Atheism

[Cheb]

No offense but I think Ockham's razor is a very selfish way to look at life. If we were to follow that rule we will remain ignorant to what really happened. I am not only talking about the existence of God. This applies to life in general. Take this example. Let us say a man was found in a room with a bloody knife in his hand looking down at a victim's dead body (sorry this is the best example I can think of). If we are to follow Ockham's razor then we will immediately think that he is guilty and he will be sentenced to whatever. Ockham's razor just eliminates the trial process simply because it is easier. Ockham's razor bases itself on how many assumptions one must assume in order to come up with a result. Therefore simply stating the man is guilty without gathering evidence, assessing the situation, questioning witnesses seems to be much easier and involves much less assumptions. Hence he is guilty. I think people do not believe in God simply because it makes them more comfortable to think that their actions are not being watched by a supreme being that will judge them at the end of their lives (My opinion).

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

DNA has been observed, and we're beginning to understand how it works in some detail.

Allah has never been observed, and how he (supposedly) created life is a process we certainly don't understand.

But we don't know how DNA (supposedly) spontaneously arose from inanimate matter either!

 

[Bertsura]

No offense but I think Ockham's razor is a very selfish way to look at life. If we were to follow that rule we will remain ignorant to what really happened. I am not only talking about the existence of God. This applies to life in general. Take this example. Let us say a man was found in a room with a bloody knife in his hand looking down at a victim's dead body (sorry this is the best example I can think of). If we are to follow Ockham's razor then we will immediately think that he is guilty and he will be sentenced to whatever. Ockham's razor just eliminates the trial process simply because it is easier. Ockham's razor bases itself on how many assumptions one must assume in order to come up with a result. Therefore simply stating the man is guilty without gathering evidence, assessing the situation, questioning witnesses seems to be much easier and involves much less assumptions. Hence he is guilty. I think people do not believe in God simply because it makes them more comfortable to think that their actions are not being watched by a supreme being that will judge them at the end of their lives (My opinion).

The analogy fails. You do have to gather evidence and assess the situation. That's the difference between making it "simple" and making it "simplistic". Scientists try to understand the world around them. They do not just give up and assume God made everything.

 

[Bertsura]

But we don't know how DNA (supposedly) spontaneously arose from inanimate matter either!

And therefore, Allah made everything, and he revealed himself and gave all these laws that all of us have to follow, and everything in the Qur'an is absolutely true, and Allah revealed himself to Muhammad through Gabriel, and... It does not follow.

 

[Cheb]

The analogy fails. You do have to gather evidence and assess the situation. That's the difference between making it "simple" and making it "simplistic". Scientists try to understand the world around them. They do not just give up and assume God made everything.

Neither do we. I have a question, if you believe that God does not exist then what do you believe there was in the beginning? I mean how was the first thing to exist in the universe come to its existance? What created it?

 

[Bertsura]

Neither do we. I have a question, if you believe that God does not exist then what do you believe there was in the beginning? I mean how was the first thing to exist in the universe come to its existance? What created it?

I don't know. The problem is, people pretend they know when they do not. That is what religion does.

 

[czgibson]

Hello Ansar,

But we don't know how DNA (supposedly) spontaneously arose from inanimate matter either!

True. You'll see that I mentioned this earlier when I said:

Both propositions involve life coming from non-life, so as far as simplicity goes, they are equal on that count.

Hello Cheb,

No offense but I think Ockham's razor is a very selfish way to look at life.

Ockham's razor is not "a way to look at life" at all. It's a philosophical tool that is used when the evidence on both sides of a question is equal, or, as in the present case, when we don't have strong evidence on either side.

In the case you mentioned, many other options would have to be explored before anyone would consider using Ockham's razor. As Bertsura says, we'd have to gather all possible evidence and assess the situation.

Peace

 

[shanu]

If atheism solely depends on science
Science long ago came to the conclusion, it cannot asnwer everything,a nd scientists too believe
there is "something" up there that has a cntrol over everything..
And that is GOD

 

[DaSangarTalib]

i would like to bring ppl's attention to the following link mainly coz its being ignored lol

>> http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-poetry-video-audio/14642-collapse-atheism.html

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

If atheism solely depends on science

Who said atheism solely depends on science?

