind can't conceive a beyond it.. it isn't a circular event. it has a beginning and an end except for what caused all the causes to take affect!
Death is the reality and finality of all life functions in any organism or part of an organism certainly true of everything in nature and the universe... none which apply to God, since God beyond distinctness or definition is non-finite such as time! To have a God of our nature wouldn't provoke a need to worship in any of us.. why would we want to seek something that like us and like nature and like the universe has a beginning and an end. Further, it is very innate to want to worship.. some just chanel that need to some other project to avoid the vacuum!


Existence itself.
existence ceases to exit upon the death of the individual, things in nature and even in celestial bodies. Everything will die, up to and including our sun which many already contend is middle aged and dying out. .. if things die in our life, our immediate cosmos. I have no reason to believe that they will go on existing else where.. just like the universe is expanding at some point it will implode.. this is a simple law of thermodynamics and can be observed on every level.. Even brilliant diamonds go back to graphite under inert conditions. I have absolutely no physical evidence to believe that existence will exist forever, since all things will die simply at different cycles!

If an infinite regression of causes exists then it follows that existence must be infinite from it. If you break it and assume an uncaused cause (or a beginning of existence) of some description then the idea of every cause must have a cause becomes void.
the idea of a void only follows physical laws of what is observable to you. And perhaps to some other group of Atheists who chose to accept 'conventional' physics, that is indeed the end result. with every death a void up and including that of our planet.. until nothing! But no one has come back from the dead and told us what has become of their memories or consciousness...

No.

But we know that the universe does exist.
simple existence stripped of all the other possibilities makes for a very sterile argument!


Possibly, possibly not.
Only possibly not is of value here. And I believe I have demonstrated that with an every day example!



I'm not seeing the relevance.
the relevance is to say, there is more to this world than what is physical and palpable!
This is incoherent. I really don't follow and I suspect it might be a language barrier.
It denotes that you've built an argument on what you yourself would deem an 'infinite regression'. Which anyone can easily poke a hole by a different abstract and draw a very dissimilar conclusion!

You forget that this is meaningless if the conclusion of my idea is correct.
I believe If here is the operative word! and I am happy to disagree to an extraordinary extent!
This appears to be an Argument From Design
I assure you not all theists sit all day on the web looking for something to foster their track of thoughts. I believe any normal abstractionist will want an answer for the things they find in their world!


Except that is only evidence of God to you. Not to me.
That is evidence of God to any wo/man who will reflect!

I notice that your actual comments on the strain of logic are not referring to the actual point of the argument, which was to demonstrate that infinite existence is necessary. You simply refer me to what I can only see as being the Design Argument throughout the ending stages. You did not actually challenge the logic behind the argument.
Is it your argument?
I believe I have answered it this time around
a design argument is very much an essential player in such a debate.

peace!
Reply

جوري
09-04-2007, 02:40 AM
Dying Star May Presage Our Solar System's Demise
New evidence suggests that white dwarf stars have planets orbiting them
by Nikhil Swaminathan



Image: PICTURE BY MARK A. GARLICK


METALLIC RING: An unusual disk of gaseous, metallic debris around a white dwarf star 463 light years away provides a model for what could become of our solar system
Researchers using data collected by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey--a comprehensive effort to map a quarter of the sky with a dedicated telescope at Apache Point, N.M.--have identified a cooling ember of a star ringed by a rare gaseous, metal-rich disk. This discovery, according to team leader Boris G¿nsicke of the University of Warwick in England, suggests that there is a planet orbiting this once massive star. It also may provide, he says, "a glimpse into the future of our solar system," specifically how it may end.
The star in question is a white dwarf known as SDSS1228+1040. It is located 463 light-years away from Earth and is in the constellation Virgo. In its prime, the star weighed in at four to five solar masses. (Progenitor stars of white dwarfs can be up to eight times the mass of our sun). SDSS1228+1040's progenitor likely thrived as a main sequence star for about 70 million years, which is a relatively short life span compared with that of our sun--its current age is around 4.6 billion years old.

G¿nsicke points out that there has been much debate within the realm of astrophysics about whether these short stellar life spans provide the "time that is necessary to form planets from the debris of the disk that made the star in the first place." (Stars are believed to form from matter that coalesces from a disk of debris and then ignites in a nuclear fusion reaction.) The new findings suggest they are. And if these short-lived stars are able to support planetary systems of their own, they can certainly serve as models for what could happen billions of years in the future to our own solar system.
Based on the group's estimates, SDSS1228+1040 has been in the white dwarf stage for 100 million years, and its current surface temperature is thought to be a steamy 22,000 degrees Celsius. (In contrast, our sun's surface temperature is around 5,500 degrees C.) When running spectral analyses on the material surrounding the star, the team found the double-peaked emission lines of magnesium, iron and calcium. This allowed them to determine that the circumstellar material was distributed in roughly a half-a-million-mile radius around the star.

G¿nsicke and his colleagues believe that the debris ring is the remains of a 50-kilometer-wide asteroid, which once orbited the star closely along with other entities. This finding "strongly suggests that there is still a planet orbiting around SDSS1228+1040 today," G¿nsicke says. "[Asteroids need] the gravitation of an object much bigger than the asteroids themselves to dislodge one of them from their stable circular orbits." Once dislodged, the asteroid likely moved too close to the gravitational field of the star, where it was broken up in a process called tidal shredding. The pieces then likely evaporated into the disk seen now via radiation from the hot star.

The timeline for the star now known as SDSS1228+1040 likely went as follows, according to the Warwick team, which speculates that a similar chain of events will likely befall our sun: After the star burned all the hydrogen in its core, it likely swelled into its red-giant phase, eviscerating all material--planets included--in orbits up to 500 million miles away. Any asteroids or planets stationed beyond that radius would then be kicked into orbits farther away from the newly swelled star. (G¿nsicke estimates that our sun will enter its red-giant phase in five billion to eight billion years.) Once the outer regions of the red giant are shed, the star shrinks into its white dwarf phase that is superdense--the diameter of SDSS1228+1040 is 1 percent of our sun's, but it's mass is 75 percent that of the sun--and initially very hot. From this point it gradually cools down and eventually will burn out.

Michael A. Jura, an astronomer at the University of California, Los Angeles, says the discovery could lead to new information about the makeup of "extrasolar minor planets." He is skeptical, however, that the members of our solar system will meet the same fate as the objects that surrounded SDSS1228+1040's progenitor
Conceivably, though not really, because they said this was a four to five solar mass star and we're a one solar mass star," he says. "Something vaguely like this may be occurring in our future, but I don't know for certain. It really depends on how much mass the sun loses, whether it loses it asymmetrically or what."
scientific American
Reply

جوري
09-04-2007, 02:45 AM
Freeze, Fry or Dry: How Long Has the Earth Got?
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior ScienceWriter
posted: 09:45 am ET
25 February 2000



When a bunch of leading scientists got together last week to discuss the latest in big thinking, there was no shortage of doomsday predictions. In particular, Earth's fate was painted in three shades of grim.

