Abu Hanifa and Some Atheists - Debate Thread.

[Zafran]

If god turns out to exist and to be as described in the bible or quran I would feel no need to justify myself to him. Nor would I respect his judgment. Sure, if he is all powerful he could torture me for this, but that doesn't make bowing down to such a tyrant noble or good.

so you dont actually believe you have done anything wrong in your life?

 

[جوري]

You know nothing of God, and you know so little about the definition of tyranny, if endless blessings can be classified as such then rotting for eternity is a small price to pay!

 

[Azy]

Re: Abu Hanifa and some Athiests

nothing in our physical world (realm) is uncreated.. no examples can be given.. there is no such a word in the dictionary even as 'uncreated' for one to identify for you things that aren't!
everything in our known universe has to come out of something else or a combination of other things...

Well I suppose to uncreate would be to dismantle, rather what I mean is 'not created' and I think you know that.
Why then do people insist on using 'complexity' as evidence of design? There is no benchmark against which to compare this complexity in order to determine if it is characteristic of creation/design.

You might as well skip all the pointless justifications and go straight to "things exist, therefore something with intent and intelligence created them", which is as arbitrary a jump as I can imagine.

nothingness is a state of nonexistence..nonexistence can't give rise to existence...
.. beingness can however give rise to existence, as well contrast it with its opposite state so we can distinguish the difference. ..

Physicists would disagree and say that nothing is exactly where everything came from. The precursor to our universe is thought to be a dimensionless state of nothing which, through some vacuum fluctuation, cascaded into what we now know as our universe while maintaining a zero-sum energy.
Like the virtual particles which momentarily borrow vacuum energy only to disappear again or the 'imaginary' money you spend which constitutes the credit on your Mastercard only to be repaid later, the universe is real but the sum total of it's properties is essentially nothing.

says the atheist...
strange...doesn't the evolution theory state that we evolved from one cell?

Wrong and... wrong.

so where did this one cell come from? whee was its beginning?

Obviously the first cell would have been preceded by simpler groupings of molecules and so on. [A page on Abiogenesis]

why is it assumed that the maker had to be made?

Are you and your friends not even aware of the horrific inconsistency in your reasoning? Repeat that sentence back to yourself but replace 'maker' with 'universe'.

 

[redblackmask]

I'm not an atheist or agnostic but I respect what they believe - and see justification for what they believe. I am a taoist, I DO believe in a Universal god or Universal energy. But there is justification on both sides as to whether God truly exists or not. But seriously, why waste what COULD be your only life on an internet forum debating whether he COULD be real or not?? Go out and enjoy this beautiful world that God (or the Universe through completely natural processes) gave you.

 

[Clover]

I'm not an atheist or agnostic but I respect what they believe - and see justification for what they believe. I am a taoist, I DO believe in a Universal god or Universal energy. But there is justification on both sides as to whether God truly exists or not. But seriously, why waste what COULD be your only life on an internet forum debating whether he COULD be real or not?? Go out and enjoy this beautiful world that God (or the Universe through completely natural processes) gave you.

Tao is everything and nothing my friend, you know this I believe, so he would be the universal energy your referring to, unless you believe it's a God.

 

[جوري]

Re: Abu Hanifa and some Athiests

Well I suppose to uncreate would be to dismantle, rather what I mean is 'not created' and I think you know that.
Why then do people insist on using 'complexity' as evidence of design? There is no benchmark against which to compare this complexity in order to determine if it is characteristic of creation/design.

It is used because it is all the knowledge we have available on which to base belief. This is the condition of our known universe thus that is what we work with.. can we reproduce it? is it random? does it work together? do these processes carry actions or is it just a mere hit or miss? Is there another else where like it..

If you have a fungating mass coming out of your head, you'd want to investigate it no? or would you decide there is no benchmark to compare it to, it must mean it belongs there? I have already stated, that what you feel is natural is nothing more than an imaginary line or standard by which things are measured or compared, that is how you found the world, thus you assume it is natural.. In fact any little aberrations should have you thinking, why is that natural, why are we all not born with this or what feature/malfunction.. Why do things move in a particular direction.. one that favors what you call 'Natural'?

You might as well skip all the pointless justifications and go straight to "things exist, therefore something with intent and intelligence created them", which is as arbitrary a jump as I can imagine.

