Atheism

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Dark chocolate contain antioxidants called Catechins and Phenols. These antioxidants could prevent heart diseases and cancer... you can have it as a part of a balanced diet... if you follow it correctly you might even lose weight on it....

Well, I certainly didn't know that. I stand corrected.

the long and happy life bit... well no one can guarantee you that... not even disbelief in God

True.

Terminal patients have been known to go into remission so who knows maybe your grandad might recover and play with you again....

Not from what he's got. Sad story, it has to be said.

God spells Hope, guidance, and personal fulfillment... even if he "doesn't exist" there would be not much to lose for having believed as you go into the scary dark nothing of nonexistence......

A reformulation of Pascal's Wager. I think missing out on lots of fun in this life could be considered a lot to lose...

if you believe in science then science states those who have faith live longer, happier lives... and deal better with illness... their brain is known to secrete sertonin the same chemical found in anti-depressants...

True. Faith is recognised as conferring a genuine survival advantage to believers.

a natural opiate is this amazing thing called faith...

Certainly. As Karl Marx said, "It [religion] is the opium of the people."

Your thoughts seem to have coincided remarkably with atheism in this post!

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,


Well, I certainly didn't know that. I stand corrected.



True.



Not from what he's got. Sad story, it has to be said.



A reformulation of Pascal's Wager. I think missing out on lots of fun in this life could be considered a lot to lose...



True. Faith is recognised as conferring a genuine survival advantage to believers.



Certainly. As Karl Marx said, "It [religion] is the opium of the people."

Your thoughts seem to have coincided remarkably with atheism in this post!

Peace

you put so much value on the words of philosophers who support your argument... you can replace them with a different set to make a counter view... Also celebrated "thinkers" (Descartes)the not so holy figures that we hold in high regard as if they coined immaculate thoughts.... Why is it etched in stone a sentence as religion is the opium of the people? Could not the same be said of work? Or play or sleep? do we not secrete endorphin a known opiate as an after math of a serious workout , melatonin, & other derviatves of opium that governs our sleep wake cycle? Why do you chose the words of people to make an "intelligent" argument against God? when their own thoughts are naturally flawed, moreover they are no better than you to pave the way...Where are they now to tell you of the so-called truth they saw as the rest dwelled driven and blindfolded? I am the antithesis of Atheism so No my thoughts aren't remarkably coinciding with it...... I don't think the one who created this universe cares for our acknowledgment... it was a thought of what it is you'd have to lose?---Ever saw an atheist on his death bed? I have.... you'd be amazed at how one look in their eye foretells ... they wished they had a do over!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

you put so much value on the words of philosophers who support your argument...

I've studied their works, analysed them and come to my own conclusions. I don't agree with everything Karl Marx said, but on the matter of religion I think he was dead right. I agree with lots of things Pascal said, but when it comes to his wager I think he was dead wrong. What's wrong with that?

you can replace them with a different set to make a counter view...

Go on then. Let's see how their arguments stand up.

Also celebrated "thinkers" (Descartes)the not so holy figures that we hold in high regard as if they coined immaculate thoughts....

First of all, what is Descartes doing in this sentence? Are you familiar with his work?

Secondly, what is an immaculate thought, apart from a category mistake?

Why is it etched in stone a sentence as religion is the opium of the people?

I was not aware that it was. It's from Marx's Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right.

Could not the same be said of work? Or play or sleep?

Of course.

Why do you chose the words of people to make an "intelligent" argument against God?

I think you chose them.

when their own thoughts are naturally flawed, moreover they are no better than you to pave the way...

Thank you for crediting me as being of similar calibre to some great thinkers, but I would have to demur.

Where are they now to tell you of the so-called truth they saw as the rest dwelled driven and blindfolded?

Pascal and Marx are dead. Does that detract from the validity (or not) of their arguments? In any case, their thoughts live on in the texts they left behind.

I am the antithesis of Atheism so No my thoughts aren't remarkably coinciding with it......

When you unconsciously quote an atheist philosopher in an attempt to bolster your argument, I'd say the coincidence is remarkable.

it was a thought of what it is you'd have to lose?

Right - Pascal's Wager again. It's an old argument.

Ever saw an atheist on his death bed? I have.... you'd be amazed at how one look in their eye foretells ... they wished they had a do over!

I haven't seen an atheist on his death bed. Remember that all atheists are different, though. Some go to their deaths perfectly cheerfully, with no fear of hellfire (e.g. David Hume, Bertrand Russell). I have no doubt that I will follow their course when my time comes.

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,


I've studied their works, analysed them and come to my own conclusions. I don't agree with everything Karl Marx said, but on the matter of religion I think he was dead right. I agree with lots of things Pascal said, but when it comes to his wager I think he was dead wrong. What's wrong with that?



Go on then. Let's see how their arguments stand up.



First of all, what is Descartes doing in this sentence? Are you familiar with his work?

Secondly, what is an immaculate thought, apart from a category mistake?



I was not aware that it was. It's from Marx's Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right.



Of course.


I think you chose them.



Thank you for crediting me as being of similar calibre to some great thinkers, but I would have to demur.



Pascal and Marx are dead. Does that detract from the validity (or not) of their arguments? In any case, their thoughts live on in the texts they left behind.



When you unconsciously quote an atheist philosopher in an attempt to bolster your argument, I'd say the coincidence is remarkable.



Right - Pascal's Wager again. It's an old argument.



I haven't seen an atheist on his death bed. Remember that all atheists are different, though. Some go to their deaths perfectly cheerfully, with no fear of hellfire (e.g. David Hume, Bertrand Russell). I have no doubt that I will follow their course when my time comes.

Peace

Yes-- I am familiar with Descartes work as well as the others you mention... we have gone to graduate school as well.... what is the point of sitting here and talking about dead people's work?
we can discuss the Abbasids empire to correggio (jupiter and io), Rothko's Blue Green Blue on Blue Ground to (Zollinger-Ellison Syndrome) with some dextrity-- does my throwing these terms around impress you? if the answer is NO, and I suspect it is... then that is the point I was trying to make... their work lives on, because you choose to loan it credence ... which is something you are entitled to...I personally don't think any human is UNERRING as to hold his/her word/philosophy as truth ..
Now, I am glad some magic exists in your life that you were there at the moment David Hume and Bertrand Russell passed on, and saw them peaceful and assured as they slipped into the nothing .... Guess miracles exist after all???....
Atheists if they wish to choose a decent life that is, and I assume you regard yourself as a decent human being?... have borrowed greatly from religion for without it we wouldn't have the measure or laws if you will by which to set the standards for decency ... peace to you as well

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

[dougmusr]

I personally don't think any human is UNERRING as to hold his/her word/philosophy as truth

Were the prophets human?

[جوري]

Were the prophets human?

sure they were... you are on a roll tonight ey?-- all that deductive reasoning? they are human but their message is clearly divine... you'd have to speak Aramaic/Hebrew or Arabic to appreciate the brilliance more so for the period of time in which they were revealed and the life and status of those who revealed them....now here is a q for you... do you always draw satisfaction out of simplistic conclusions?

[dougmusr]

sure they were... you are on a roll tonight ey?-- all that deductive reasoning? they are human but their message is clearly divine... you'd have to speak Aramaic/Hebrew or Arabic to appreciate the brilliance more so for the period of time in which they were revealed and the life and status of those who revealed them....now here is a q for you... do you always draw satisfaction out of simplistic conclusions?

Actually I don't, but I do find that most of the answers I get are simplistic answers. I admit I am an engineer, and as such I analyze. I do this for the Bible as well as for the Quran.

If the Quran says Christ was strengthened by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is part of the Christian Trinity, and Muslims say they don't believe in the Trinity, then it would seem to me that there should be an explanation of why God chose to refer to the Holy Spirit in relation to Christ and not to other prophets.

If the Quran says Christ was the Messiah, and no other prophet is expressly referred to as the Messiah, then there must be a reason why God put the word in there.

In general, when I ask a clear question, I usually get an "I don't understand the question" answer. I have been impressed with your knowledge on many topics and enjoy exchanging posts.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Yes-- I am familiar with Descartes work as well as the others you mention...

OK, great - so maybe now you can explain what purpose you had in mentioning his name.

we have gone to graduate school as well....

What are you implying?

what is the point of sitting here and talking about dead people's work?

In what way does the fact that they're dead invalidate their arguments? (I already asked you this).

we can discuss the Abbasids empire to correggio (jupiter and io), Rothko's Blue Green Blue on Blue Ground to (Zollinger-Ellison Syndrome) with some dextrity-- does my throwing these terms around impress you? if the answer is NO, and I suspect it is... then that is the point I was trying to make...

No, this doesn't impress me, because none of this is relevant to our discussion. I'm not trying to impress you by throwing names around randomly - what is important is the arguments, not one of which you have addressed.

their work lives on, because you choose to loan it credence ... which is something you are entitled to...I personally don't think any human is UNERRING as to hold his/her word/philosophy as truth ..

Of course not, but so what? If you have objections to any of the arguments I've put forward, then please announce them.

Now, I am glad some magic exists in your life that you were there at the moment David Hume and Bertrand Russell passed on, and saw them peaceful and assured as they slipped into the nothing .... Guess miracles exist after all???....

When did I make this absurd claim? In fact, I said the direct opposite - I've never seen an atheist on their death bed.

Atheists if they wish to choose a decent life that is, and I assume you regard yourself as a decent human being?... have borrowed greatly from religion for without it we wouldn't have the measure or laws if you will by which to set the standards for decency ... peace to you as well

I don't deny for a moment that religion has done important and valuable things for humanity, simply that it is based on supernatural assertions with no basis.