Sometime in the next few billion years, according to new studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the third rock from the sun will either freeze or fry. Unless things simply dry up much sooner.

The expanding furnace

While Earth's fate is not entirely sealed, predictions of the death of the sun are widely accepted.



The life-giving, aging star we orbit is using up its fuel supply and will collapse within 7 billion years. Before that, though, there will be an agonizing period of repeated swelling, as the sun grows into a red giant. How giant?

"Earth will end up in the sun, vaporizing and blending its material with that of the sun," said Iowa State University's Lee Anne Willson. "That part of the sun then blows away into space, so one might say Earth is cremated and the ashes are scattered into interstellar space."

Willson and her colleague George Bowen studied other red giants, medium-sized stars like our sun that are near death, and used their findings to calculate the fate of Earth.

As the sun burns its core of hydrogen, gravity will force a collapse. When compacted, the sun will heat up and burn the small amount of hydrogen that remains in a shell wrapped around the star's core. This will force the sun to expand into a red giant. Eventually, the core will heat up enough to burn stored helium and the sun will fluctuate in size before collapsing into a white dwarf.

"Earth will get scorched as part of the process the sun will go through as it transforms from being a red giant into a white dwarf," Willson said.

Out from the frying pan and into the frost

There are two possible paths to salvation, though both involve a frigid end.

"If the sun loses mass before it gets too big, then Earth moves into a larger orbit and escapes," Willson told SPACE.com. "The sun would need to lose 20 percent of its mass earlier in its evolution, and this is not what we expect to happen."

Fred Adams, a University of Michigan physicist, has for a few years been modeling the fate of the entire universe. He said his work agrees with Willson's.

"If Earth stays in its present orbit, its fate is to be fried," Adams said in a telephone interview. "That is the most likely fate."

Meanwhile, Adams has modeled a second possible method of escape.

A less bad scenario

Other scientists have learned that planets around other stars often follow odd-shaped orbits, indicating their paths might have been disrupted by the gravity of a passing star. Adams and a colleague got to wondering whether some future passing star or star system might, in similar fashion, kick Earth into the cosmic hinterlands.

So he and Gregory Laughlin, of NASA's Ames Research Laboratory, simulated many possible encounters with passing stars over the next 3.5 billion years -- assuming Earth would support life at least that long. The odds of the planet being ejected from the solar system, they determined, are one-in-100,000.



"Life on Earth would actually continue longer if Earth is sent out of the solar system than if it stays."




"These aren't real good odds," Adams points out, "but they're greater than the odds of winning the lottery, so they're worth considering."

A report on the work will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Icarus.

Adams figures if Earth is sent off into some cold cosmic corner, the oceans would freeze solid after about a million years. But some forms of life, supported by hydrothermal vents or other internal energy sources, might continue for up to 30 billion years, he estimates.

"Life on Earth would actually continue longer if Earth is sent out of the solar system than if it stays," he said.

Or, we might just dry up and die

Before Earth's oceans ever have a chance to freeze or fry, they might have already dried up and evaporated into space, said James Kasting, a Penn State professor of meteorology and geosciences. Kasting estimates his version of the end is a mere 1 billion years away.

"The sun is getting brighter with time and that affects the Earth's climate," Kasting said. "Eventually temperatures will become high enough so that the oceans evaporate."

And, Kasting said, a cataclysmic finale may come even sooner. As Earth becomes a global desert, carbon dioxide levels are expected to drop. At a certain level, which he and his colleagues say might be achieved in half a billion years, there would not be enough carbon dioxide to support photosynthesis, and most plants would die.

Remaining plants would not be sufficient to support a biosphere, Kasting contends. So while the entire planet might incinerated in a few billion years, or cast off into a deep freeze, it's possible that life on Earth is already in the sunset years.

"If we calculated correctly, Earth has been habitable for 4.5 billion years and only has a half-billion years left," Kasting said.
source
Reply

Skavau
09-04-2007, 02:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Death is the reality and finality of all life functions in any organism or part of an organism certainly true of everything in nature and the universe... none which apply to God, since God beyond distinctness or definition is non-finite such as time!
This is assuming that God even exists in the first place.

And there is no reason that time cannot be infinite.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
To have a God of our nature wouldn't provoke a need to worship in any of us.. why would we want to seek something that like us and like nature and like the universe has a beginning and an end.
What has worship got to do with my argument?

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Further, it is very innate to want to worship.. some just chanel that need to some other project to avoid the vacuum!
It is not innate to want to worship for me or anyone I have met.

If worshiping and following something or someone was natural, then we would not desire freedom over oppression.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
existence ceases to exit upon the death of the individual,
No it doesn't. The individual's ability to be aware of existence dies.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
things in nature and even in celestial bodies. Everything will die, up to and including our sun which many already contend is middle aged and dying out. ..
And also, things will replace it.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
if things die in our life, our immediate cosmos. I have no reason to believe that they will go on existing else where..
They won't.

However they will be replaced.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
just like the universe is expanding at some point it will implode.. this is a simple law of thermodynamics and can be observed on every level.. Even brilliant diamonds go back to graphite under inert conditions.
This however has nothing to do with the fact that Something cannot come from nothing (ex nihilo, nihilo fit). Do you disagree on this point?

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I have absolutely no physical evidence to believe that existence will exist forever, since all things will die simply at different cycles!
Do you believe Allah is eternal?

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
simple existence stripped of all the other possibilities makes for a very sterile argument!
There is an infinity of possibilities as to what could be eternal. The universe is however the most logical one to believe in because it is verifiable.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
the relevance is to say, there is more to this world than what is physical and palpable!
This is irrelevant to the argument be it true or not.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
It denotes that you've built an argument on what you yourself would deem an 'infinite regression'. Which anyone can easily poke a hole by a different abstract and draw a very dissimilar conclusion!
But you haven't. From what I have seen you agree entirely that eternality is necessary.

You just say that Allah is eternal.

I say that it is the universe.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I believe If here is the operative word! and I am happy to disagree to an extraordinary extent!
But your disagreement with the idea is smeared in begging the question. You really ought to look at what my argument proposes and then find issues with it rather than entertain the assertion that God exists and the evidence of God is in nature.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Is it your argument?
It is not my invented argument, but it is my conception of it. I thought about it and constructed the ten points.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I believe I have answered it this time around
I don't. I think the problem is that you don't disagree with it in its entirety.

You only disagree with what is eternal rather than something being eternal.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
a design argument is very much an essential player in such a debate.
No it is not. The very argument if true has no bearing on the assertion of the design argument.
Reply

جوري
09-04-2007, 03:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
This is assuming that God even exists in the first place.
If he doesn't, then you need to account for where everything came from!
And there is no reason that time cannot be infinite.
I think universally people will agree that time has no limits or boundaries!

What has worship got to do with my argument?
It means that God is very much unremitting, the mere fact that you post here of his non-existence show an indefinitely long continuing preoccupation, which holds your mind and attention, even if you chanel that to an argument of quantum physics!

It is not innate to want to worship for me or anyone I have met.
It is as innate as your need to pee and sleep. I have already stated the mere fact that you are here discussing this is a testament to it!

