Atheist Ideology?

[Skavau]

Existance proves we exist? No, existance means we exist, get it right.

No, existence is only evidence that we exist.

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

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

No reason to believe this is true of the universe itself.

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

I already have explained my viewpoints on the existence of the universe.

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

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

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

Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in Allah's plan. But most of them ignore (the truth).


Surah Anaam Verse 111​

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

 

[جوري]

I'll have to agree with MdMashud.. it is as simple as a Descartes(ian) dualistic theory of mind and matter.. Anyone who will expend some deep thought in any discipline will reach a point of impossibleness that can only be answered one of two ways. Yes there is a God, no everything came from--- and then will assign an absurd excuse for everything..
Then will quote random dead philosophers to reason with 'equanimity'.. but only the philosophers that will foster their thought process.
When the most credible explanation is usually the simplest one.. at least per another dead philosopher 'Occam's Razor'

the simpler the explanation, the better" or "don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily

 

[Skavau]

ok now go on to refute the other points such as fornication etc.

Sex outside marriage is no more dangerous inherently than sex in marriage.

The Apostacy issue will always have bias and double standards.

What do you mean specifically? What bias and double standards?

But you can go ahead and refute my other points, which clearly show how they affect the people. just to remind you

They only affect those involved in it, and only if there is no responsibility taken by those involved. They are not inherently dangerous.

fornication/adultery/exposure of skin etc: creates a shameless environment unfit for children

Adultery does.

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

 

[Md Mashud]

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

The universe is not an eternal existance, how can you make such a silly assumption? This is going back to the stone ages in terms of scientific fact. The universe scientifically had a beginning, end of, thus all of this is nonsense.

Can't believe you jumped into the grave you dug!

 

[Skavau]

The universe is not an eternal existance, how can you make such a silly assumption?

It is an assumption which has reason behind it. (Ex Nihilo, Nihilo Fit)

This is going back to the stone ages in terms of scientific fact. The universe scientifically had a beginning, end of, thus all of this is nonsense.

No it is not.

 

[Md Mashud]

NO, WOW, I REST MY CASE.

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

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

 

[جوري]

I actually did a search. I typed 'Atheists under Islam' and 'Non-Muslims under Islam'.

I didn't seem to get anything.

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

Eh?

this is getting dull

I do not feel that I should have to go into any discussion where I am dehumanised, insulted and generally treated with contempt simply because of metaphysical differences. It is a disgrace and morally condemnable that you deem it valid to treat Atheists as you do.

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

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

You can oppose all you want.. No one is holding a gun to your head to accept laws regarding apostacy or regarding this dialogue!

 

[Skavau]

Don't engage in a topic then, if you can't handle a proper delineation as to what an Atheist is to most folks!

I saw this statement to be a justification for people to treat Atheists with contempt and your other statements towards me (and others, although I cannot specifically recall them) (all put in to fine detail) as an affirmation of your viewpoint towards Atheists.

I do however feel that philosophy and religion are what it meant to be in the age of reason and enlightenment.. essentially what severalizes us from animals.. a fine line.. not to cross it, TO ME is to be in a state that is animal like! I don't see why that should bother you in the least since so many Atheists generally speaking are intransigent evolutionists who believe they are indeed the descendants of Apes

I am a human being. I do see value in philosophy, ethics, the arts, and civilisation itself. I try to act to my moral standards and in a civilised way. What I may or may not originate from is completely irrelevant to what I am. There is a difference between ought and is.

 

[جوري]

I saw this statement to be a justification for people to treat Atheists with contempt and your other statements towards me (and others, although I cannot specifically recall them) (all put in to fine detail) as an affirmation of your viewpoint towards Atheists.

To treat and to be thought of are separate issues.. if I were to sum up my feelings in one word toward atheists, it would truly fall under pity.. ultimately I believe they are divesting their soul from its inherent rights of solace and spiritual fulfilment.. you can't only consummate all the physical desires and deny your consciousness, and inner self! further compounded by the fact that most if not all Atheists are intransigent evolutionists as stated earlier, who believe they are indeed the descendants of Apes.. why it is Ok when an Atheist concedes the animal roots, but not when a deist points it out?