In this discussion I've answered every one of your points directly. You have not done the same in return. I've asked you questions that you have left unanswered. If you are familiar with the works of Descartes, Pascal, Hume, Marx and Russell, then why not use their arguments to support your view, instead of just saying, in effect, "they're all dead humans so their ideas aren't important and they must be wrong"?

Peace

[جوري]

Actually I don't, but I do find that most of the answers I get are simplistic answers. I admit I am an engineer, and as such I analyze. I do this for the Bible as well as for the Quran.

If the Quran says Christ was strengthened by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is part of the Christian Trinity, and Muslims say they don't believe in the Trinity, then it would seem to me that there should be an explanation of why God chose to refer to the Holy Spirit in relation to Christ and not to other prophets.

If the Quran says Christ was the Messiah, and no other prophet is expressly referred to as the Messiah, then there must be a reason why God put the word in there.

In general, when I ask a clear question, I usually get an "I don't understand the question" answer. I have been impressed with your knowledge on many topics and enjoy exchanging posts.

Lots of messangers were strngtherned by the holy spirit... Moses... Mohammed just to name a couple...... 2nd I already gave a thousand and one place in which the word annointed was used such as even annointing a lamp, or angels... So I fail to see how the whole of christianity falls on "annointed" and "holy spirit" if you are getting simplistic answers.. it is because a great detail was expended at some point which you obviousely didn't read... you may refer to previous posts to see multiple useages for annointed and the holy spirit...... =)
peace

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

On topic please! This thread is on atheism.

:w:

[جوري]

Greetings,


OK, great - so maybe now you can explain what purpose you had in mentioning his name.

Descartes meditations argues for God's existence ... if you are interested you may read his work... I am not going to sit here and discuss all of them with you so that you can argue against them ad nauseum .... have not the time nor interest really...

What are you implying?.

Implying that you should get off your high horse I am not impressed with your colorful wording.......

In what way does the fact that they're dead invalidate their arguments? (I already asked you this).?.

Simple they have not proven that there isn't a GOd... if they have perhaps you care to share it?

o, this doesn't impress me, because none of this is relevant to our discussion. I'm not trying to impress you by throwing names around randomly - what is important is the arguments, not one of which you have addressed.).?.

"A reformulation of Pascal's Wager. I think missing out on lots of fun in this life could be considered a lot to lose...
Certainly. As Karl Marx said, "It [religion] is the opium of the people."

Your thoughts seem to have coincided remarkably with atheism in this post!"

This is all the deep discussion we have gotten out of you---
So actually you have done exactly that-- thrown names around, I haven't seen nor read any deep discussions as to per your afore mentioned philsophes...I see you have lots of time to cut and paste quote and unquote around my statments and that hardly qualifes that you have made a valid point......

Of course not, but so what? If you have objections to any of the arguments I've put forward, then please announce them..).?.

Again, I don't see arguments... I see some wikipeida article to support a statment I have made....

I don't deny for a moment that religion has done important and valuable things for humanity, simply that it is based on supernatural assertions with no basis...

Same actually goes for the argument against God's existence.... it is nonsensical .... can't be supported.... If you can't support that he doesn't exist then you shouldn't question those who know he does....Everything else will be wild theories that will border upon insane put in pseudo-scientific wording....

In this discussion I've answered every one of your points directly. You have not done the same in return. I've asked you questions that you have left unanswered. If you are familiar with the works of Descartes, Pascal, Hume, Marx and Russell, then why not use their arguments to support your view, instead of just saying, in effect, "they're all dead humans so their ideas aren't important and they must be wrong"?

Peace

I haven't seen an answer to any Question... Again I have seen you throw some names around, and a wikipedia link. What do you hope to gain at this stage from this discussion? you'll distill more words down, to reach some finite conclusion ... you'll throw in every character in the world to loan support a sentence ... fickle to some as they may be and at the very end you'll not be able to prove that there isn't a God ... anymore than anyone here is able to prove to you that there is.... where do you want to go with this? Because I honestly lost interest yesterday at 7PM.... There is nothing more about this that I wish or care to impart.....
Good luck with your life I wish you the very best.....

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Descartes meditations argues for God's existence ...

He does. His "Proof of God" is also found in his Discourse on Method.

if you are interested you may read his work...

Have done.

I am not going to sit here and discuss all of them with you so that you can argue against them ad nauseum .... have not the time nor interest really...

Descartes is a hugely important philosopher, but his arguments for the existence of god are now regarded as the weakest points of his work. However, since you don't want to discuss them, never mind.

Implying that you should get off your high horse I am not impressed with your colorful wording.......

I'm not trying to impress you, I'm simply trying to put forward my view. This is a thread on atheism, after all.

Simple they have not proven that there isn't a GOd... if they have perhaps you care to share it?

They haven't, you're quite right, but my question is what does this have to do with them being dead? If someone is dead should we automatically not take any notice of their ideas?

this is all the deep discussion we have gotten out of you---

You made an argument along the lines of Pascal's Wager; I gave a common objection to it. You claimed faith was an opiate; I pointed out how this coincided with the view of an atheist philosopher. You claimed that atheists get nervous on their death beds; I gave you two examples to the contrary. I asked what an "immaculate thought" was besides being a category mistake, and received no answer.

None of these objections and questions have been answered.

so actually you have done exactly that-- thrown names aroun, I haven't seen nor read any deep discussions as to your afore mentioned deep philsophes...I see you have lots of time to cut and paste quote and unquote around my statments and that hardly qualifes that you have made a valid point......

I think you misunderstand the nature of philosophy. It doesn't have to be "deep" (whatever that means) to be effective.

Again, I don't see arguments... I see some wikipeida article to support a statment I have made....

If you read all of the article, you'll find that the list of objections to Pascal's Wager is huge. In short, it's a discredited argument, and the wikipedia article does not support your statement at all.

Same actually goes for the argument against God's existence.... it is nonsensical .... can't be supported.... If you can't support that he doesn't exist then you shouldn't question those who know he does....

You believe that god exists; you do not know it. Faith is not the same as knowledge.

What do you hope to gain at this stage from this discussion?

I hope to show that the atheist position is rational, and I was hoping to engage you in a discussion - you keep on posting, but you say you're not interested, so it's unlikely we'll make any progress.

you'll distill more words down, to reach some finite conclusion ... you'll call on every character in the world to support your claims ... fickle to some as they may be and at the very end you'll not be able to prove that there isn't a God ... anymore than anyone here is able to prove to you that there is....

Proof is not the issue here. No-one expects proof on this question either way, least of all me, since we're talking about beliefs. I believe that Martin Scorsese is the best living film director, but I can't prove it.

If you don't want to carry on the discussion, that's fine, but at least be aware that serious questions can be asked over god's existence. If you don't have any answers to them, then think carefully about why it is that you believe in god.

Peace

[QuranStudy]

How was mass and energy created?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

How was mass and energy created?

I've no idea.

The Big Bang Theory is of course the most widely accepted explanation among scientists, but nobody really knows for sure.

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,
They haven't, you're quite right, but my question is what does this have to do with them being dead? If someone is dead should we automatically not take any notice of their ideas?

I don't put philsophy in high regard... at least not higher than relgion... I consider that some of them have laid to waste their life... but that is just me .....

You made an argument along the lines of Pascal's Wager; I gave a common objection to it. You claimed faith was an opiate; I pointed out how this coincided with the view of an atheist philosopher. You claimed that atheists get nervous on their death beds; I gave you two examples to the contrary. I asked what an "immaculate thought" was besides being a category mistake, and received no answer.?

yes interestingly you said they don't get nervous, yet weren't around to prove that the two you mentioned weren't besides nervous wasn't the word I used, you denied you were there-- yet here you are again asserting it... so which is it?
2ndly a category mistake is an error of logic where concepts belonging to different categories are inappropriately related by defintion... so how is it related to an immaculate thought?

I think you misunderstand the nature of philosophy. It doesn't have to be "deep" (whatever that means) to be effective..?

in order for something to be effective ... there has to be something positive gained some appropriate end result ... if we get no more an end result than we would let's see being Theists then I don't see how it is effective.…

You believe that god exists; you do not know it. Faith is not the same as knowledge...?

I believe God exists and I know it ridiculous of you to make the assumption that it is on blind faith ... you'd use book to prove your point to his nonexistence and so would I... remarkably much of science which by the way is my specialty coincides with what it in the Quran...Either way I am not obliged to tell you how I arrived to my own conclusions...

Proof is not the issue here. No-one expects proof on this question either way, least of all me, since we're talking about beliefs. I believe that Martin Scorsese is the best living film director, but I can't prove it....?

This is a subjective opinion...... And a simplistic one to draw in assimilation of something as complex as divinity......

If you don't want to carry on the discussion, that's fine, but at least be aware that serious questions can be asked over god's existence. If you don't have any answers to them, then think carefully about why it is that you believe in god.

Peace

I'd have to recommend for your person some Quranic reading and in Arabic in order that you make the assertion that he doesn't exist... everything else is futile... you'd have to start with a book anyhow to draw an appropriate conclsuion if it is one about religion then you should start with a religion book...

[جوري]

on a seperate note
... When religion/meditations or faith influences the secretion of certain neurotransmitters as to release compounds similar to those in antidepressants, I think it should be considered a good thing ... in fact according to many scientific articles one I just posted a few days ago it is... ..... An endogenous immune enhancer ... if it is very effective and if "evolution" or whatever forces you believe in chose it to be effective it is because there is an inherent need for it, a need for spirituality a need for God ..... the same way your senses and other functions are important and needed..... peace

[czgibson]

Greetings,

yes interestingly you said they don't get nervous, yet weren't around to prove that the two you mentioned weren't besides nervous wasn't the word I used, you denied you were there-- yet here you are again asserting it... so which is it?