If worshiping and following something or someone was natural, then we would not desire freedom over oppression.
That conclusion has no relevance to what preceded it.. worship has nothing to do with opression anymore than your need to sleep tonight is a desire to be free from living!


No it doesn't. The individual's ability to be aware of existence dies.
you don't know that.. anymore than you knew what awaited you outside the womb, anymore than you know what will await you once you fall asleep!


And also, things will replace it.
Who has replaced your dead grandma? You thought I was devaluing atheists when comparing them to animals earlier.. in fact it is an atheist who does that to himself! You are here for a reason, there is no other like you, in that there is great value .. impossible to replace!





This however has nothing to do with the fact that Something cannot come from nothing (ex nihilo, nihilo fit). Do you disagree on this point?
that conclusion YOU'VE just drawn, is the strongest profession of belief!


Do you believe Allah is eternal?
absolutely!


There is an infinity of possibilities as to what could be eternal. The universe is however the most logical one to believe in because it is verifiable.
But it isn't verifiable, I'll reference you back to the above two articles.. and there are hundreds that attest to the same.. we are but fugacious blossoms!


But you haven't. From what I have seen you agree entirely that eternality is necessary.
necessary for something outside your definition and outlines. The one who engineered it in whole!
You just say that Allah is eternal.
He is!

I say that it is the universe.
it is not-- it will meet with a certain end.. I gurantee it, like I gurantee 150yrs from now none of us on this forum will exist!

But your disagreement with the idea is smeared in begging the question. You really ought to look at what my argument proposes and then find issues with it rather than entertain the assertion that God exists and the evidence of God is in nature.
I believe my disagreement is conventional wisdom.. it is physics 101.. that is what I learned back in undergrad... my asserting of finding God in all the exhaustible details has nothing to do with my disagreement!

It is not my invented argument, but it is my conception of it. I thought about it and constructed the ten points.
Well, I found flaws in it... which I'll have to assume is ok by you since you forfeit established sapience for your own conception. I believe that is what we ought to collectively do anyhow.. you know spend sometime thinking of why we do the things we do. If you are comfortable there where you are it is fine.. but by no means is it an indication that there is conformity to reality or actuality in those conclusions!


I don't. I think the problem is that you don't disagree with it in its entirety. You only disagree with what is eternal rather than something being eternal
I believe this is a simple case of malposition on your part.. you'd rather attribute eternal to Quantum physics rather than God, because it would mean you'd have to conform in part and that just seems without civilizing influences, you know so démodé, so 10 o'clock news.. and there just can't be truth in those uncultivated folks.


No it is not. The very argument if true has no bearing on the assertion of the design argument.
These are the variables to the formula, you just want to make it less complicated so you'll have less to account for..

Anyhow my reason leaves me at this hour which I believe should be reserved for sleep
Thank you.. been a pleasure and gnight!
Reply

Isambard
09-04-2007, 03:54 AM
Instead of going in circles, I suggest both of you check this out

http://video.google.com/googleplayer...78760369344626

Its a discussion between Alistor McGrath and Richard Dawkins. They are arguing similar pts but go into alot of detail. Its a bit lengthy but certainly worth it.

That aside, what I am wondering is how exactly an Islamic goverance and economic system will work today when it has failed in modern day supposidely Islamic states.
Reply

NoName55
09-04-2007, 04:24 AM
lessons on how to turn a thread on atheist ideology to "Bash Islam" in few easy steps.

wow what a "great" place
Reply

strider
09-04-2007, 07:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in Allah's plan. But most of them ignore (the truth).


Surah Anaam Verse 111

what im tryin to say is the arguments against the existence of God seem ridiculous, look at what Allah says, if the simplest signs arent enough then the most complex signs wont be enough..
Of course, to a believer the arguments against the existence of God would seem ridiculous. But to one who doesn't believe, the Quran is seen to be nothing more than a somewhat interesting book. So please take words like 'ridiculous' out of your argument as they really are very subjective. :)
Reply

Skavau
09-04-2007, 02:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
If he doesn't, then you need to account for where everything came from!
No I don't. I don't pretend to know the length of the causal chain. My argument simply explains how infinity must exist and I see no reason to place this onto God.

You're begging the question. Allah is not a necessary being in my world view and neither is any form of God with similar attributes. I could very much be argued Pantheistic - the difference is I see no reason to call what Pantheists call 'God'.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
It means that God is very much unremitting, the mere fact that you post here of his non-existence show an indefinitely long continuing preoccupation, which holds your mind and attention, even if you chanel that to an argument of quantum physics!
Discussions about God are not my only interests.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
It is as innate as your need to pee and sleep. I have already stated the mere fact that you are here discussing this is a testament to it!
Except that it isn't. It is a testament to me being opened up to the topic of philosophy and then discussing it after formulating viewpoints.

If human beings had a innate desire to worship, then a lot more dictators who carved personality cults would have been a lot more successful. Humans value freedom more and systems involved in totalitarianism and dictatorial regimes know this. This is why such systems attempt to call themselves 'freedom'.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
you don't know that.. anymore than you knew what awaited you outside the womb,
I didn't have any understanding then. Or any significant awareness of existence.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
anymore than you know what will await you once you fall asleep!
I generally know what will happen when I fall asleep.

I may dream. Or I may not and then I will wake up hours later.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Who has replaced your dead grandma?
No-one.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
You thought I was devaluing atheists when comparing them to animals earlier.. in fact it is an atheist who does that to himself! You are here for a reason, there is no other like you, in that there is great value .. impossible to replace!
The fact that we are able to comprehend so much about our existence is value in itself.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
that conclusion YOU'VE just drawn, is the strongest profession of belief!
That's not my conclusion in the argument. That is only my 2nd point.

And it has not been touched upon.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
absolutely!
So you then agree that eternality exists. The chain of existence must go back to infinity.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
But it isn't verifiable, I'll reference you back to the above two articles..
They do not disprove the universe. In fact, the universe is very much being referred to in those articles.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
necessary for something outside your definition and outlines. The one who engineered it in whole!
Of course this is the jump.

The universe itself is not (by definition) a cause at all. It is instead the sum total of all causes, all effects, all entities and all phenomenon. And because the chain of causality is infinite, every cause within it has its own cause. Every single one.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
it is not-- it will meet with a certain end.. I gurantee it, like I gurantee 150yrs from now none of us on this forum will exist!
I am sure. However, the chain of causality will continue.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Well, I found flaws in it...
You seem to disagree only on one point.

You do not challenge ex nihilo, nihil fit. You do not challenge an infinite chain of uncaused causes. You do not challenge the very basis of my conclusion. You only challenge that the eternal existence is the universe. You say it is Allah.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
you'd rather attribute eternal to Quantum physics rather than God, because it would mean you'd have to conform in part and that just seems without civilizing influences, you know so démodé, so 10 o'clock news.. and there just can't be truth in those uncultivated folks.
Eh? You appear to be entirely unaware of my reasons.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
These are the variables to the formula, you just want to make it less complicated so you'll have less to account for..
No.