It isn't see above reply!

Physicists would disagree and say that nothing is exactly where everything came from. The precursor to our universe is thought to be a dimensionless state of nothing which, through some vacuum fluctuation, cascaded into what we now know as our universe while maintaining a zero-sum energy.
Like the virtual particles which momentarily borrow vacuum energy only to disappear again or the 'imaginary' money you spend which constitutes the credit on your Mastercard only to be repaid later, the universe is real but the sum total of it's properties is essentially nothing.

I'll agree with your initial statement.. Nothing is where everything came from, but then something of the nothing flourished in a very positive fashion and in one direction and on 'its own volition'... Do you ever wonder, what should be the end result of evolution? Don't you think we'd be better off as cocoroaches, or one single invincible being that doesn't die? What is the point of genetic diseases that get worst with each successive generation, having male and female gender, or dying?

Don't think that folks haven't treaded on atheist grounds.. I have, to the point of craziness, even the concept of time without end to me or endless numbers is unfathomable to me... yet potentially both are true.. I mean obviousely time doesn't end because we perish, and I am yet to come across the last number... one simply has to accept their own limitations, but it certainly doesn't make one a better being or more liberated or a free thinker..
It is like the two types of schizophrenia, one exhibiting postive symptoms and another negative symptoms .. positive (i.e. hallucinations, delusions, racing thoughts), negative (i.e. apathy, lack of emotion, poor or nonexistant social functioning)-- you might think the latter better or the first is better, but in fact in the end, both are suffering from schizophrenia..

this is the human condition... I have no contempt for your choice, I am only crossed when one of you (not you personally) but generally fancies that he is so much better of, a deep free thinker or a rebel and is observing us lab rats in actions.. when it comes down to it, you are bound by the same thoughts, the same physical laws, the same universal themes and the same human condition!


all the best

 

[redblackmask]

Tao is everything and nothing my friend, you know this I believe, so he would be the universal energy your referring to, unless you believe it's a God.

Yes yes yes, you got it half right, I will clarify what I mean to say when I come back from work :BeRightBack:

 

[Clover]

Yes yes yes, you got it half right, I will clarify what I mean to say when I come back from work :BeRightBack:

Half right? The TTC states Tao is Everything and Nothing. How is that half right? Are you saying you believen a God with Tao? Then the God would be Tao, since Tao is everything and nothing.

 

[Azy]

Re: Abu Hanifa and some Athiests

It is used because it is all the knowledge we have available on which to base belief...

...If you have a fungating mass coming out of your head, you'd want to investigate it no? or would you decide there is no benchmark to compare it to, it must mean it belongs there?

Can't say that's the best analogy I've seen. If it was new I'd compare it to my previous state, if not I'd compare it to other heads.

Once you use the complexity argument (or whichever your favourite happens to be) to encompass everything that is, it becomes useless and self-reinforcing as there's no way to know.
How complex does something have to be before you know it's of divine origin? There isn't an answer so I don't see why anyone should claim it to be true... it's just an arbitrary choice of justification for creationism.

Do you ever wonder, what should be the end result of evolution? Don't you think we'd be better off as cocoroaches, or one single invincible being that doesn't die? What is the point of genetic diseases that get worst with each successive generation, having male and female gender, or dying?

I don't see that 'should' is an appropriate word to use in that context. You believe in moral absolutes and purpose whereas I do not. To me there is no 'should', 'better', 'worse', or 'point'. Evolution is simply a physical process running it's course and the lives of a cockroach and I are qualitatively identical at a big fat zero.

Don't think that folks haven't treaded on atheist grounds..

I don't think that at all, it just seems to me that a great many people take up an idea because it is comfortable and satisfying rather than the cold mechanics of a godless world with all it's unknowns.

this is the human condition... I have no contempt for your choice, I am only crossed when one of you (not you personally) but generally fancies that he is so much better of, a deep free thinker or a rebel and is observing us lab rats in actions.. when it comes down to it, you are bound by the same thoughts, the same physical laws, the same universal themes and the same human condition!

As I stated above better and worse don't make much difference to me but I thought out of all the people here you would be more inclined toward an agnostic view. As a tool for knowledge gathering you appreciate the value of empirical observation and I'm sure in your life as a medical professional/researcher/student you accepted things to be true when they could be shown to be true by measurable evidence rather than making presumptions about results.