I assert this because I've read accounts of their death bed scenes. Hume's is reported by Boswell, and Russell's is reported in a biography which I can't locate at the moment. Here is a book that refutes the idea that unbelievers have second thoughts about their beliefs when close to death by giving reports on their last moments. You may or may not want to read it, but here it is nonetheless: Infidel Death-Beds.

2ndly a category mistake is an error of logic where concepts belonging to different categories are inappropriately related by defintion... so how is it related to an immaculate thought?

How exactly can a thought be immaculate, and what do you mean by the phrase anyway?

in order for something to be effective ... there has to be something positive gained some appropriate end result ... if we get no more an end result than we would let's see being Theists then I don't see how it is effective.…

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying philosophy doesn't have an end result?

I believe God exists and I know it ridiculous of you to make that assumption

What assumption?

... you'd use book to prove your point to his nonexistence and so would I...

You'd prove his non-existence? I'm surprised!

God's existence could only be proved by him being observed by somebody. His non-existence could never be proved.

remarkably much of science which by the way is my specialty coincides with what it in the Quran...

I've heard this claim many times, and I've never been convinced that it represents anything out of the ordinary.

This is a subjective opinion...... And a simplistic one to draw in assimilation of something as complex as divinity......

Belief in god is also a subjective opinion. That's kind of my point.

I'd have to recommend for your person some Quranic reading and in Arabic in order that you make the assertion that he doesn't exist... everything else is futile...

Is it impossible to believe in god without having read the Qur'an in Arabic?!

you'd have to start with a book anyhow to draw an appropriate conclsuion if it is one about religion then you should start with a religion book...

I've read lots of books about religion. I find it to be a very interesting human phenomenon.

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,


I assert this because I've read accounts of their death bed scenes. Hume's is reported by Boswell, and Russell's is reported in a biography which I can't locate at the moment. Here is a book that refutes the idea that unbelievers have second thoughts about their beliefs when close to death by giving reports on their last moments. You may or may not want to read it, but here it is nonetheless: Infidel Death-Beds.

Would rather take my eye witness account of it rather than a refutation article.. I have attended countless autopsies and tried needlessly beating on someone's chest in hopes of bringing them back... I was there when they "hallucinated" and when they were fearful... so why the need for your article?

How exactly can a thought be immaculate, and what do you mean by the phrase anyway?

lol you are funny--- a dictionary defintion that isn't in concert with your idea of "category mistake" are we arguing semantics or defintions? what is the point of this? see it as it relates to the original argument...

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying philosophy doesn't have an end result?

Most I have encountered yes-- if I remember any crap from my philosophy 101--- lots of it was junk... and bordering upon Greek mythology--

God's existence could only be proved by him being observed by somebody. His non-existence could never be proved.?

well I observe him in everything around me so there is where you are wrong. I take something like this

فَإِذَا انشَقَّتِ السَّمَاء فَكَانَتْ وَرْدَةً كَالدِّهَانِ {37}
[Shakir 55:37] And when the heaven is rent asunder, and then becomes red like red hide."
the word "وَرْدَةً" literally means Rose--Prophet mohammed wasn't an astronmer or an embryologist or a scientest by any mean, this alone is enough for me---except there is so much more if you were looking!
By the way the above photo image is from NASA not computer generated!

I've heard this claim many times, and I've never been convinced that it represents anything out of the ordinary..?

That is too bad---

Belief in god is also a subjective opinion. That's kind of my point..

we have also made the point that it was a simplistic conclusion on your behalf... like comparing apples and oranges....

Is it impossible to believe in god without having read the Qur'an in Arabic?!..

Not impossible... it depends on how deep you want to go with your understanding however...

I've read lots of books about religion. I find it to be a very interesting human phenomenon.

Lots of books aren't the one book--- but anything to ultimately support your view you will find--- I could read a book about Suppurativa Hidradenoma but it wouldn't be the same as experiencing it... or having appropriate tissue to examine to confirm what it is in concert with what I have read... more over I can be getting one authors view... is the cut he made sagittal? transverse?coronal?...which one of these views are right? wouldn't I have to read as much as I can to get every possible account of how it may present, and then compare it to my eye witness view then draw my own conculsions?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Right - I'm giving up on this. You obviously aren't interested in having a serious discussion, so good day to you.

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,

Right - I'm giving up on this. You obviously aren't interested in having a serious discussion, so good day to you.

Peace

I always enjoy when someone makes an "obvious" or a "serious," conclusion about another person as if holding the key to their psyche--just because they can't handle a different point of view; they prefer to get lost in pre-formed semantics and strongly support it with an ailing philosophy to draw a pseudo-intelligent understanding of the world around them....
Good day to you as well...

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

God's existence could only be proved by him being observed by somebody.

If the existence of something was proven by being able to observe it, then solipsism would be refuted. I don't think that is the case.

[Woodrow]

If the existence of something was proven by being able to observe it, then solipsism would be refuted. I don't think that is the case.

Where is a solipsist when you need one. Now I am wondering if a solipsist would have a website, refuting refutations against solipsism.

Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that "I am the only mind which exists," or "My mental states are the only mental states." However, the sole survivor of a nuclear holocaust might truly come to believe in either of these propositions without thereby being a solipsist. Solipsism is therefore more properly regarded as the doctrine that, in principle, "existence" means for me my existence and that of my mental states. Existence is everything that I experience -- physical objects, other people, events and processes -- anything that would commonly be regarded as a constituent of the space and time in which I coexist with others and is necessarily construed by me as part of the content of my consciousness. For the solipsist, it is not merely the case that he believes that his thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only thoughts, experiences, and emotions. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own. In short, the true solipsist understands the word "pain," for example, to mean "my pain." He cannot accordingly conceive how this word is to be applied in any sense other than this exclusively egocentric one.

Quoted from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/solipsis.htm

[czgibson]

Greetings,

If the existence of something was proven by being able to observe it, then solipsism would be refuted. I don't think that is the case.

Good point! I hadn't thought of that. In that case I'd better revise my earlier statement about god's existence being provable.

How about: observing god would give us good grounds for believing in his existence?

Peace

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Good point! I hadn't thought of that. In that case I'd better revise my earlier statement about god's existence being provable.

How about: observing god would give us good grounds for believing in his existence?

It's no longer flawed though it suffers a high degree of subjectivity. The important point to note is the varying standards and conditions one can draw for acceptable evidence, which - if take to an extreme - lead to something like solipsism. I would argue that human beings already have sufficient grounds to believe in God though we cannot see Him just as we have already accepted many other concepts and entities which are unobservable. In science, the entities and theories are accepted for the explanation they provide to the observed phenomena. If one clings to unwarranted conditions, they will remain uncertain about whether anything exists, let alone God!

Peace :)

[Salah ad-din]

In the sun, moon and stars, in the alternation of day and night there are signs for those who understand.

We had to have been created somehow. We have to had been rooted from somewhere.

We our self is proof that the The Higher Power obviously exist..

[Joe98]

We had to have been created somehow.

Yes!

We our self is proof that the The Higher Power obviously exist.

No it isn't. You dont understand something and therefore presume a supernatural being must exist.

[Pygoscelis]

First, I'll out myself. I am an agnostic atheist (I lack any belief in the supernatural as a default position and see no reason to change that)

2 points I'd like to make here.

First, I am always amazed in the evolution vs creation debates at how it never gets past "The universe is so complex that it must have been created". Why do we never go the next step?

Granted, for the sake of argument, that the universe is created how does that in any way prove that it was created by a God or by your God in particular? Seems to me just as likely that it was created by aliens or by some being who did it by mistake and is not aware of it. Who knows it could even be created by some being that'll correct its mistake if we make it aware of it. So prayer could be dangerous!!

Second, I am firmly convinced that the staunch atheist will NEVER be convinced that God exists short of God taking away the atheists free will and forcing him to believe. Other "evidence" will be seen as hallucination or signs that he is going insane.

I am also convinced that no argument from logic or reason will convince the staunch theist that God doesn't exist. Any such arguments will be seen as attacks on God and evil etc.

The simple fact of the matter is that theism/atheism isn't something we adopt out of logic or reason. It is something that we are either programmed to believe at an age when we don't question or that we adopt primarily due to emotional need.

If you need to believe that those who do bad things will be punished and those who do good will be rewarded, if you need to believe that you will live forever, if you need to believe that there is an inherent higher purpose and that things happen for a reason, you are likely to become a theist.

If you are naturally suspect, if you need proof and hard evidence to believe something, if logic and reason are more important to you than comfort and purpose, if you can tolerate the idea of those who do wrong never being caught and those who do right never being recognized, if you are an individualist and place original thought over social cohesion, you are likely to become an atheist.

I think these factors, amongst others, have FAR more to do with whether you are a believer or not than any arguments or "facts" that may be presented.

[Pygoscelis]

I wonder if the holy texts (Bible, Quran, Torah, etc) could themselves be used as evidence against the existence of their claimed Gods. Why would a God need a book to tell you what he wants you to know. Why couldn't he simply make you know the text and ideas. He wouldn't have to make you believe in the ideas, just know them, hence still allowing your free will. Why rely on a middle man, especially a mortal one, who may get something wrong?

I think an argument could be made that a real God wouldn't have a holy text. THis just ocurred to me.