It is just that in this particular argument we are not talking about the design argument.

We are talking about infinite existence.

A final note on all of this:

As I have pointed out, I make no assumptions and offer no assertions that are not identical to yours. They are these:

1. Something cannot come from nothing.
2. Something must have always existed.

But since these assumptions are exactly the same, they provide no basis for discriminating between your position and mine. An eternal and uncreated universe and an eternal and uncreated Allah both satisfy these assumptions.

The difference between us is that I have evidence that the "something" I contend always existed actually exists. The direct observational evidence that there really is (or ever has been) a "something" called "the universe" is overwhelming and undeniable.

To compare, there is no empirical evidence (or otherwise) whatsoever that there really is (or ever has been) a "something" called "Allah" which can fulfill the properties of being eternal and uncreated.

This is then where our positions lose all similarity. My "assertion" that the universe is eternal and uncreated is not a bald one, because we know that there really is a universe. Your "assertion" that Allah is eternal and uncreated is a completely bald one, because we have no evidence for Allah at all.
Reply

InToTheRain
09-04-2007, 02:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau


But since these assumptions are exactly the same, they provide no basis for discriminating between your position and mine. An eternal and uncreated universe and an eternal and uncreated Allah both satisfy these assumptions.
Glad to hear that he have revoked clause number 10 :) (10. Therefore it is a bold step to assume Allah exists.)

format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
The difference between us is that I have evidence that the "something" I contend always existed actually exists. The direct observational evidence that there really is (or ever has been) a "something" called "the universe" is overwhelming and undeniable.
Now you are are contradicting what you said earlier:
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
We do not know anything about it or can have any direct observation of it.
You have no evidence Skavau, this is you belief and opinion and it is baseless. Not only that but is seems you are changing them as you progress within this thread, which maybe a good thing :)
Reply

Skavau
09-04-2007, 03:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Z.AL-Rashid
Glad to hear that he have revoked clause number 10 :) (10. Therefore it is a bold step to assume Allah exists.)
Except that I haven't revoked that statement. The rest of what I type here addresses the differences between the universe and Allah.

The point was that the two assertions alone:

1. Something cannot come from nothing.

2. Something must have always existed.

Provide no way between discriminating from either the universe or Allah.

format_quote Originally Posted by Z.Al-Rashid
Now you are are contradicting what you said earlier:
Except that I am not. The fact that the universe can be shown to exist is infinitely more reason in its favour for eternality than Allah. That is how I differentiate between them.

The final 'note' I provided makes this clear. How can you be misinterpreting what I am saying so badly?

format_quote Originally Posted by Z.Al-Rashid
You have no evidence Skavau
I have no empirical evidence - I do however have reason and logic supporting me.

Both appear to have actually gone unchallenged so far.

format_quote Originally Posted by Z.Al-Rashid
, this is you belief and opinion and it is baseless.
1. Something cannot come from nothing.

2. Something must have always existed.

Do you disagree with either of these two?

format_quote Originally Posted by Z.Al-Rashid
Not only that but is seems you are changing them as you progress within this thread, which maybe a good thing :)
Pray tell where I have changed?
Reply

Md Mashud
09-04-2007, 03:06 PM
1. Something cannot come from nothing.
2. Something must have always existed.
Do you disagree with either of these two?
Joke, this in no way provides logic for the eternal universe - Research on matter, energy, force before you make this assumption. This is not an opinion, it is just dead wrong. Anything determined by this (i.e. universe) has a creation point REGARDLESS of what you believe - thats concrete fact.

The only thing these 2 can prove is the eternal unmaterial/nonmatter/metaphysical being being the eternal existance - The universe being eternal is as likely as a human being eternal. Why do you just contradict yourself in every way?
Reply

Skavau
09-04-2007, 03:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
Joke, this in no way provides logic for the eternal university - Research on matter, energy, force before you make this assumption. This is not an opinion, it is just dead wrong. Anything determined by this (i.e. universe) has a creation point REGARDLESS of what you believe - thats concrete fact.
This universe as we know it now may have a beginning and an end. The universe is simply defined by the way as 'everything that exists'. My assertion is that everything that exists is eternal.

But by sheer understanding of ex nihilo, nihil fit - existence must extend infinitely.
Reply

Md Mashud
09-04-2007, 03:13 PM
The ex nihilo, nihil fit better explains God with its philosophical "Nothing comes from nothing" - What has that got to do with the Universe is eternal?

How can you say everything that exists is eternal, when everything in the matter state has had a beginning?

You are contradicting yourself.
Reply

Skavau
09-04-2007, 03:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
The ex nihilo, nihil fit better explains God with its philosophical "Nothing comes from nothing"
No. It simply explains existence itself being infinite.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
- What has that got to do with the Universe is eternal?
It doesn't have anything to do with the universe in itself.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
How can you say everything that exists is eternal, when everything in the matter state has had a beginning?
They are parts of the universe. They are not universe itself (which I reiterate is 'everything that exists'.) The universe is more than them individually.
Reply

Md Mashud
09-04-2007, 03:19 PM
Let me end it here. Your arguement could only be plausible if the big bang was a myth - Usually people with the belief you have call the big bang a myth and never happened - Check here: http://www.byteland.org/cosmology/infinity.html, he says everything you have said, but ofcourse his ideology is completly mistaken.

So, its obvious you have no credibility with such statements, to deny the bigbang. The reasonings of multiple universe sucking energy to others - endeavours the same big gap that is - what created the first universe? Matter based existance cannot NOT have a beginning.

Reading this article, like most of the theories, they try to explain process instead of cause. Gap gap gap...
Reply

Skavau
09-04-2007, 03:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
Let me end it here. Your arguement could only be plausible if the big bang was a myth - Usually people with the belief you have call the big bang a myth and never happened - Check here: http://www.byteland.org/cosmology/infinity.html, he says everything you have said, but ofcourse his ideology is completly mistaken.
I do not dispute the Big Bang.

format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
So, its obvious you have no credibility with such statements, to deny the bigbang. The reasonings of multiple universe sucking energy to others - endeavours the same big gap that is - what created the first universe? Matter based existance cannot NOT have a beginning.

Reading this article, like most of the theories, they try to explain process instead of cause. Gap gap gap...
See above.
Reply

ranma1/2
09-04-2007, 03:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
Let me end it here. Your arguement could only be plausible if the big bang was a myth - Usually people with the belief you have call the big bang a myth and never happened - Check here: http://www.byteland.org/cosmology/infinity.html, he says everything you have said, but ofcourse his ideology is completly mistaken.

So, its obvious you have no credibility with such statements, to deny the bigbang. The reasonings of multiple universe sucking energy to others - endeavours the same big gap that is - what created the first universe? Matter based existance cannot NOT have a beginning.

Reading this article, like most of the theories, they try to explain process instead of cause. Gap gap gap...
why does that matter? the big bang could just have been one bang in a infinitite chain of big bangs.