Out of curiosity, when you refer to atheists do you mean those with a simple lack of god belief or the god denial crowd, or perhaps both?

 

[جوري]

Re: Abu Hanifa and some Athiests

Can't say that's the best analogy I've seen. If it was new I'd compare it to my previous state, if not I'd compare it to other heads.

I think you miss the point of the analogy which is.. you have something there that requires your attention and/or explanation!

Once you use the complexity argument (or whichever your favourite happens to be) to encompass everything that is, it becomes useless and self-reinforcing as there's no way to know.

I am afraid the meaning of this statement is lost to me..

How complex does something have to be before you know it's of divine origin? There isn't an answer so I don't see why anyone should claim it to be true... it's just an arbitrary choice of justification for creationism.
I don't see that 'should' is an appropriate word to use in that context. You believe in moral absolutes and purpose whereas I do not. To me there is no 'should', 'better', 'worse', or 'point'. Evolution is simply a physical process running it's course and the lives of a cockroach and I are qualitatively identical at a big fat zero.

Has nothing to do with its complexity although that is a point of interest.. it has to do with the mere fact that it exists and I'd like to know why and for what purpose.. I think it is rather a natural thing for most humans...

I don't see how there can be none of the above mentioned.. life is about contrast.. how can you tell something is white unless you contrast it to something black? or something as cold unless you contrast it with something hot, or day time if you didn't have night.. there is no escapism from the state you find yourself in.. you might want to loan them a more skewed meaning things are the way they are mostly in contrast to other things, especially when comes to issues of morality or sensations..

I don't think that at all, it just seems to me that a great many people take up an idea because it is comfortable and satisfying rather than the cold mechanics of a godless world with all it's unknowns.

I don't think that is why people take it up... certainly as a theist alot more is required of you than an atheist, I don't see how that could be more comfortable.. I rather think nothing is more freeing than being an atheist, and at the same time it bewilders me so, why they'd want to spend much of their free time arguing about utter nonsense considering the randomness of it all.. potentially your life can be over at any minute, why the misuse of time?

As I stated above better and worse don't make much difference to me but I thought out of all the people here you would be more inclined toward an agnostic view. As a tool for knowledge gathering you appreciate the value of empirical observation and I'm sure in your life as a medical professional/researcher/student you accepted things to be true when they could be shown to be true by measurable evidence rather than making presumptions about results.

Clinical medicine differs greatly from scientific medicine, many things in theory can work but not so clinically, I have given an example before of the absolution in prohibition of using a beta blocker on someone in heart failure, because this medication was designed to slow down the heart, well a heart failing theoretically doesn't need any more slowing down-- people rather thought beating it into work is the better option and for yrs such meds as digoxin.. yet when you put the pedal to the metal you got:

Compared with the control group, treatment with beta blocker was associated with a decreased mortality (relative risk=0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.85, p=0.005 for beta blocker alone and 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.87, p=0.008 for beta blocker plus digoxin). By contrast, treatment with digoxin alone was not associated with a better survival (relative risk=0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.30, p=NS). Results remained significant after adjustment for potential confounders and similar when we considered, separately, HF with permanent or nonpermanent
​

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19121446

I don't want to drown you in medical mumbo jumbo, your take home message from above is.. what works in theory doesn't work in real life, and thus I can be willing to throw out any theory for its practical counterpart because ultimately that is what proves useful..

Now whether practical or theoretical it means nothing as it doesn't touch the principal.. It doesn't matter how sophisticated you think we have become and I certainly don't have the most mathematical mind but I am (consistent) in my quest for knowledge, I can say with confidence that science will never infringe upon theology, it can either work harmoniously with it, or have nothing to do with it at all, but not oppose it! (as far as Islam is concerned)

Out of curiosity, when you refer to atheists do you mean those with a simple lack of god belief or the god denial crowd, or perhaps both?

what is the difference.. I dislike atheists with political agendas the most, they seem as zealous as any religious freak, only standing from the opposite end of the spectrum...

all the best

 

[redblackmask]

Half right? The TTC states Tao is Everything and Nothing. How is that half right? Are you saying you believen a God with Tao? Then the God would be Tao, since Tao is everything and nothing.