[جوري]

I don't see anything "super natural" about God ... anymore than super natural impossibility of things coming into being from nothing but a few organic elements ... well, where did they come from?...... or the super natural impossibility of them evolving into complex lives, each differentiating into something that something else isn't ... what is the mathematical probability of that happening really and being all a random chance? The super natural impossibility of them not only working properly but being so visually appealing ... if the whole point of the scientific world is functionality then why all the beauty? Until atheists prove without a reasonable doubt scientifically, mathematically, probability wise how all these things came to be on their own using "logic and reason" the rest of us theists will just continue to believe in God.

2nd point of why doesn't God simply makes you know his texts? well what really is the point of that? God if we are to accept his supreme being, would not need our validation or approval, in fact I think it would be quite the opposite, we would be at a loss not seeking him ... what would be the point of our existence here on earth if it were all ready made? Would be heaven no? all the secrets of the universe would have unraveled.... I mean every story has a plot? and such is the plight of mankind ... to think, to conclude, to seek knowledge. Is there a God or is there not a God? something we'll all find out with the advent of our incumbent death one way or the other.......In order for you to use the texts (scriptures) to disprove God you'd have to read and discern them ... if the case can be made against God using the books against him ... it would have already been done, and I am sure it would have been a NY times best seller ... fact is no one has.... in fact the books seem to be continuation of each other though hundreds of years apart... Guess the rest of you atheists will just have to live with the rest of us theists ... fairy tales and all .......

[Salmaan]

How do you disbelieve in Allah!!!


How do you disbelieve in Allah, seeing that you were dead and He gave you life! Then He will cause you to die, then He will give you life, then unto Him you will return. [Al Qur'an (2:28)]

How do you disbelieve in Allah! How do you commit this act of kufr? How do you cover up this reality (the reality of Allah), seeing that you were dead - you were lifeless, not existing, not known or mentioned - and He gave you life?

How do you disbelieve in Allah! How with unlimited number of question marks and exclamation marks. This statement demonstrates how strange and unnatural this act of kufr (disbelief) is, being aware that one did not exist before and thus ignoring the Cause of existence. How would you disbelieve in the One Who gave you life and will cause you to die? And not only that but will give you life again and then calls you for accountability.

How do you disbelieve in Allah! How do you inflate yourselves with false pride, which is the main key of kufr [1], knowing that you were dead and will certainly go back to that state? Being aware of your beginning and of your end, and seeing that you have no control over both, you are indeed expected to be humble without having one iota of pride. How do you disbelieve in Allah! How come you are unthankful to the One Who endowed you with the bounty of life and what it contains! Who endowed you with the faculties of hearing, seeing and understanding. In fact, humans are completely enveloped by God's favors. Thankfulness is the befitting and expected act from you not kufr (ungratefulness).

When we see an individual treating his or her mother badly, we become astonished and hate that kind of behavior. Surely our astonishment and hatefulness of such behavior increase when we realize the continuous effort of the mother and the care she provides her child with. The action of such individual is clearly a severe act of ungratefulness. And if this is the case, then what about the One Who created us and our mothers, the One Who provides for us and for our mothers? It becomes then clear that the act of ignoring the favors of Allah (glory be to Him) exceeds all limits of injustice and ungratefulness. Ignoring the favors of the Creator is surely a crime beyond description.

In fact, if Allah is not thanked whom else will be thanked? If Allah is not obeyed whom else will be obeyed? And it Allah is not worshiped whom else will be worshiped?

How do you disbelieve in Allah! How do you disbelieve in the One Who is that great (all greatness) and, Who is that able (all ability)! How do you disbelieve in the One Who brought you to existence and Who is to recreate you after death! How do you disbelieve in the One Who owns you fully and nothing happens in the universe except as a result of His will? He is indeed the One to be conscious of and the One to be respected. How do you disbelieve in the One Whom you will return to for accountability and there is no escape from meeting Him?

Allah is indeed our Owner. We are His property. A property that is completely dependent and is disparately in need of its Owner. And an Owner Who is in no need to His property and His property does not in any way increase His unlimited richness.

How do you disbelieve in Allah! How do you deny the resurrection and accountability, knowing that you were dead and Allah gave you life? It is extremely ignorant to doubt the ability of Allah (glory be to Him) - the One Who originated you to give you life again. And it is also foolish to ignore the seriousness and purposefulness that is ingrained in creation that strongly point out towards eventual accountability.

How do you disbelieve in Allah! How do you commit shirk (worshiping others with Allah or giving the attributes of Allah to others), which is one of the severest forms of kufr, whereas Allah is the only One Who gave you life, the only One that will cause you to die then live again, and the only One that will bring you for full accountability.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) defined shirk saying- "That you make somebody or something similar to Allah, while He created you." In the Qur'an Allah (glory be to Him) says: "Yet they ascribe as partners unto Him the jinn . Although He did create them, they falsely, having no knowledge, attributed to Him sons and daughters. Glorified be He and exalted above (all) that, they ascribe (unto Him)," 6:100. We notice here, in the Qur'anic verse and the Prophet's saying, the exclamation about the act of giving the attributes of Allah or describing Him in human terms (attributing to Allah human qualities), while Allah is the Only Creator.

How do you disbelieve in Allah! How do you deny the existence of the Creator, while you are created and surely you have not created yourselves? Also nothingness can not be the Cause of your existence. How do you deny the Cause of your existence? It is like a machine denying the existence of its maker and not obeying his or her commands.

It the universe and what it contains is not enough for any sane individual, proving the existence of the Creator, then there are only two possibilities. First, the individual's mind is not functioning right, which means that the individual's faculty of understanding is shielded by various desires and self interest. The second possibility is that there is a problem of conception. If the individual views God, for example, as a trinity or as a white bearded being located at one of the far planets or stars, then how would one prove the existence of such being!

In reality Atheism (denying the existence of God) grows and flourishes in environments or situations where wrong beliefs are being inherited or adopted. In a society where mysticism, for example, is prevalent and being practiced one would certainly find people reacting properly or improperly to such nonsense, going to various directions like Atheism, Agnosticism or rarely the correct belief and understanding.

At times one hears some Muslims talking about the difficulty to prove the existence of God which is indeed unexpected and saddening. This kind of claim should only come from people following and promoting other belief systems that are not based on understanding and evidence. This is because if such people prove the existence of God logically, they would be unable to continue this process for unproven illogical other aspects, like for example, the trinity or the attributes claimed to be acquired by the so called saints.

Proving the existence of God is so simple to demonstrate and understand. One does not need to have a special experience, study or training. What is needed is simply the life experience of being here surrounded with the universe and its components (including humans and their life supporting systems).

Some people also claim that the belief in God is something internal; that is based on one's internal feelings. Surely the human nature, the built-in nature (the Fitrah), is a factor in the individual confirmation of the existence of God, but it is certainly not the only evidence. Furthermore, the human's built-in nature can be covered up with all kinds of whims and desires and thus becomes unable to function property. Therefore, depending on the inner feelings as the sole factor of proving the existence of God is clearly erroneous.

What can be said here is that the Fitrah, the uncorrupted built-in nature of the human, resonates happily with the Truth. It resonates greatly with the overwhelming evidence proving the existence of the Creator and describing His unimaginable great attributes.

[Pygoscelis]

Until atheists prove without a reasonable doubt scientifically, mathematically, probability wise how all these things came to be on their own using "logic and reason" the rest of us theists will just continue to believe in God.

I don't doubt that. And of course it is an impossible task and a straw man. The atheist doesn't necesarily believe that these things "came to be on their own". Maybe aliens did it. Maybe these things were not created because they have always been. The atheist doesn't have to know. He isn't making any claim, he's just denying one.

And even if somehow someway the athiest was able to "prove" that these thiings came to be on their own using logic and reason and science etc, I highly doubt many theists would be convinced. As I wrote above the attachment is not one fundamentally based on logic and reason but one based on personality and emotional needs. The same is true for the athiest. You could put God before him directly with a big neon sign and he'd likely think it was an acid trip.

2nd point of why doesn't God simply makes you know his texts?

...

all the secrets of the universe would have unraveled

Just because we inherently knew the claims of the bible we'd have all the secrets of the universe unravelled? That doesnt follow.

if the case can be made against God using the books against him ... it would have already been done, and I am sure it would have been a NY times best seller

Well as noted above I'd wager that no matter what the atheist wrote the theist would dismiss it.

Guess the rest of you atheists will just have to live with the rest of us theists ... fairy tales and all .......

Indeed. And it isn't a problem really. Well not usually anyway. Its only when people start using their religion to tell others how to live that it becomes a problem. Otherwise I say live and let live and I don't care if you believe in Allah, Jehova, Mithra, Zeus, Santa, or the Tooth Fairy. That's your right.

[جوري]

Has anyone forced you to be anything?....... you came to a parochial forum with your own two fingers.....denying a claim in my eyes equates to making a claim ... if theists have not proven to you that there is a God... Atheists haven't proven that there isn't ... we come down pretty evenly matched ... except some of us get a spiritual fulfillment out of believing........which believe it or not has therapeutic benefits, and been proven scientifically. I posted an article a while back about the benefits of faith to grieving/ailing and dying patients ... they had a substantially better outcome health wise and even passing wise compared to those who believe in nothing ... so I suppose even nature/science favors spirituality..... hence it made it the endogenous equivalent of antidepressants....... prayers are known to allow for the production of certain the neurochemicals the same way a prescribed (SSRI) would....
So I guess when it comes down to it, it is sort of like the schizophrenic who displays positive signs and the schizophrenic who displays all negative signs...... you fulfill a quota one way or the other (Believing/not believing) but you are still a schizophrenic!
peace

[Joe98]

…spiritual fulfilment ........which believe it or not has therapeutic benefits, and been proven scientifically……the benefits of faith to grieving/ailing and dying patients ... they had a substantially better outcome …….