We are just in the current incarnation.
Reply

Md Mashud
09-04-2007, 03:24 PM
Let me follow on from Hawkins statement last year (compared to that theory which is hugely discredited years and years ago)

Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking speaks at an international gathering of scientists on the origins of the universe at Beijing's Great Hall of the People in China Monday, June 19, 2006. Hawking is in Beijing to attend the 'Strings 2006' conference on the riddle of string theory which, if solved, could help unlock the mysteries of black holes and the creation of the universe. Photo: AP)

Is the universe eternal, or did it have a beginning? World-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking gave his answer to a large audience in Beijing on Monday.

He gave a 45-minute multimedia presentation at the Great Hall of People on the occasion of the International Conference on String Theory 2006, that traced the development of theories on cosmic origins, beginning with African creation myths.

He described -- through his electronic speech synthesizer -- how the general theory of relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe provoked conceptual changes, which meant that the idea of an ever-existing, ever-lasting universe was no longer tenable.

The 64-year-old scientist and author of the global best-seller "A Brief History of Time" uses a wheelchair and communicates with the help of a computer because he suffers from a neurological disorder called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.

One of the best-known theoretical physicists of his generation,Hawking has done groundbreaking research on black holes and the origins of the universe, proposing that space and time have no beginning and no end.

The image Hawking drew of this process was that of bubbles appearing and bursting, corresponding to mini universes that expand and collapse. Only those which grew to a certain size would be safe from collapse and would continue to expand at an ever increasing rate.

The theorem which he and Prof. Roger Penrose developed in 1970 said that general relativity predicated that the universe and time itself would begin with the big bang and that time would come to an end in black holes.

"One can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world," said Hawking.

Likening the beginning of the universe to the South Pole, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time, Hawking explained that the universe would start as a point at the South Pole.

"As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question because there is nothing south of the South Pole," Hawking said.

In this view, the beginning of the universe would be governed by the laws of science: the creation of the universe would be down to spontaneous quantum creation.

"Cosmology is a very exciting and active subject. We are getting close to answering the age-old questions: Why are we here? Where did we come from?" Hawking said.

Good debate. Please find a scientist to discredit this statement, one even Einstein agrees with.
Reply

Isambard
09-04-2007, 03:43 PM
MD, you are misunderstanding him. His 'forever universe' isnt argueing that the big bang never happened, but that the universe has always existed in some form. The same way something is never truely destroyed in this incarnation but rather converted into energy and continues existing. I believe its called a cyclitic universe (could be wrong) which (ironically) Hawkings talks about in his book A Brief History of Time, saying that the universe couldve gone thru countless incarnations each with its own laws which would then fail, collapse, and the energy of the collapse begin another big bang. So the "perfection" of this universe would be the same reason our planet is perfect for human life, just dumb luck. If it wasnt that way, then we wouldnt exist to ask about it.
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
09-04-2007, 03:46 PM
I have a personal question for atheists, iv wanted to know that since you believe that science and technology has all the answers to life and man is in no need for anything else since science and technology can prove everything right? well the reality of that (as im seeing it) is that science and technology can only prove the how but it cant prove they why.

For example, you have the theory of evolution right? scientists have spent years learning how man started from a monkey and became a man, or the big bang theory and how it all happened, but there is no evidence showing why this was all here, everything is created for a purpose right? then why are we (and everything else) here?

just my personal thoughts.
Reply

Md Mashud
09-04-2007, 03:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
MD, you are misunderstanding him. His 'forever universe' isnt argueing that the big bang never happened, but that the universe has always existed in some form. The same way something is never truely destroyed in this incarnation but rather converted into energy and continues existing. I believe its called a cyclitic universe (could be wrong) which (ironically) Hawkings talks about in his book A Brief History of Time, saying that the universe couldve gone thru countless incarnations each with its own laws which would then fail, collapse, and the energy of the collapse begin another big bang. So the "perfection" of this universe would be the same reason our planet is perfect for human life, just dumb luck. If it wasnt that way, then we wouldnt exist to ask about it.
I didn't misunderstand him, you misunderstood the post. You also seem not not grasp what Hawkins has said, Id suggest to research on quantaum mechanics.
Reply

Isambard
09-04-2007, 03:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nomadicsoul
I have a personal question for atheists, iv wanted to know that since you believe that science and technology has all the answers to life and man is in no need for anything else since science and technology can prove everything right? well the reality of that (as im seeing it) is that science and technology can only prove the how but it cant prove they why.

For example, you have the theory of evolution right? scientists have spent years learning how man started from a monkey and became a man, or the big bang theory and how it all happened, but there is no evidence showing why this was all here, everything is created for a purpose right? then why are we (and everything else) here?

just my personal thoughts.
Well, not all atheists believe(d) in evolution, sciences etc. I mean there is the example of the Buddha (though some would argue he was a deist), or Nietzche who was strongly opposed to Darwin's natural selection in favor of his idea of 'Force to Will'. That aside, we humans have a tendecy to see things in patterns, somtimes in non-existant ones. I am not going to commit myself to a definite, but it is of my opinion that the universe and creation has no pattern. Everything is so choatic, random and flawed. Id say our existence is the result of a series of unlikely accidents :thankyou:
Reply

Isambard
09-04-2007, 03:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
I didn't misunderstand him, you misunderstood the post. You also seem not not grasp what Hawkins has said, Id suggest to research on quantaum mechanics.
Perhaps I missed something then, all I see is Hawkings seeing its a pointless question because it would be impossible to know.
Reply

Skavau
09-04-2007, 04:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nomadicsoul
I have a personal question for atheists, iv wanted to know that since you believe that science and technology has all the answers to life and man is in no need for anything else since science and technology can prove everything right? well the reality of that (as im seeing it) is that science and technology can only prove the how but it cant prove they why.
Correct.

You cannot derive an is from an ought. No-one with any ethical understanding will say that you can.
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
09-04-2007, 04:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
Well, not all atheists believe(d) in evolution, sciences etc. I mean there is the example of the Buddha (though some would argue he was a deist), or Nietzche who was strongly opposed to Darwin's natural selection in favor of his idea of 'Force to Will'. That aside, we humans have a tendecy to see things in patterns, somtimes in non-existant ones. I am not going to commit myself to a definite, but it is of my opinion that the universe and creation has no pattern. Everything is so choatic, random and flawed. Id say our existence is the result of a series of unlikely accidents :thankyou:
thats.....a very confusing answer. so your saying im a random creation which was made by a mistake?
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
09-04-2007, 04:31 PM
just like to point out...im not out to attack anybody.
Reply

Basirah
09-04-2007, 04:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nomadicsoul
thats.....a very confusing answer. so your saying im a random creation which was made by a mistake?
On the contrary, wouldn't an atheist say that you won the lottery in regards to being created! :D
Reply

NoName55
09-04-2007, 05:26 PM
edit
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
09-04-2007, 05:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Basirah
On the contrary, wouldn't an atheist say that you won the lottery in regards to being created! :D
lool so in the words of an atheist im "natures gamble"...thats hilarious
Reply

Isambard
09-04-2007, 05:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nomadicsoul
thats.....a very confusing answer. so your saying im a random creation which was made by a mistake?
hmm I guess mistakes more-so applies to our life experiences. Anyways, id like to point out this isnt exactly the "atheist perspective", merely the nihilistic one. I think this quote sums it up nicely.