See, my friend, for me it's hard for me to explain my personal beliefs. Yes, I'm a taoist, but I also find it hard for me to explain my own spiritual and philosophical beliefs on a religious forum.

" How is that half right? Are you saying you believen a God with Tao? Then the God would be Tao, since Tao is everything and nothing."

Yes, I have read the Tao Te Ching, and yes I believe that God is Tao. I believe that God is an eternal energy that is manifest in everything in the Universe. We cannot fathom it completely, though we are a part of it. The Tao made everything, including the "heavens" (space, stars, planets) and this Earth. The Tao is everything and nothing.

When I mean half right, I mean that I have also had some very touching experiences with the tao. I meditate frequently, and the experiences I have had are amazing. I guess we're all 'half right' though, since in my view we can't completely fathom the Tao.

By the way, it's nice to have another Taoist on here :thumbs_up. I guess we're the only two on here :skeleton:.

 

[Clover]

See, my friend, for me it's hard for me to explain my personal beliefs. Yes, I'm a taoist, but I also find it hard for me to explain my own spiritual and philosophical beliefs on a religious forum.

" How is that half right? Are you saying you believen a God with Tao? Then the God would be Tao, since Tao is everything and nothing."

Yes, I have read the Tao Te Ching, and yes I believe that God is Tao. I believe that God is an eternal energy that is manifest in everything in the Universe. We cannot fathom it completely, though we are a part of it. The Tao made everything, including the "heavens" (space, stars, planets) and this Earth. The Tao is everything and nothing.

When I mean half right, I mean that I have also had some very touching experiences with the tao. I meditate frequently, and the experiences I have had are amazing. I guess we're all 'half right' though, since in my view we can't completely fathom the Tao.

By the way, it's nice to have another Taoist on here :thumbs_up. I guess we're the only two on here :skeleton:.

I do not believe that, but we all have different beliefs, part of life and humanity

It's true, in the TTC the first page explains that the Tao cannot be fully explained, ever.

Yes, we are so far that I know.

 

[Ummu Sufyaan]

Interesting . . . . . where does it say that?

In the Quran: And Ar-Ra'd (thunder) glorifies and praises Him (13:13)

just to expand on it a little...
http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=13&tid=25581

EDIT: wait a min...who do you mean by 'he' Abu Hanifah or God?

Obviously the first cell would have been preceded by simpler groupings of molecules and so on. [A page on Abiogenesis]

yes, but where did those molecules come from?

Are you and your friends not even aware of the horrific inconsistency in your reasoning?

the only thing i'll repeat is what i said before only with slight modification!

creation is a state of imperfection whereas "godness" is perfection. God is perfect, creation is not therefore the assumption that the Maker had to be made is ridiculous because it means that He is dependent, which would therefore negate His perfection!

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Re: Abu Hanifa and some Athiests

To Foxhole
Hi,

1)
If the maker can exist yet be uncreated, why can't the universe?

Because we know the universe has certain characteristics that point towards it originating at one point. As For the creator, he does not have those same characteristics, so it is much more plausible for the creator to be uncreated.

2)Wny is an infinite past harder to accept than an uncreated entity?

Because an infinite past creates many scientific as well as philosophical problems. (Think of entropy; or "The Paradox of the Grand Hotel")

To Thinker
Hi,

And did he also tell them that thunder was a sign of the maker's anger...
So using the same logic as used by Abu Hanifah Rahimullah one could argue that as man once ascribed lightning, famines and plagues to work of God and now science has proved them to be natural events then science will ultimately find proof that all those things we ascribe to be the work of God to be natural and explainable events; it’s the same type of reasoning.

Can I take it that the underlying argument in this is: "Earlier nations had false believes for things they could not understand, therefore all believes are false."? Isn't that argument flawed because it's a sweeping generalisation? Or was that not what you were driving at?

and that plagues and famine were the maker's way of punishing those that did not worship him?

According to Islam, hardship isn't necessaryly a punishment. It could also be a test. I think the riddle of Epicurus and the problem of evil has been refuted already in the comparative religion section, I don't see how this argument relates to this thread.

And, who made the maker? So where did God come from – the nothingness? There was nothing one day and suddenly God appeared? How is that any easier to believe? You believe that God created the universe because that's what you want to believe, not because it's obvious.