Yes, we atheists know of these studies and are aware of the benefits.

The benefit falls into the same category as where you give a patient a piece of sugar and tell them it is medicine – “... they had a substantially better outcome …….”


From this we learn that:

On a Pagan forum you must believe superstitious nonsense and become a pagan

On a Muslim forum you must believe superstitious nonsense and become a become a Muslim

On a Christian forum you must believe superstitious nonsense and become a Christian.

[جوري]

No! it isn't a placebo affect! it is an actual neurochemical release of seratonin similar to that an outcome of a (seratonin reputake inhibitors).... minus the nasty side affects as it is endogenousely produced!
Thank you for those prolfic three lines.... I don't know what the rest of us would have done without your deep insight?
a quick defintion
superstition

Main Entry: su·per·sti·tion
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'sti-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English supersticion, from Anglo-French, from Latin superstition-, superstitio, from superstit-, superstes standing over (as witness or survivor), from super- + stare to stand -- more at STAND
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

[Pygoscelis]

Has anyone forced you to be anything?....... you came to a parochial forum with your own two fingers

Yes. This is true. I didn't say otherwise. Why are you so defensive?

.....denying a claim in my eyes equates to making a claim

Well thats the old broad vs narrow definition of "atheist". Both are used. The former meaning people (like me) who don't accept a belief in God. The latter are people who claim that there is no God. This is really just semantics though I suppose. It leads to some of the silliest exchanges on web forums sometimes.

... if theists have not proven to you that there is a God... Atheists haven't proven that there isn't ... we come down pretty evenly matched

That's a falacy. Because something can't be proven to exist or not exist doesn't make its being and not being equally likely. Would you say that invisible aliens standing next to you right now at this moment are as likely to exist or not? You can't prove they do or don't.

... except some of us get a spiritual fulfillment out of believing........which believe it or not has therapeutic benefits, and been proven scientifically.

This is pretty much exactly what I was stating in the post above. People don't believe or not believe due to logic and reason they do so for emotional and psychological needs to be met.

you fulfill a quota one way or the other (Believing/not believing) but you are still a schizophrenic!
peace

Ok this part of your post is just plain odd. You are stating that everybody is a schizophrenic?

[جوري]

No! I am stating you are in the same boat! whether you display positive or negative signs... it is my own twist on a metaphor!

I find your alien /God claim to be comparing apples and oranges... aliens haven't left us with so much biblical text and miracles in the books which prove to be true modern day... we can get into those but I think it would be pointless from your point of view....

I like your use of the word semantics... I don't wish to be lost in them... this is a 70 page thread... I don't wish to rehash any of it...

Wasn't aware I was being denfensive? My humble apologies... I get less than 3 hours of sleep every day........

[Pygoscelis]

No! it isn't a placebo affect! it is an actual neurochemical release of seratonin

Thank you for those prolfic three lines.... I don't know what the rest of us would have done without your deep insight?
a quick defintion
superstition

Again with the defensive posture. Why? Why the biting sarcasm? Nobody is being impolite towards you. But you are starting to tempt me.

And as for if it is a placebo effect, are you certain that you know what a placebo effect is? And are you aware of the research that has been done on the power of positive thinking? People have raised white blood cell count, changed brain chemistry, etc among other physical manifestations just due to belief or positive outlook, religious or otherwise. Humour also makes a difference.

The factor MOST vital in recovery under this paradigm isn't belief or non belief, but positive outlook and the ability to laugh (including at ones self).

[جوري]

yes quite aware considering it is what I do for a living!

[Pygoscelis]

Oh, on a complete side note, is there any way to edit a post on this forum? I can't find it. I'd have fixed the missed quote mark above if I knew how.

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

Seeing as you are still a limited member, you are not able to edit your posts until you are a full member (after writing 50 posts)... so I edited your post for you :).

(See: http://www.islamicboard.com/faq/limi...imited_mem_ber )

Peace.

[جوري]

An article for now.... I had a better one through the NEJM (New England Journal Of Medicine) I'll have to look for it some other time as I need to go to sleep now ... this was a trial for cardiac Pts. only. unlike the other study, these pts were prayed for and showed an over all 10% improv. over the other non-prayed for group.

The other study I had, included terminal/and dying pts. the outcome and therapeutic index, (P Value) of those having a strong religious system was favorable compared to those who believed in nothing! Also in terms of recovery, healing time and dealing better with bereavement ... in a nutshell, even the body favors spirituality (prayer), though the mind of some is unwilling to accept.......

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION






A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit


William S. Harris, PhD; Manohar Gowda, MD; Jerry W. Kolb, MDiv; Christopher P. Strychacz, PhD; James L. Vacek, MD; Philip G. Jones, MS; Alan Forker, MD; James H. O'Keefe, MD; Ben D. McCallister, MD


Context Intercessory prayer (praying for others) has been a common response to sickness for millennia, but it has received little scientific attention. The positive findings of a previous controlled trial of intercessory prayer have yet to be replicated.

Objective To determine whether remote, intercessory prayer for hospitalized, cardiac patients will reduce overall adverse events and length of stay.

Design Randomized, controlled, double-blind, prospective, parallel-group trial.

Setting Private, university-associated hospital.

Patients Nine hundred ninety consecutive patients who were newly admitted to the coronary care unit (CCU).

Intervention At the time of admission, patients were randomized to receive remote, intercessory prayer (prayer group) or not (usual care group). The first names of patients in the prayer group were given to a team of outside intercessors who prayed for them daily for 4 weeks. Patients were unaware that they were being prayed for, and the intercessors did not know and never met the patients.

Main Outcome Measures The medical course from CCU admission to hospital discharge was summarized in a CCU course score derived from blinded, retrospective chart review.

Results Compared with the usual care group (n=524), the prayer group (n=466) had lower meanSEM weighted (6.350.26 vs 7.130.27; P=.04) and unweighted (2.70.1 vs 3.00.1; P=.04) CCU course scores. Lengths of CCU and hospital stays were not different.

Conclusions Remote, intercessory prayer was associated with lower CCU course scores. This result suggests that prayer may be an effective adjunct to standard medical care.

Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:2273-2278

[Pygoscelis]

Many of these studies now exist. Overall they have shown that prayer CAN make a difference IF (and only if) the person prayed for is a believer and knows or suspects that they are being prayed for.

It is the power of positive thought at work here (as I mentioned in my previous post). The results are comparable to studies on positive thought without religion involved and comparable to the humour studies.

When those who do not know they are being prayed for repeatedly do better than than those who do know they are being prayyed for and those who are told they are being prayed for but then are not prayed for, given random distribution between these three groups, which the above study appears to be lacking then we'll have what I'd call proof that prayer works.

[جوري]

I guess you'll have to re-evaluate your understanding of a double blinded study then!
peace!

[Allah-creation]

Don’t u have Doubts of ur belief that everything happened by chance, do u ever consider the possibility that a supreme being created you. Why do u need 100 Percent soled evidence. You were once a small sperm, and then your body grows with out you being aware of it. You eat food that comes out from the ground, and u see the sun shine every morning providing heat for you. You breath air that contains oxygen and cools you. You drink water that is already created for you. Don’t you have doubts about all this suddenly happening? Do u every stop 4 a moment and think everything was created by a supreme all knowing being rather then it al happened by chance. What’s the better choice? For me I feel happy of believing in God (SWT). I thank him for what he has giving me and I know my thanks are not enough and its only by his mercy that its enough. I would feel bad to just take his blessing and not thank him, just turn my face away. He has giving us humans so many blessing, why don’t u believe in him? Why do u need 100 percent proof?

[KAding]

Don’t u have Doubts of ur belief that everything happened by chance, do u ever consider the possibility that a supreme being created you.

Yes. I have occasional doubts. Not very strong doubts I must admit, and these doubts are about God, not about the reliability of organized religions. How 'God' is defined also determines how much doubt I have.

These doubts are not in the sense of fear either. If there really is a God, I can't imagine he would be so vain to require submission. Surely if he judges, he would do so based on how you behaved and regarded life, and not whether you followed some superficial ritual.

Why do u need 100 Percent soled evidence.

I don't need 100% evidence ;). Some evidence would be great. Although even that is not required for me personally. It must also make some sense at a basic level. I don't think the monotheistic religions make sense. I don't think they can answer some basic questions on the reasons why there is so much suffering.

You were once a small sperm, and then your body grows with out you being aware of it. You eat food that comes out from the ground, and u see the sun shine every morning providing heat for you. You breath air that contains oxygen and cools you. You drink water that is already created for you. Don’t you have doubts about all this suddenly happening? Do u every stop 4 a moment and think everything was created by a supreme all knowing being rather then it al happened by chance. What’s the better choice?

I don't have all the answers. I don't believe Islam or Christianity have all the answers either. I don't accept the basic premise that life must have a purpose beyond life itself. I don't regard water as being created specially for me or for humanity.

Besides, you can't 'choose' for God without believing in him. It is impossible to say: ok, it makes no sense to me, but I'll 'choose' for God anyway just to be safe. Who are you kidding? Surely not God?

For me I feel happy of believing in God (SWT).

Thats good. We are all unique, different things make us happy. There is no one solution or way of life that suits us all.

I thank him for what he has giving me and I know my thanks are not enough and its only by his mercy that its enough. I would feel bad to just take his blessing and not thank him, just turn my face away. He has giving us humans so many blessing, why don’t u believe in him? Why do u need 100 percent proof?

There are many blessings in life indeed. We must thank those that deserve thanks, those around us who made it possible. I can't go thank something I don't believe in.