"We are not what we remember of ourselves. We can undo only what others have already forgotten. Learn from your mistakes, so that one day you can repeat them prescisely. "

(If it looks familiar it is because it is my sig :P)

A few choice others

"Light in the absence of eyes illuminates nothing. Visible forms are not inherent in the world, but are granted by the act of seeing. Though the world and events do exist independant of mind, they obtain of no meaning in themselves- none that the mind is not guilty of imposing on them"

"Composite things are like dreams. Fantasies. Bubbles. Thoughts. Like a dewdrop and a flash of lightning. A new dress and a burning tire. Waves of sand and sinking ships. The shadow of a statue, and an entry in a diary. A brain tumor and an ice cream sundae. We are thus to be recorded. "
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
09-04-2007, 06:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
hmm I guess mistakes more-so applies to our life experiences. Anyways, id like to point out this isnt exactly the "atheist perspective", merely the nihilistic one. I think this quote sums it up nicely.

"We are not what we remember of ourselves. We can undo only what others have already forgotten. Learn from your mistakes, so that one day you can repeat them prescisely. "

(If it looks familiar it is because it is my sig :P)

A few choice others

"Light in the absence of eyes illuminates nothing. Visible forms are not inherent in the world, but are granted by the act of seeing. Though the world and events do exist independant of mind, they obtain of no meaning in themselves- none that the mind is not guilty of imposing on them"

"Composite things are like dreams. Fantasies. Bubbles. Thoughts. Like a dewdrop and a flash of lightning. A new dress and a burning tire. Waves of sand and sinking ships. The shadow of a statue, and an entry in a diary. A brain tumor and an ice cream sundae. We are thus to be recorded. "
that hasnt really answered my question but thanks.
Reply

Isambard
09-04-2007, 06:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nomadicsoul
that hasnt really answered my question but thanks.
The answer is yes
Reply

جوري
09-04-2007, 07:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
No I don't. I don't pretend to know the length of the causal chain. My argument simply explains how infinity must exist and I see no reason to place this onto God.
sure you do. It is part of this universe, it is very much a major player!
I don't see infinity existing in any of the components or part components that you've mentioned.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
You're begging the question. Allah is not a necessary being in my world view and neither is any form of God with similar attributes. I could very much be argued Pantheistic - the difference is I see no reason to call what Pantheists call 'God'.
God is very necessary. Nothing functions just because. My kinetic Arctura, though in no need of batteries and runs on my own energy, still had a maker, it didn't just appear on my wrist! And it is certainly not on my wrist just for aesthetics!

Discussions about God are not my only interests.

Except that it isn't. It is a testament to me being opened up to the topic of philosophy and then discussing it after formulating viewpoints.
It doesn't matter if only interest or part interest. It is intrinsical, otherwise we wouldn't be sitting here wasting each other's time-- I am sure the both of us have better things to do.

If human beings had a innate desire to worship, then a lot more dictators who carved personality cults would have been a lot more successful. Humans value freedom more and systems involved in totalitarianism and dictatorial regimes know this. This is why such systems attempt to call themselves 'freedom'.
That is another judgment reached after an inadequate consideration. I don't see what God has to do with dictators, freedom, totalitarian.
If we are going to go by your philosophy then forgive me for pointing out, Atheists and their regime can tote up a dictator/ totalitarian destruction more than all the religionists combined!
Mao xedong, Enver Hoxha, Stalin, Pol Pot (saloth Sar) SungIl .. the list goes on and on. Godless dictators are just as guilty.. and frankly the lot of them have no room in this topic!

I didn't have any understanding then. Or any significant awareness of existence.
Indeed you didn't but you became aware of existence! Consider the womb as a grave

I generally know what will happen when I fall asleep.

I may dream. Or I may not and then I will wake up hours later.
You don't know what sort of dream you'll have once you fall asleep, you are bed bound but a part of you without reasoning or observation is else where.. thus you don't know what awaits, anymore than you knew what kind of life you'd have outside the womb, anymore than you now know what will await you beyond death. You really have no way of knowing until you get there!

No-one.
If no one has replaced her, out of your own confession, I don't see how anything in existence is here to replace another..
The fact that we are able to comprehend so much about our existence is value in itself.
That makes no sense... where is the sense of justice?.. say you were a miserable 67 year old who spent his life being a Mafioso, and just last week you happen to kill an 18 year old who looked at you the wrong way, though he was an honor student and lived his life in the service of his community and his family .. what kind of justice or value is there in that?

That's not my conclusion in the argument. That is only my 2nd point.

And it has not been touched upon.
You conclusion can't fall whimsy to how a topic will unravel!
try to make a point early on and stick to it and then work to prove it.. or at least make a case for it!

So you then agree that eternality exists. The chain of existence must go back to infinity.
Externality can't exist in any of the components or part components you've mentioned, I have already stated that earlier! All of it in whole or in part is ephemeral yielding to different cycles. But ending nonetheless!

They do not disprove the universe. In fact, the universe is very much being referred to in those articles.
indeed referred to as 'ending' 'dying' in both articles. And anyone who has done some basic level physics will attest to the same. I can't claim to know higher mathematics.. I have done calculus one and two back in undergrad, can barely remember any of it.. but I don't think you need higher math to reach some very vestigial conclusions known to us all.

Of course this is the jump.
The universe itself is not (by definition) a cause at all. It is instead the sum total of all causes, all effects, all entities and all phenomenon. And because the chain of causality is infinite, every cause within it has its own cause. Every single one.
Sum of total causes or a cause of total causes doesn't deflect away that it had to start at some point and by same token shall end at some point. And that it is here for a reason and a purpose not for mere idle play!

I am sure. However, the chain of causality will continue.
Chain of causality by consensus will end.. What you hold here is a belief.. no different than a theist holding on to a belief!

You seem to disagree only on one point
You do not challenge ex nihilo, nihil fit. You do not challenge an infinite chain of uncaused causes. You do not challenge the very basis of my conclusion. You only challenge that the eternal existence is the universe. You say it is Allah.
I believe I have been doing just that with each statement! You can't prove to me eternity in part or in whole.. It will end I guarantee it! it is happening as we speak.. just matters composing from dying stars into new ones is never of the same caliber as the fist.. it will dwindle with time until there is none left!
Perhaps a few billions of years seems like forever to you, but at some point it will be unlivable.. if there is no fostering of life, it will end.. once just one cause in your chain is broken, the rest will ensue

Eh? You appear to be entirely unaware of my reasons.
I haven't seen 'reason' !

No.
It is just that in this particular argument we are not talking about the design argument.

We are talking about infinite existence
This has to do with all that is in existence that can be a potential 'eternal' these are the components of our closed system!
And they all need to be accounted for, you can't ignore the part, your calculations will be off, if you neglect a few million things that you deem negligible!