He is uncreated, without a beginning.

So who created Allah, did God just pop up from nowhere, one second there was nothing, then there was God?

If God created the universe, he is outside the universe, thus also outside of time. This "time" is a physical construct. A part of our universe. According to relativity, space and time form a 4D space-time-continuum. According to the standardised theory, (empty) space is a physical construct. Put these two theories together, and it would follow that time also is a physical construct, a part of our universe. Speaking in terms of "one second and the next" is thus an inappropriate representation.

If you struggle to believe that the complexities of life are simply a developmental process how can you stretch your mind to believe that a God came to be from nothing and came to be with Godly powers!

Well Like I said to Foxhole. We know our universe has a fixed set of rules. Causality, the 4 forces of physics, the fixed constants that determine their ratio's. The reason it's so hard to come to terms with the idea that life and the universe came to be by chance, is because it seems to defy logical thinking. It's not merely because there's an absence of a plausible explanation. It goes farther then that, it's not just the absence but rather the presence of so many indications which show us how unlikely it was for our universe, or for life to come into existence. As for the concept of God, if you believe God created the universe, obviously he wouldn't be bound to the same laws of physics. Therefore all these indications of unlikeliness would no longer apply to God.

Maybe God did come from nothingness and maybe he didn’t but just because you and I don’t know how it all started and cannot (yet) comprehend something coming from nothing doesn’t mean there can only be one possibility – God. That question is just one more question that science will eventually answer.

I agree that neither atheist nor theist can conclusively answer this question. But I don't think we need to in order for the atrophic principle to be a valid argument.

All that aside, I understand that to follow any religion you must accept all the God stories, put those nagging questions to one side and ‘have faith,’

Not Really, Islam, unlike many other religions encourages us to examine and question, invites us to be critical.

what I am struggling to come to terms with is how someone as intelligent, well read and free thinking could promote the boat story as anything more than smoke and mirrors.

Well simple, because despite I grant it's an over-simplification of the atheists p.o.v, the underlying atrophic principle is still a valid argument. So it's not just smoke and mirrors at all.

I suspect that most atheists and agnostics started life as followers of a particular religion and became atheists and agnostic after spending many hours considering the question – does God exist.

Yes, I agree. This was also the reason why, after being raised in a catholic environment, I became an atheist/agnostic (this was before converting to Islam).

It’s much easier to follow the suggestion that God does exist (see Pascal’s wager) and far harder to deny it, not least because if we’re wrong there is the possibility of undesirable consequences on judgment day.

For me it was not a question of easy or hard, but rather a question of what was right/plausible and what was not. On another note, I find that most atheists disbelieve in a very specific view of God. That is to say, the concept of God that they don't believe in, is a concept that I myself as a theist do not believe in either.

If there is a God and I am called to account I will say, “you gave me the intellect and ability to critically analyse the evidence and form a view, I must presume that when you gave me that ability you expected me to use it, I used it and formed the view that your existence was a possibility but unlikely, I also formed the view if you did exist you would judge me well if I acted honestly and was true to my convictions and would be angry with me if I simply followed the lead of others because of fear or because it brought me comfort.”

Well I sincerely hope for your sake that this plea will be sufficient. But if at any point in your life, you rejected the possibility of Islam, not based on the rational thinking you were given, but rather based on emotive inclinations and emotive arguments and a (perhaps subconscious) aversion for Islam, then I would think your plea would be rendered meaningless by that action, would you agree? That being said, do you consider Islam possible, or do you consider it most definitly false? If you consider it most defenitly false, could you tell us why? Also, if you consider Islam possible, given your pleas which you intend to give in order to justify your agnosticism, would you agree you have a responsibility to use your intellect you were given to verify as far as possible whether or not Islam seems to be true?

To Padarok
Hi;

This is a good reasoning for religious people, but it leaves the evidence of the theory of evolution as a good arguement.

Evolution is a theory that aims to explain how life, after already existing evolved into a larger variety of life. That is to say, it is an attempt to account for the different types of life, not for the existence of life itself. Therefore Darwin coined it "The evolution of species". Meaning how different species evolved. Not how life came into existence.

However, thinking about stuff like this and thinking about evolution, I am changing my way of life as Agnostic now. Though, that does not mean I am leaning towards Islam or any religion in this issue (if anything, towards a kind of... deterministic nihilism). I am simply in the middle and have been, actually.