[InToTheRain]

I don't think the monotheistic religions make sense. I don't think they can answer some basic questions on the reasons why there is so much suffering.

can you elaborate on this? what about it doesn't make sense? what do you mean by you don't think they can answer some basic question on why there is so much suffering? what do you think is causing so much suffering?

[KAding]

can you elaborate on this? what about it doesn't make sense? what do you mean by you don't think they can answer some basic question on why there is so much suffering? what do you think is causing so much suffering?

Why do babies get killed in earthquakes? Why let an individual be born to kill it before it gets a chance to pass 'the test of life'?

Why do so many 'bad' people lead comfortable lives? Why if the God is the God of Islam, why are Muslims in general in such a horrible state right now? With so much war, instability and poverty, while the immoral kafirs are thriving? I just don't get it. At the one hand we have an intervening God we are supposed to thank when good things happen. Yet when bad stuff happens we get vague answers like: "God works in mysterious ways" or "they will suffer in the afterlife". Either God intervenes to help the righteous or he does not.

It just doesn't make sense to me. At least, a whole lot less sense than an explanation that this is all part of the cycle of life, cause and effect on a grand scale. Or that life is inexplicable and so often immoral because of how humans developed, because we evolved from animals.

[Muhammad]

:sl:

Threads merged.

Please use the search facility before making new threads, Jazakallahu Khayr.

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

Hello,

Those are some good questions and I will try to answer to the best of my abilities :)

Why do babies get killed in earthquakes? Why let an individual be born to kill it before it gets a chance to pass 'the test of life'?

If one were to ask questions such as that, then should also question our existance in the first place. Why are we here? What is the purpose of all of this, if there is a purpose in the first place?

The Quran answers this question -

51: 56. And I (Allah) created not the jinns and humans except they should worship Me (Alone).

Ofcourse, since you dont believe in God, that wont be enough to convince you, but consider this. Accept that there is a God, for the sake of this discussion. Why would He create us and then put us on this Earth? We believe that God has a reason to create us and that is that we are to Worsip Him alone. He has made promised us an end, and that end depends solely on what we do here in this life.

We believe that God tests us with these kinds of things. You are aware that we believe in Paradise and Hell. Paradise is expensive. You cannot get into it easily without having being tested.

2: 155. And certainly, We shall test you with something of fear, hunger, loss of wealth, lives and fruits, but give glad tidings to As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.).

29: 2. Do people think that they will be left alone because they say: "We believe," and will not be tested?

3. And We indeed tested those who were before them. And Allah will certainly make (it) known (the truth of) those who are true, and will certainly make (it) known (the falsehood of) those who are liars.

Why do so many 'bad' people lead comfortable lives?

The Prophet (SAW) described this world as a "…prison for the believer and a paradise for the disbeliever." Since, for a materialist who does not believe in God or the hereafter, this world is as good as it gets for him. On the contrary, for the believer who has firm faith in his heart that there is a God and an afterlife, will recognise this world as the lowest existence, unlike the materialist, who lives only for worldly pleasure. When we consider our existence, we must understand that this world is transitory and temporal and that the pleasures of this life are nothing compared to the rewards of the afterlife.

The Prophet (SAW) once compared the two beautifully when he said "The wealth of this world (dunya) is like a drop of water on the head of a pin, compared to the vast oceans of the hereafter." Islam was sent to us as a mercy, to guide us and ensure that we were amongst the successful people in this life and on the day of judgement. This world is a test for a believer who is going to heaven, while it is an all-day and all-night rave for a disbeliever who is going to hell.

Why if the God is the God of Islam, why are Muslims in general in such a horrible state right now? With so much war, instability and poverty, while the immoral kafirs are thriving? I just don't get it.

The state of the Muslims is sad indeed, but we have none to blame but ourselves. We have distanced ourselves from the religion and have turned materialistic and are in harsh pursuit of this world, thus Allah is sending upon us what you see in the world today.

Our state in the world today should not to be used to judge wheter the religion is true or not. The adherants of a religion can misrepresent it by not following it correctly and not acting upon it's teachings.

At the one hand we have an intervening God we are supposed to thank when good things happen. Yet when bad stuff happens we get vague answers like: "God works in mysterious ways" or "they will suffer in the afterlife". Either God intervenes to help the righteous or he does not.

That is not true Islamically. The good is from God and the evil is a result of our own sins.

God says in the Quran:

30: 9 ...Surely Allah (God) wronged them not, but they used to wrong themselves.

Therefore, a Muslim when he recieves good, is thankful and when he is faced with hardship is patient and he is rewarded at both times.

It just doesn't make sense to me. At least, a whole lot less sense than an explanation that this is all part of the cycle of life, cause and effect on a grand scale. Or that life is inexplicable and so often immoral because of how humans developed, because we evolved from animals.

But you would not agree that the computer you are using just came into existance out of nowhere! It had a creator, the company created it in the warehouse did it not? If such a simple thing like a computer needs to be created, how can something as complex as the Human, the animals, the plants, the Sky, the earth, the solar system, the Universe not have a Creator? How can such a perfect balance be achieved on its own? All I ask you to do is just sit down and contemplate the world around you, the human body, universe, the skies, the mountains, water, animals, plants and all the complexity involved in it.

There are many blessings in life indeed. We must thank those that deserve thanks, those around us who made it possible. I can't go thank something I don't believe in.

But the ones you believe created it, or made it possible, did not in fact create it did they? They too found it there for them already on Earth.

If there really is a God, I can't imagine he would be so vain to require submission. Surely if he judges, he would do so based on how you behaved and regarded life, and not whether you followed some superficial ritual.

Why is it a crime to plagiarize? Because you would be stealing from people their words, or for a better choice of words, the product of their intellect, the 'creation' of their intellect. So if a human who writes something deserves credit and needs his work to be attributed back to him, how then can God not command that He be worshipped when He has created all that you see and all that you dont see?

Dont know know that there was a long time when Man was a creature unheard of? And then God created him, and gave him life and places for him all the blessings on earth. Makes everything on this planet subject to him so he can use it. And then He asks you to Worship him Alone. Is that too much to ask?


And when one accepts that there is a God, then that belief leads one to accept that God being All Merciful and Just must send Guidance for Mankind so they can then decide whether they will follow that Guidance or not. That is why God sends Messengers and Prophets so they can guide mankind out of the darkness of this life to the light of the Hereafter.

Regards.

[جوري]

Why do babies get killed in earthquakes? Why let an individual be born to kill it before it gets a chance to pass 'the test of life'?.

wonders await each soul........ live to a hundred or live for a day.......No one Goes unaccounted for......
Maybe God is saving them from other horrible events that would have occured later on in life? It would seem senseless to me as well if I didn't believe in an after life....

Why do so many 'bad' people lead comfortable lives? Why if the God is the God of Islam, why are Muslims in general in such a horrible state right now? .

God is the God of all....... to be a muslim is to submit yourself to God. we don't prescribe to a different God than the Jews or christians, or even those who reflect deeply... we simply follow the laws of the final testament!
I don't know how many horrible people are living comfortably? maybe they have rare genetic disorders, maybe they have GERD. Maybe they can never enjoy a meal or a family gathering the way poor people can?
Many muslims are in a horrible state because they drove themselves there. When they focused they were a force to be reckoned with, when they were neglectful they were neglected. "Naso Allah fanas'houm"
The Prophet said: 'Allah will send humiliation upon you and will not remove it until you return to your religion.' (Sunan Abi Dawûd)

With so much war, instability and poverty, while the immoral kafirs are thriving? I just don't get it. At the one hand we have an intervening God we are supposed to thank when good things happen. Yet when bad stuff happens we get vague answers like: "God works in mysterious ways" or "they will suffer in the afterlife". Either God intervenes to help the righteous or he does not..

A mysterious thing the affair of the Muslim... should he suffer and be grateful he is rewarded... should he attain bliss and is thankful he is again rewarded.....if you love the immediate then eat drink and be merry........ though it is a conundrum for even mindless ants work all summer for the ensuing winter, though they know not whether a winter will be harsh, whether there will be food anyway regardless of their labor, or even know whether they will live to enjoy the fruits of their labor....... a lesser being so much smarter than many humans..... it is a wonderous thing, yet here we are with utmost insolence asking for that which is obviousely beyond our comprehension.....

It just doesn't make sense to me. At least, a whole lot less sense than an explanation that this is all part of the cycle of life, cause and effect on a grand scale. Or that life is inexplicable and so often immoral because of how humans developed, because we evolved from animals.

You deal with generalities... you will get generalities for answers... if you evolved from a moneky or a donkey........ more power to you........ The rest of us know better..........
simple 2nd Law of Thermodynamics calls for a focus in one area corresponds to depletion and disorganization somewhere else... (if you don't see it now... you must see it at some point?) so if you think you can do as you please and have no consequence you must think all them physicists were off in their theories. which in an of itself would be very contradictory to all that science you subscribe to. BTW don't you think all those evolution theories would have made extinct all the gay people on the planet? (think about it) How many flaws are you willing to accept in your theories yet mocking those who choose God over flawed nonesense?
[Shakir 50:19] And the stupor of death will come in truth; that is what you were trying to escape.

---Guess those who are wise and clement will just have to wait, for you too are in waiting ;)

peace

[InToTheRain]

Why do babies get killed in earthquakes? Why let an individual be born to kill it before it gets a chance to pass 'the test of life'?