I really have to run for now
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
09-04-2007, 11:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
The answer is yes
then do u find it more believeable for a human being to be created by chance but not a creator?
Reply

Md Mashud
09-04-2007, 11:42 PM
Even chance requires opportunity and opportunities need to be created :) :) :)
Reply

Isambard
09-05-2007, 12:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by nomadicsoul
then do u find it more believeable for a human being to be created by chance but not a creator?
Yep. Id say our biological imperfections are great examples of this.
Reply

Md Mashud
09-05-2007, 12:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
Yep. Id say our biological imperfections are great examples of this.
That makes the false assumption that our biology should be perfect if God exists :).
Reply

Skavau
09-05-2007, 12:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
sure you do. It is part of this universe, it is very much a major player!
I don't see infinity existing in any of the components or part components that you've mentioned.
You do not see infinity in 'everything that exists'?

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
God is very necessary. Nothing functions just because
That much is true.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
My kinetic Arctura, though in no need of batteries and runs on my own energy, still had a maker, it didn't just appear on my wrist! And it is certainly not on my wrist just for aesthetics!
This much is correct.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
It doesn't matter if only interest or part interest. It is intrinsical, otherwise we wouldn't be sitting here wasting each other's time-- I am sure the both of us have better things to do.
Consideration on existence itself is intrinsical.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
That is another judgment reached after an inadequate consideration. I don't see what God has to do with dictators, freedom, totalitarian.
Many totalitarian systems involve personality cults or formulate the idea of obedience towards the state.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
If we are going to go by your philosophy then forgive me for pointing out, Atheists and their regime can tote up a dictator/ totalitarian destruction more than all the religionists combined!
This is irrelevent.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Mao xedong, Enver Hoxha, Stalin, Pol Pot (saloth Sar) SungIl .. the list goes on and on. Godless dictators are just as guilty.. and frankly the lot of them have no room in this topic!
#
I was referring to the fact that if worship was intrinsic then dictatorships and totalitarian states which involve worship, ritual or obedience towards the state would be more successful.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
You don't know what sort of dream you'll have once you fall asleep, you are bed bound but a part of you without reasoning or observation is else where.. thus you don't know what awaits, anymore than you knew what kind of life you'd have outside the womb
This much is true.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
That makes no sense... where is the sense of justice?.. say you were a miserable 67 year old who spent his life being a Mafioso, and just last week you happen to kill an 18 year old who looked at you the wrong way, though he was an honor student and lived his life in the service of his community and his family .. what kind of justice or value is there in that?
None whatsoever.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
You conclusion can't fall whimsy to how a topic will unravel!try to make a point early on and stick to it and then work to prove it.. or at least make a case for it!
I have been doing just that. You have been the person referring to the Design Argument and asserting that worship is innate.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Sum of total causes or a cause of total causes doesn't deflect away that it had to start at some point and by same token shall end at some point. And that it is here for a reason and a purpose not for mere idle play!
No reason whatsoever to believe that it is here for any specific purpose.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
You can't prove to me eternity in part or in whole..
Yes I can, ex nihilo, nihil fit.

There you go.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Perhaps a few billions of years seems like forever to you, but at some point it will be unlivable.. if there is no fostering of life, it will end.. once just one cause in your chain is broken, the rest will ensue
But existence itself would still be other than life.

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
This has to do with all that is in existence that can be a potential 'eternal' these are the components of our closed system!
And they all need to be accounted for, you can't ignore the part, your calculations will be off, if you neglect a few million things that you deem negligible!
I have considered the Design Argument.

I have also dismissed it.
Reply

Isambard
09-05-2007, 01:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
That makes the false assumption that our biology should be perfect if God exists :).
Perhaps, but redundancies, junk DNA, and physical weakness does hurt the Perfect Creator claim.
Reply

noodles
09-05-2007, 01:18 AM
(Readers and posters alike, I'm really sorry for changing the topic somewhat)
Skavau, do you agree that the universe is always expanding?
Reply

Skavau
09-05-2007, 01:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by noodles
Skavau, do you agree that the universe is always expanding?
Yes.
Reply

noodles
09-05-2007, 01:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Yes.
You've questioned my logic, now I want to question yours.

If you believe that the universe is always expanding, then if you turn the clock, at some point in time, there must've been a collective lump of this matter that always so expand, no?

Let me state the points again.

1) Something cannot be created from nothing

2) The Universe is always expanding (which is to say that there was a time when it was not, and no, I'm not stating the Big bang theory here, I'm simply taking meaning from your own words)

Observing these two points, tell me what conclusion can you make of it.
Reply

Md Mashud
09-05-2007, 01:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
Perhaps, but redundancies, junk DNA, and physical weakness does hurt the Perfect Creator claim.
I don't see how, If Im able to bake a cake to perfection, why can't I also bake it to imperfection. Rather, to assume that him being limitless means that he must create everything to 1 standard, is rather nullifying him being the greatest creator as thats setting a limit on God.

We can't explain why he did what he did, but we can claim that he has the capability to do so and having the capability to do so in no means makes him any less limitless.
Reply

Skavau
09-05-2007, 01:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by noodles
You've questioned my logic, now I want to question yours.

If you believe that the universe is always expanding, then if you turn the clock, at some point in time, there must've been a collective lump of this matter that always so expand, no?

Let me state the points again.

1) Something cannot be created from nothing

2) The Universe is always expanding (which is to say that there was a time when it was not)

Observing these two points, tell me what conclusion can you make of it.
That there was a time in which the universe was not expanding.
Reply

جوري
09-05-2007, 01:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
You do not see infinity in 'everything that exists'?
I don't see infinity in ephemera.. further intensified by the fact that the observer as well as the observed is of a certain life span-- you are only functional (as between birth and death) and that holds true for eveything in our closed universe... . There IS NO INFINITY in that which by definition 'Time without end' The only self-professed 'time without end' as cited to you from the Quran and the Hadith prior, is God himself!


Many totalitarian systems involve personality cults or formulate the idea of obedience towards the state.
obeisance to the state has positively nothing to do with obedience toward God! One expiates your foolishness and the other sustains it.


I was referring to the fact that if worship was intrinsic then dictatorships and totalitarian states which involve worship, ritual or obedience towards the state would be more successful.
I am not following!



I have been doing just that. You have been the person referring to the Design Argument and asserting that worship is innate.
Again, I maintain if you assert something is infinite and eternal and you reference us to the 'universe' when doing so.. you must account for everything that inahbits such a universe to make your argument complete. You can't neglect the parts that don't appeal to you, when the very crux of the matter is very much contingent on the sum of its details!
And yes worship is innate... you just choose to worship life, worship money, you've loan something in your life eminence and stands out above all else.. that is your God! a simple case of displacement.. You are after all human and bound by the human condition... just one putting a different title on your priorities!


No reason whatsoever to believe that it is here for any specific purpose.
That doesn't flow with the logic of all things in existence. If everything has a function and a purpose.. (which it does), then one can safely assume so does our purpose here!
Yes I can, ex nihilo, nihil fit.

There you go.
what an unsuccessful effort.. It doesn't really mean anything to me or 93&#37; of humanity.. I say that because atheists make up 7% of the population and if I am to safely assume all atheists can draw some sort of gratification of your said statement, its effect is very negligible...