Depends on how you look at it, I would think you're halfway there ^_^

By the way, I don't know why this is so convincing for Muslims. Atheists see humans as evolved after billions of years and don't fall too easily for the "suddenly put together" argument.

Yeah you're right. The argument over-simplifies the atheist's view of the world. Be that as it may, I still find the anthropic principle which is the gist of the argument here to be a valid argument.

To Azy
Hi;

I can't speak for Clover but in my opinion also the reasoning is faulty.
It's basically a different spin on the watchmaker argument. From our experience we know ships are man-made for a purpose defined by man. You can go to the shipyard and watch them being built. The argument by Hanifa is basically "Aha! So if a ship is so obviously created and controlled by a maker/guide then so is every other complex thing".
Except that we do have experience of animals and plants and other things being created and it's not by some supernatural maker. They reproduce sexually (usually), Mummy and Daddy cat get together and make baby cat.

Well, I'd have to disagree with you there. To take your example of the cats. According to the theist's point of view, these cats <as many other species> have obviously been designed with the function to reproduce. So their ability to reproduce does not negate that everything complex must come from a design. The design just goes further back, to the first specie in their tree of descent (I believe in evolution of different species, but not in common descent of all existing species). So, although of course this is "from the theist's p.o.v." it still refutes your argument as it shows that your argument is circular.

I've never seen or heard of a cat appearing out of nowhere or being created from dust or anything else out of a religious creation story, so why would I assume that they are true when there's a perfectly reasonable alternative that I've seen with my own eyes?

Just because we have never witnessed it, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened in the past. Why would Allah subhana wa ta'ala still need to create new cats, when there's already so many around? Secondly, as far as I know there is no perfectly reasonable alternative that answers the anthropic principle. The parts of the theory of evolution that are scientific, is only half the answer. It still doesn't account for existence.

At what point did the maker start existing and what happened to start it?

That question is un-reasonable. As I explained to Thinker in this post, If our universe is indeed created by a creator, obviously that creator is not part of said universe and is not inside the dimension of time. Thus asking us "at which time" did the creator do this or that makes no sense.

Well I suppose to uncreate would be to dismantle, rather what I mean is 'not created' and I think you know that. Why then do people insist on using 'complexity' as evidence of design? There is no benchmark against which to compare this complexity in order to determine if it is characteristic of creation/design. You might as well skip all the pointless justifications and go straight to "things exist, therefore something with intent and intelligence created them", which is as arbitrary a jump as I can imagine.

I would rather say: "things exist against all odds, therefore something with intent and intelligence must have created them",

Physicists would disagree and say that nothing is exactly where everything came from.

I don't think so. That is not a scientific explanation. So If any scientists says something like that, he is just expressing his personal believes, and not representing science.

The precursor to our universe is thought to be a dimensionless state of nothing which, through some vacuum fluctuation, cascaded into what we now know as our universe while maintaining a zero-sum energy.

This is all highly speculative, and just one of the thousands of different "semi-scientific" explanations.



To Pygoscelis
Hi;

Infinite regress does appear to lead to absurdities. But it is very debatable which is more absurd:
1. Infinite Regress
2. Spontaneous creation from nothing
3. Magical being who has always existed brought the universe into being with only its thoughts.

3. is an incorrect representation of theists pov. As I have explained to Thinker and Azy, to talk of God in terms of "always existing" implies God is inside the dimension of time (which he created himself).

Science does not disprove God, we just understand His creation better through it.This I agree with in a sense. Science can never prove or disprove God because God is not falsifiable.

Very true, science is completely neutral in this debate.

God is about faith, not evidence. As Thinker has said, people believe in God because they want to, not because there is objective evidence to.

I disagree, to quote Russell Bertrand:

It would be perfectly possible to be a complete and absolute Rationalist in the true sense of the term and yet accept this or that dogma. The question is how to arrive at your opinions and not what your opinions are. The thing in which we believe is the supremacy of reason. If reason should lead you to orthodox conclusions, well and good; you are still a Rationalist.​

Do you require a reward and punishment dynamic handed down from a god in order to live a peaceful and constructive life? I don't think you do. I think you have a moral compass completely independent of this reward/punishment dynamic from your religion.