Science long ago came to the conclusion, it cannot asnwer everything,

True. Scientists don't know everything. That's the precise reason why science began, and why it continues.

a nd scientists too believe
there is "something" up there that has a cntrol over everything..
And that is GOD

Some scientists believe in god, some don't.

Here are some statistics:

Leading Scientists Still Reject God

Peace

 

[Bertsura]

If atheism solely depends on science
Science long ago came to the conclusion, it cannot asnwer everything,a nd scientists too believe
there is "something" up there that has a cntrol over everything..
And that is GOD

That's the thing. Science cannot explain everything. It does not make that claim. Again, it does not mean that we just give up and stop trying.

The scary thing is that religion claims that it can explain everything else. Quite frankly, the religious explanations make no sense from a rational, even coherent, standpoint. And all the excess baggage that comes with religion, such as the laws and beliefs, come from human beings who claim that this is God's word. The question is, how can we differentiate between God's word and the word of human beings who have their own interests in mind?

 

[Cheb]

I will pose my question again.
"If you believe that God does not exist then what do you believe there was in the beginning? I mean how was the first thing to exist in the universe come to its existance? What created it?"

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Cheb,

I will pose my question again.
"If you believe that God does not exist then what do you believe there was in the beginning?

The Big Bang is the earliest event that is thought to have happened, as far as I know. Is that really the beginning though? I don't know.

I mean how was the first thing to exist in the universe come to its existance?

I don't know. I don't even know if there was a first thing to come into existence.

What created it?"

I don't know. I'm not even sure that something consciously created it.

You think you know the answers to these questions, but do you really?

Peace

 

[shorouk]

God is there through our faith and common sense which happens to not b so common...

 

[shanu]

well well well
Believe wat u want dears
I m sure, that one day everyone would believe that god has existance
This is wat i belive
N i dont mind whatever u believe in
im happy that u believe in something
Peace

 

[shanu]

By the way, wad do u thing caused da big bang.
The scary part is big bang is written in the quran, long be4 sceintists came up with it
Hmm i wonder how come many things written in the quran are onlu being discovrred by scientists much later

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

before we jump into a discussion on the scientific miracles of the Qur'an, I would like to request that we keep that to the many other threads made on that topic.

 

[HeiGou]

If atheism solely depends on science
Science long ago came to the conclusion, it cannot asnwer everything,a nd scientists too believe
there is "something" up there that has a cntrol over everything..
And that is GOD

If atheism solely depends on science.

I do not agree with the idea that science has come to the conclusion it cannot answer everything. Some scientists believe there is something else - but what is the evidence that this particular something can answer the questions that science cannot? Moreover what makes you think that this something is your God and not someone else's? Arguing that the Universe is strange, so we must assume something larger and more strange to us is not a real solution.

Assuming there are problems that science cannot answer now. Who do you think is more likely to answer them in the future - scientists who have, after all, cured diseases, sent men to the Moon and made nuclear weapons, or witchdoctors/rabbis/priests/mullahs/whatever studying their religious texts who are not noted for their ability to shape the world we live in.

 

[Cheb]

If atheism solely depends on science.

I do not agree with the idea that science has come to the conclusion it cannot answer everything. Some scientists believe there is something else - but what is the evidence that this particular something can answer the questions that science cannot? Moreover what makes you think that this something is your God and not someone else's? Arguing that the Universe is strange, so we must assume something larger and more strange to us is not a real solution.

Would you rather believe that a human being created all this or a supreme being? I mean put religion aside (for now) and think about it. What is a more logical solution. I think Atheists are simply in denial. When asked the question what created all this you dont have an answer. And yes we do! The answer is God. Besides the undeniable evidence in the Quran that you can see in another thread on this forum, we also have faith. The thing is, if it was proven for all people on earth that God exists without a doubt then what would be the reason for living. Life is a test that we must pass. If God gave us all the answers to life, then rather than being a test, life would be more like a walkthrough.

QUOTE=HeiGou;186387]Assuming there are problems that science cannot answer now. Who do you think is more likely to answer them in the future - scientists who have, after all, cured diseases, sent men to the Moon and made nuclear weapons, or witchdoctors/rabbis/priests/mullahs/whatever studying their religious texts who are not noted for their ability to shape the world we live in.[/QUOTE]
Religion. Science relies a lot on theories rather than facts. I do not think they will figure out how we came on earth unless they looked into religion.

 

[cihad]

to the atheists: what happens after you die?