But existence itself would still be other than life.
what does that mean?

I have considered the Design Argument.
I have also dismissed it.
I feel the same of your 'ex nihilo' except in the scheme of things one holds increasing weightiness while the other can be safely discarded!

peace!
Reply

noodles
09-05-2007, 01:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
That there was a time in which the universe was not expanding.
Something we both agree on.

You've stated that the Universe is eternal. Thus, it is also right to say that this lump of collective matter has 'always' existed as collective matter. Yes?
(In other words, there was nothing prior to this 'lump of matter' it has always existed as such)


If you derive any other conclusion then it doesn't agree with the statement that the universe is always expanding. Because when something is always expanding, it cannot contract. Therefore, the lump could've never been formed. Since we state the universe expands, it is reasonable to say that the lump couldn't have come about any other way.

(I really hope you understood what I just said :))
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-05-2007, 04:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
Atheism is all rhetoric and no substance, Fact, they believe in somthing that not only can they not explain its cause, it is nigh impossible to.

The day an atheist uses substance will truly be the end of the world.
You and Skavau are clearly working from different definitions of "atheism".

Atheism as I define it and as I assume Skavau defines it given his posts means a lack of belief in Gods. That means atheism can by definition have NO rehtoric, or anything else. Its a lack of belief, nothing more.

You seem to be using "atheist" in its other popular meaning, the belief that there can be no Gods. As Skavau admitted, you can't be 100% certain of that belief in EXACTLY the same way you can't be 100%certain other ridiculus things don't exist like the celestial tea pot or invisible pink unicorn.
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-05-2007, 04:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
* If you insist that you believe in this absurdum even when you don't, your opponent will often realize your dishonesty and this will damage mutual trust in the debate.
I refuse to believe that even the most far gone theists honestly believe the atheist believes in the flying spagheti monster. It should be obvious that the comparison is to show the fatal flaw in the theists claim that God can not be disproved and therefore God is likely to exist or is likely to exist or should be entertained as plausible.

* Even though the argument is brought forward because of the analogy, to insist that it is equal is offensive. Let's not forget we both agree it's absurd, so in effect you are calling the opponents view equal to absurd. I'd say that's rather offensive.
You've just completely blurred the line between personal attack and rational debate. If your ideas are ridiculus they should be exposed as such through apt comparisons of logic. That is not a personal attack and it is only offensive if the person listening decides to cling to the irrational idea despite the obvious irrationality (instead of defending it as not irrational and logically explaining away the analogy as false).
Reply

Pygoscelis
09-05-2007, 05:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
That makes the false assumption that our biology should be perfect if God exists :).
Very good point.

It could just as easily be that God formed us as a stepping stone or experiment as he worked up to the real perfect creation that is actually elsewhere in the universe.

That'd explain why God interacted with us so much in biblical times but not since. He's moved on to his next project.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-05-2007, 11:00 AM
it is our belief in the Quran and Muhammad sallallahi alaihi wasallaam which leads us to our answers, and which moulds our logic into the understanding we have arrived at to reach the said answers. Atheists have no manual/instructions/guidance so they will tamper with ideologies till the end of time.


To us it makes perfect sense that Allah is indeed the creator of everything, and this world is indeed a test and we will one day return to Allah to answer for our misdeeds thus creating a perfect justice system but to the atheist the Quran or Hadith are not authentic, they see little justice and corruption is rampant. The ideologies atheists have are never ending, this pool of confusion will continue till the end of time...
Reply

ranma1/2
09-05-2007, 12:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
it is our belief in the Quran and Muhammad sallallahi alaihi wasallaam which leads us to our answers, and which moulds our logic into the understanding we have arrived at to reach the said answers. Atheists have no manual/instructions/guidance so they will tamper with ideologies till the end of time.

.....The ideologies atheists have are never ending, this pool of confusion will continue till the end of time...

I think, "and im sure many other atheists agree" that we have the ability to improve ourselves this way. If your stuck with dogma, your stuck with it even if its bad or outdated. So sure you have yours and it will stay however your taught its supposed to be. We can improve and adapt. We can grow and gain.
Reply

root
09-05-2007, 01:21 PM
Many atheists manage to be good without god. Jails tend to reflect the society and faith balance that they serve, they are not filled by athiests but tend to represent the belief percentage of it's cultures.

Levels of religiosity by countries make stark reading though, contries with high levels of religious belief and worship tend to have higher rates of murder, high infant mortality, STD's & teen pregnancy.

A recent study (in press) indicates that non-religious people tend to have greater altruism
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
09-05-2007, 01:23 PM
^ i understand your logic, but the way i see it is that you will only reach the best stage, and will have improved the most which is within your capacity, when you find islam and realise what is and has always been right in front of your eyes which is the truth.

only experience will tell, only circumstances will hint to us just what lifes true purpose is.

to put it simply, i believe we all have been looking for whats most correct all our lives, but to find it takes certain actions, whoever performs those actions are bestowed a certain understanding, and all understanding is from Allah.


as the great imam ash-shafi'ee had stated quite correctly:

"knowledge (of truth and islam) is not bestowed upon a rebel (one who sins and exceeds the boundaries)".


an atheist will remain an atheist until God chooses otherwise :)


truelly Allah guides whom he wills
Reply

wilberhum
09-09-2007, 09:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim

an atheist will remain an atheist until God chooses otherwise :)
Will atheists go to hell?
Reply

Md Mashud
09-09-2007, 09:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Will atheists go to hell?
Hang of wilberhaum, IbnAbdulHakim was a bit ambigous with his post :) - so before you go onto how can God send you to hell if its up to him if you go to hell or not by making you a believer, I shall step in :skeleton:, sorry I know Im a party pooper:(.

Truth is, everyone has free will to be atheist or not, Allah won't **** you to be atheist, but rather ego/closed mindedness/arrogance/pride/hypocricy - not saying you have these characteristics but those are the characteristics that will **** one to hell.

What it means by Allah will guide whom he wills, should not be seen as that a person is predetermined by Allahs choice if they are a believer or not. :skeleton:

The blanked out word begins with D and ends with N and has an AM in the middle :O.
Reply

wilberhum
09-09-2007, 10:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
Hang of wilberhaum, IbnAbdulHakim was a bit ambigous with his post :) - so before you go onto how can God send you to hell if its up to him if you go to hell or not by making you a believer, I shall step in :skeleton:, sorry I know Im a party pooper:(.

Truth is, everyone has free will to be atheist or not, Allah won't **** you to be atheist, but rather ego/closed mindedness/arrogance/pride/hypocricy - not saying you have these characteristics but those are the characteristics that will **** one to hell.

What it means by Allah will guide whom he wills, should not be seen as that a person is predetermined by Allahs choice if they are a believer or not. :skeleton:

The blanked out word begins with D and ends with N and has an AM in the middle :O.
Well done,

party pooper :D
Reply

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-12-2015, 10:49 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-25-2009, 03:18 AM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-17-2007, 09:17 PM
  4. Replies: 81
    Last Post: 09-21-2006, 09:24 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!