I have to agree with you on that one, people without faith can still have morality. However, at the same time I must add, people are fallible. So from the Muslim's perspective, if you believe that Islam is perfected by Allah, and the most preferable set of moral rules, then you also believe that the set of rules an atheist would spontaneously form would be inferior to it. I hope you don't find this offensive. I don't mean this in a condescending way. I don't mean by this that atheists have inferior logic or anything like that, just that I don't think a human can ever have the same deep understanding of the world as an omnipotent creator, thus a human can never arrive at the same set of moral rules and guidelines by rational thinking without the aid of God.

My point is that the idea of a always existing all powerful all knowing "God" making the universe out of nothing but itself is just as absurd to many of us as infinite regress.

To me, the God answer seems more plausible, but I guess all we can do here is agree to disagree. I wouldn't have the faintest idea, as how to "weigh off" one idea against another. If you have a suggestion I'm all ears.

If god turns out to exist and to be as described in the bible or quran I would feel no need to justify myself to him. Nor would I respect his judgment. Sure, if he is all powerful he could torture me for this, but that doesn't make bowing down to such a tyrant noble or good.

Forgive me if I'm placing words in your mouth here, but are you saying that the view of God, portrayed in the Qur'an is that of a Tyrant? Could you back up that claim? I mean, there are indeed verses, which if Isolated might give that (false) perception. But there are so many other verses, which speak of a kind and loving God, one who punishes only those that deserve it because he is the most just. Or would you consider it more just to not punish those that do deserve it? Surely God does not wrong them but they wrong themselves. I can't see how you would be able to back up your claim of God being a tyrant.

 

[redblackmask]

I do not believe that, but we all have different beliefs, part of life and humanity

It's true, in the TTC the first page explains that the Tao cannot be fully explained, ever.

Yes, we are so far that I know.

Man, this thread is one big brawl. Replies going everywhere left and right. We're one of the 5 people here who have started like a sub thread :thumbs_up

Anyways, of course the Tao cannot be fully explained. It is very hard for our minds to fathom without proper conditioning, I believe. I remember reading in the TTC and it says that the Tao can mean different things to different people. Overall, I still hold the 'core' philosophical beliefs of Taoism.

Like for example, not all Taoists believe in a conscious afterlife, but some do. It's your personal belief, which is why Taoism was so appealing to me. It's very broad and you don't adhere to a strict set of dogmatic beliefs as say, Christianity.

 

[Pygoscelis]

so you dont actually believe you have done anything wrong in your life?

I have wronged some people, and I have appologized to them and attempted to make it up to them. Its none of this God's business. Like I said if this god exists as described, I would not recognize his authority and I would stand up to such a tyrant - its is the moral thing to do. And yes I know I would be tortured as a result.

 

[Zafran]

I have wronged some people, and I have appologized to them and attempted to make it up to them. Its none of this God's business. Like I said if this god exists as described, I would not recognize his authority and I would stand up to such a tyrant - its is the moral thing to do. And yes I know I would be tortured as a result.

doesnt realy matter if you recognize God or not - it would be intresting if God actually recognized you on that day.

 

[Clover]

@ Zafran and Pygoscelis, come on guys, lets not get angry. Let's just try to get along. 1 of you doesn't believen a god, one of you does. That is a difference, but that doesn't mean you have to argue over it. Focus on what you have in common, please.

btw: Yes, I am trying to be a referee, but hey, nothing but practice helps one be respectful.

 

[Zafran]

no argument - just stating an opnion.

 

[Tony]

@ Zafran and Pygoscelis, come on guys, lets not get angry. Let's just try to get along. 1 of you doesn't believen a god, one of you does. That is a difference, but that doesn't mean you have to argue over it. Focus on what you have in common, please.

btw: Yes, I am trying to be a referee, but hey, nothing but practice helps one be respectful.

haha, you found a role witin LI Clover, its a hard job so good luck.
Why dont you start athread re the things in the Qur<an or Islam you like and dislike, i will post on it and try to get you some answers for a clearer veiw of Islam while you can explain to us how these veiws may fit in within Taoism. Hope u ubderstand what I mean, i will referee it and keepit civil, u came here for a reason so we owe you the respect of trying to address those reasons. Peace