Why do so many 'bad' people lead comfortable lives? Why if the God is the God of Islam, why are Muslims in general in such a horrible state right now? With so much war, instability and poverty, while the immoral kafirs are thriving? I just don't get it. At the one hand we have an intervening God we are supposed to thank when good things happen. Yet when bad stuff happens we get vague answers like: "God works in mysterious ways" or "they will suffer in the afterlife". Either God intervenes to help the righteous or he does not..

Kading...you aren't looking at this objectively if you are going to let your emotions have a prejudice against the existence of God. If this is your argument against the existence of God, then know that it is an emotional one.

The question is the same as why did the Lord create death in the first place? Why not endless life filled with pleasures and bowls of roses?

Because this life is not the purpose of existence but only a brief moment in the endless time promised human beings (hence Satan is enraged with envy against them), and these cataclysms are tests of faith as well as purifications for the believers as are all sufferings and indeed all joys on this earth.

For our Prophet said, upon him and his Family blessings and peace, that even a mosquito bite erases the sins and raises the degrees of a Believer; non-believers, on the other hand, are unable to see other than suffering and are stuck with "Ouch" instead of remembrance of their Lord. And yet! On their death-beds even *they* cry out My God, my God.

You say the Immoral Kaffirs are thriving? What make you say this? I live in the UK, London and I tell you now it is one of the most misarable country ever! Sure they live a life of abundance, but are they happy? Do you honestly think having all the money in the world, woman in the world and fame can give you happiness? Is this your purpose in life? lets look at some of the people who attained such things - Marylin Monroe: commited suicide. Elvis Presley: soooo hooked up on drugs, he needed it to sleep, wake up, eat etc. Infact anything that helps them escape reality for a second makes them happy... it shows that humans aren't just evolved monkeys who can be satisfied by having a banana given to them...

It just doesn't make sense to me. At least, a whole lot less sense than an explanation that this is all part of the cycle of life, cause and effect on a grand scale. Or that life is inexplicable and so often immoral because of how humans developed, because we evolved from animals.

what would you call a guy who says he thinks the McLaren-F1 was created or has a probability of bieng created after a Hurricane comes around, picks up all the debris, then connects the debris together by random chance to leave a McLaren-F1 in Immaculate condition when the hurricane stops. Would you call him rational? intelligent? clever? NO!...to put it lightly the person has a few screws loose in his head. If you cannot fathom this them how can you say the world as we see it has a probability of occuring?

[root]

what would you call a guy who says he thinks the McLaren-F1 was created or has a probability of bieng created after a Hurricane comes around, picks up all the debris, then connects the debris together by random chance to leave a McLaren-F1 in Immaculate condition when the hurricane stops. Would you call him rational? intelligent? clever? NO!...to put it lightly the person has a few screws loose in his head. If you cannot fathom this them how can you say the world as we see it has a probability of occuring?

This nonsense only convinces those who already believe in creationism.

You deal with generalities... you will get generalities for answers... if you evolved from a moneky or a donkey........ more power to you........ The rest of us know better..........
simple 2nd Law of Thermodynamics calls for a focus in one area corresponds to depletion and disorganization somewhere else... (if you don't see it now... you must see it at some point?) so if you think you can do as you please and have no consequence you must think all them physicists were off in their theories. which in an of itself would be very contradictory to all that science you subscribe to. BTW don't you think all those evolution theories would have made extinct all the gay people on the planet? (think about it) How many flaws are you willing to accept in your theories yet mocking those who choose God over flawed nonesense?

You really did generalise;

Are only "people" gay then?

PS

The use of thermodynamics in biology has a long history rich in confusion — Harold J. Morowitz

http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm

[Woodrow]

Let us all just face the simple fact.

A true non-believer will never have the proof to become a believer.

A believer only reguires a tiny speck of faith.

Never will the twain meet. Let us just acknowledge our differences, accept The fact we are not going to change each other and go on with our lives. those of us who are Believers will never budge a solid non-believer and a non-Believer is not going to sway our faith.

Pointless discussion.

[root]

I quite agree;

its generally not worth the effort of trying to convince an athiest to believe that what he logically knows to be a fact is incorrect; likewise, it is usually not worth the effort of trying to logically prove that a religious persons beliefs are incorrect. For an athiest, logic usually trumps belief; and belief trumps logic for a creationist.

[جوري]

This nonsense only convinces those who already believe in creationism.



You really did generalise;

Are only "people" gay then?

PS

The use of thermodynamics in biology has a long history rich in confusion — Harold J. Morowitz

http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm

I beg your pardon? I didn't understand your disjointed fragments.....
--even if animals were observed to engage in homosexual behavior; and evolution were true, they too would have been wiped out for the same exact reasons.... (again think about it)
you are in fact attesting to the argument, not putting a flaw in it!

on a seperate note, I am sure you can always google a site that will attest to your train of thoughts ....... it is far more impressive when you have your own, and can address others in a civilized non-trangressing, and engaging manner!

If evolution and all that it entails (flaws or not) suits you, by all means. It is not my purpose to convince you otherwise... nor am I interested really in how you live your life or what you do with it.
peace!

[Pygoscelis]

Never will the twain meet. Let us just acknowledge our differences, accept The fact we are not going to change each other and go on with our lives. those of us who are Believers will never budge a solid non-believer and a non-Believer is not going to sway our faith.

Pointless discussion.

Agreed.

Because it all depends on your outlook.

Your belief or non-belief in a deity is part of the foundation of who you are.

If you already accept and worship your God there are things in place within your belief system to halt your questioning, often including the concepts of heaven and hell (or other punishment/reward system for belief), the society you live in, misconceptions about non-believers (they are immoral for God is the only source of morality, they are evil, they have no sense of purpose, they are depressed, etc).

Further, to lose faith in God is to shake a believer's entire foundation, and the believer simply will not allow that to happen from an external force such as a nonbeliever's arguments. Only an internal process can effect deconversion and emotion is NEEDED. No amount of logic or reason will deconvert somebody.

Moreover the believer may view the nonbeliever as testing his faith, thus entrenching that faith and turning an open mind to a closed argumentative and defensive mind.

Same can be said for a non-believer.

It is my firm belief that no non-believer has ever been converted to a religion based on logic and reason. Emotion and cultural forces are always the reason.

Something traumatic may happen and the nonbeliever may need to find a religious belief that "its all for the best" or "it will all be okay" etc. Or the believer may be living a troubled life and find the promise of heaven or the fellowship of churchgoers attractive.

[InToTheRain]

This nonsense only convinces those who already believe in creationism.

You who claim to be logical have not said anything to counter what I have said. Acting on emotion and shrugging off what I have said as "Non-sense" just shows your arrogant and have only made the statement to feed your false ego...

For an athiest, logic usually trumps belief; and belief trumps logic for a creationist.

I agree with you and I see where your coming from, logic also says the earth is NOT round...you must have a rational and objective approach in order to come to the understanding that there is a God...clearly you lack these qualities. If you will say people who believe in God act on belief then you must also say the same for Athiests as it is also based on belief. Amongst the Athiests the most ignorant are those who think that mankind being evolved monkeys is a fact, they are also hypocrites for accepting this as a fact. After all...It is an evolution THEORY <--- HINT! HINT!


And Allah azza wa Jal said:

(the example of those who disbelieve...) meaning, in their injustice, misguidance and ignorance, they are just like wandering animals, not understanding what they are told; if the shepherd heralds them or calls them to what benefits them, they would not understand what is actually being said to them, for they only hear unintelligible sounds. This is what is reported from Ibn `Abbas, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, `Ata', Al-Hasan, Qatadah, `Ata' Al-Khurasani and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas.

(They are deaf, dumb, and blind.) means, they are deaf, as they do not hear the truth; mute, as they do not utter it; and blind, as they do not see or recognize its path and way.

[root]

--even if animals were observed to engage in homosexual behavior;

I like your choice of word, perhaps we are better replacing your "if" with something that better reflects reality.

and evolution were true, they too would have been wiped out for the same exact reasons.... (again think about it)

Here is a little interesting fact for you; whenever UK doctors and surgeons hold a general strike (yes it has been known from time to time) less people die! Perhaps if we employ your sense of reasoning we should sack all doctors and reduce the UK's death rate!

Besides, I can't see why I would need to re-evaluate homosexuality with evolution since we currently have a list of over 450 homosexual practicing vertebrate species. Which coincidently begs the question, if God was so against it why did he "create" (please take that term with a pinch of salt) homosexual practicing species!

Good luck............

[Grace Seeker]

Hmmmmmm!

That reminds me this story:

Isaac Newton, had invited a scientist-friend of his, a man who professed atheism to dine with him. Seeking to corner his friend with his own arguments, Newton placed a model of the solar system on his table and invited his friend to view it. Upon examining it, Newton’s friend exclaimed, “what a marvellous craftsmanship!” Who fashioned this exquisite model?” Newton replied casually, “This model has no maker, it materialised from nothing.” Disbelief written large on his face, the friend asked, “What do you mean?” To this, Newton smiled and replied, “How can you my friend, insist that this model has to have a maker, while vehemently denying the existence of a divine Creator?”

Moral: If a model of the solar system must have a creator then what about the gigantic solar system itself? Let us worship that Creator who has created you and me.

Good story. Mind if I borrow it to share with others?

[Pygoscelis]

If homosexuality is genetic, evolution would not whipe it out if

1. It is a recessive trait, carried but not activated in some.

2. It is a continuum rather than a binary thing.

3. Social forces can inhibit it.

4. Homosexuals are physically capable of heterosexual sex and may engage in it for various reasons.

5. It is a frequent mutation of the 'heterosexual gene'

And I'm sure there are more, but thats what I can think of off the top of my head.

[جوري]

I like your choice of word, perhaps we are better replacing your "if" with something that better reflects reality.............

You are quite the connoisseur!

Here is a little interesting fact for you; whenever UK doctors and surgeons hold a general strike (yes it has been known from time to time) less people die! Perhaps if we employ your sense of reasoning we should sack all doctors and reduce the UK's death rate!............

I don't see what medical error has to do with my argument?or are you confabulating? Also try to back your arguments with some kind of studies with rates of specificity, sensitivity and P values..... I seldom take "facts" at word value!

Besides, I can't see why I would need to re-evaluate homosexuality with evolution since we currently have a list of over 450 homosexual practicing vertebrate species. Which coincidently begs the question, if God was so against it why did he "create" (please take that term with a pinch of salt) homosexual practicing species!

Good luck............

Simple..... species that can't propagate will become extinct. If there were such a thing as a "homosexual gene" in time it would have dissolved, as it is in fact useless..... It goes against all the principles of survival of the fittest and propagation.
I also believe that homosexuality is a choice. God gave mankind free will to do as he pleases. It is easy to pleasure the lower self......
Lastly I don't believe in luck it is just not visceral enough for me... so keep it for yourself, I hope it is of good use to you!

[جوري]

If homosexuality is genetic, evolution would not whipe it out if

1. It is a recessive trait, carried but not activated in some.

2. It is a continuum rather than a binary thing.

3. Social forces can inhibit it.

4. Homosexuals are physically capable of heterosexual sex and may engage in it for various reasons.

5. It is a frequent mutation of the 'heterosexual gene'

And I'm sure there are more, but thats what I can think of off the top of my head.

Why would you assume homosexuality is AR, why not a mitochondrial inheritance? why not an X trait that can only be passed down to males? why not a mutated gene of high pentetrance? ....... Recessive traits can predominate and be clustered should the need arise and if in fact they are useful ... for instance Sickle-cell disease is inherited in the autosomal recessive patter. You'll find it most prevalent in blacks from Africa, as they tend to have pandemics of Malaria. Malaria can't live in sickled RBC's so in fact if a recessive trait if it were useful it will continue. Contrast that with others that have become extinct because of their uselessness. That is God's will.....

I despise the idea that people simply hang an unacceptable bahavior on a "gene" rather than accept full responsibility for their own actions. oh it is the homosexual gene that made me do a lewed act in public said George Micheal. Oh it is just my extra Y chromosome that made me commit murder. oh it is all my mullerian inhibiting factor that made me covet your wife and seduce her.

God created intricacies in the human body. They act on their own volition. It is for people of knowlege to reflect, and for others to be misguided... God doesn't take away the free will of man to act as he pleases.He has set forth his laws in his revelations. Hence you are fully responsible for your actions when comes the day of reckoning.
Peace

[root]

Simple..... species that can't propagate will become extinct. If there were such a thing as a "homosexual gene" in time it would have dissolved, as it is in fact useless.....

You seem in my opinion quite one track minded. Homosexuality within the animal kingdom has nothing to do with sexual reproduction but can and does increase survivability.

It goes against all the principles of survival of the fittest and propagation.

Your one tracked mind rears again, are you implying that survival of the fittest is the sole driving force of evolution. What about the survival of the luckiest.

I also believe that homosexuality is a choice. God gave mankind free will to do as he pleases. It is easy to pleasure the lower self......

Are you implying that over 450 vertibrate species have engaged in homosexuality out of free will!

Lastly I don't believe in luck it is just not visceral enough for me... so keep it for yourself, I hope it is of good use to you!

Seems the dinosaurs fell foul of the massive impact from space, or perhaps some super evolved dino species learned nuclear technology and "accidently" created a super massive explosion that covered the earth with a layer of clay. Whatever the reason, I guess they would probably disagree with you and consider themselves quite unlucky............

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

:sl:
This thread is not for homosexuality. We have already discussed this topic ad nauseum in other threads.
Off-topic posts will be removed.


:w:

[InToTheRain]

True. Atheism is a faith-position just like any other. I think what root meant was that if logic and belief contradicted each other, atheists would tend to choose logic and, in matters of religion, creationists would choose faith. On the question of god, since there is no established, objective or unambiguously logically rigorous evidence either way, one's view on the matter must always come down to faith.

I know what root was trying to say and I disagree. The idea that God doesn't exist is the most irrational and illogical idea to date and the idea only creates confusion. I respect your opinion as you are entitled to it, you are given a free will... but I have yet to see "Evidence" which proves the "Evolution THEORY", it is just conjecture nothing more...a bad one at that...as the Albert Einstien once said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Someone who believed this would certainly count as being ignorant, for this is not a claim that evolutionists make. Evolutionists claim that humans and apes share a common ancestor, which is a different view.

hmmm...so apes and humans share a common ancestor? from where did this ancestor originate? how did the 1st DNA structure come int existence?

A pigs heart is used during heart transplants? why not use an apes since we have a common ancestor? does this also mean that a pigs and humans have a common ancestor?

Are humans of more intrinsic value than animals? Why or why not?

How does an atheist determine what is moral or immoral, right or wrong. Is there any objective standard or principles?

What do you think happens after death? Do you as an athiest care? Why is it that at the point of death athiests ask for people to pray for them? Why is that when a calamity befalls them they are quick to remember God?

According to the Laws of Physics, something can't come from nothing, energy is always connserved, not created. So how did matter and anti-matter come into existence or the universe? How did the equilibrium, harmony, and order of this universe develop? Does it make sense to say it all happened by chance?
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being" - Isaac Newton

Would aprreciate all the athiests in this forum answering the questions above!

Please read this and / or familiarise yourself with what a scientific theory actually is:

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

can a man be short and tall at the same time :X

Peace

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

How can it be a fact and a theory? How is it proved and unproved?

[Woodrow]

Something can be a Fact in that it happens. It can be a theory as to how it happens.

It is a fact that Green apples will eventually become red ripe apples. It is a theory as to how apples ripen. Therefore the ripening of apples is both a theory and a fact.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

a theory is not necessarily based on facts.
but ok i get what u mean.

[Muezzin]

Can we please have a discussion in this particular forum that does not lead to another mudslinging contest about evolution? Pretty please? Just one?

[hakkerz]

There should be a "There is no real scientific evidence, its just a matter of faith AND LOGIC" option...because i think its logical, but no such physical scientific evidence.

[Trumble]

There should be a "There is no real scientific evidence, its just a matter of faith AND LOGIC" option...because i think its logical, but no such physical scientific evidence.

I think just 'faith' would do. Not because I'm saying the existence of God is illogical but that you simply can't come up with any logical argument for, or against come to that, the existence of God that doesn't have at least one premise that itself is purely a matter of faith.

[Woodrow]

Final house cleaning. One more post that is not about athiesm and this will be a closed topic.

[InToTheRain]

I would appreciate it greatly if the athiests could answer the questions I have asked in post #1066. Thanks.

[Trumble]

hmmm...so apes and humans share a common ancestor? from where did this ancestor originate? how did the 1st DNA structure come int existence?

Humans are apes.

Different species of ape did, yes. I've no idea where it originated, other than the fact it evolved from something else. You need an atheist who is also a paleontologist or anthropologist to answer that, and they probably aren't sure.

Probably via RNA, that in turn being formed from less complex organic molecules. By 'chance', yes.

A pigs heart is used during heart transplants? why not use an apes since we have a common ancestor? does this also mean that a pigs and humans have a common ancestor?

No such transplant has yet occured with a human subject. The pigs concerned are genetically engineered to ensure the maximum possible chance of compatibility with human tissue to minimise rejection. No doubt you could similarly genetically modify apes (including humans) but the ethical problems are rather larger than with the poor old pig, and apes take rather longer to grow to breeding age. The "common ancestor" has nothing to do with it, although they probably have, yes, somewhere in the earlier history of mammals.

Are humans of more intrinsic value than animals? Why or why not?

No, not in my opinion. Why should they be? I suppose you could make that distinction if you used intelligence or perhaps even capacity to suffer as your criteria.

How does an atheist determine what is moral or immoral, right or wrong. Is there any objective standard or principles?

By taking responsibility to decide for themselves rather than delegating it it to a third party who presents their conception of 'moral' and 'immoral' as that of God. There is no objective standards for those things.

What do you think happens after death? Do you as an athiest care?

I'm not, strictly speaking, an atheist, but death is pretty much it. We return to that from which we came, although the resonance of our thoughts and deeds continues and may even be 'reborn' in another. There is no 'afterlife', the concept is only a comforting fantasy, a placebo, for those who fear death.

Why is it that at the point of death athiests ask for people to pray for them? Why is that when a calamity befalls them they are quick to remember God?

They don't. If you mean exclaimations of "God help me!" and such its just a culture/language thing.

According to the Laws of Physics, something can't come from nothing, energy is always connserved, not created. So how did matter and anti-matter come into existence or the universe? How did the equilibrium, harmony, and order of this universe develop? Does it make sense to say it all happened by chance?

Those laws only apply to this universe, they have no independent existence outside it, as being outside it is a contradiction in terms. There was no "nothing" for the universe to be created from, space-time began with it. As to equilibrium, harmony and order, if it had happened any other way there would be nobody to ask the question, so the concept it could have happened another way is meaningless. It happened that way, fact, probability 1:1.

[جوري]

I'd just like to comment from a medical stand point... we use (porcine) pig Valves for valvular replacements in humans all the time...... They last a good ten years before needing new replacement. Other than that I have lost all interests in these arguments. And don't wish to steal someone else's thunder!
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/304/5/258

[Woodrow]

This was a topic about Atheism, not homosexuality nor evolution.



:threadclo