I am a human being. I do see value in philosophy, ethics, the arts, and civilisation itself. I try to act to my moral standards and in a civilised way. What I may or may not originate from is completely irrelevant to what I am. There is a difference between ought and is.

I think you are on to something here that is very relative to the topic at hand... You see atheists are as dogmatic as theists with gradation and have dissimilar tenets.. frankly we've seen our share in this forum.. they can be quite organized and they can in fact have an agenda yes an 'atheist ideology' 'tis after all human to hold an opinion... I think history has witnessed quite a few of those.. up to and including Enver Hoxha!
What defines you as different has very much included you in.. no different if you'll pardon the expression, than two schizophrenics, one who displays positive symptoms, and another who displays negative symptoms.. at the very end of the day when all is said and done, they are both schizophrenics who are ailing on some level!

peace!

 

[InToTheRain]

9. The assertion that the Universe is the eternal existence has infinitely more evidence in its favour than assuming that a God is the source of eternal existence because as (1) and (6) demonstrate, the universe is directly observable. There is no evidence for any God.

:uuh: you can't be serious! here is a site FYI. The Universe has a beginning and is actually expanding!

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

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

:ws:

 

[Skavau]

:uuh: you can't be serious! here is a site FYI. The Universe has a beginning and is actually expanding!

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

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

Evidence for the universe before the big bang is the fact that the universe exists now.

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

 

[جوري]

that existed before the big bang. We do not know anything about it or can have any direct observation of it.

Why can't that be a description of God?
God as time, as eternal has always been!.. the one as you describe, we don't know anything about but can collectively agree has been there all along?

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


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

 

[Skavau]

Why can't that be a description of God?

No reason whatsoever.

God as time, as eternal has always been!.. the one as you describe, we don't know anything about but can collectively agree has been there all along?

Did you read my full opinion regarding this earlier?

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

 

[InToTheRain]

We do not know anything about it or can have any direct observation of it.

If you do not know anything about it then why are you so strong in denying it was God? Your Logic makes strong argument for the existence of God, I agree, there must've been an Omnipotent source from which everything came and that source was God.

 

[Isambard]

Wow, Im gone for a few hrs and this thread takes a life of its own lol

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

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

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

 

[Skavau]

If you do not know anything about it then why are you so strong in denying it was God?

Because there is no evidence that God exists.

There is evidence that the universe exists.

Your Logic makes strong argument for the existence of God

I don't see how.

, I agree, there must've been an Omnipotent source from which everything came and that source was God.

I'm not saying that.

 

[جوري]

No reason whatsoever.

I am not sure if I should take this in the positive or the negative.. no matter let me read along while replying....

Did you read my full opinion regarding this earlier?

reading now

1. The Universe observably exists.

Ok

2. Ex nihilo, nihil fit (Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing by definition simply does not exist and has no property of establishing something that does. A Non-Existence Y cannot achieve a coherent way of ending up to an existent Z)

You'll have to forgive that I am a bit slow and first to admit it.. what does that mean to you?

3. Everything therefore must have its own cause. This includes the Earth, the Solar System and ultimately the Universe.

Indeed everything has a cause!

4. This logically leads to an infinite regression as to assert an uncaused cause negates principle (2) and principle (3).

well this really goes both ways for the Atheist and the theist.. you'll have to assume some sort of truth at some point to build all else upon, as I see you are doing it here successivly!

5. Therefore, existence is eternal.

The existence of whom or what I should say? plus this is sort of a non sequitur to your previous conclusions!

6. The only 'existence' we know is the Universe around us as demonstrated in (1). It is entirely observable and we constantly interact with it.

Do you believe that you have indeed observed all that is in the universe and interacted with it? Is everything in the universe indeed discernible and observable? we can strip everything to a low common denominator, but there will be so much you are not accounting for.
for instance let me give you an example we can all relate to.. surely at some point in your life you've felt pain or a headache.. was that observable or even quantifiable save by your own subjective scale? in fact if you were to present some to an ER some where, and tell them, I have a really bad headache, everyone would understand what you are talking about, but no one will be able to quantify it for you. You'l then say on a scale from one to ten it is a six.. then someone will take your word for it and treat you accordingly!
the headache/pain existed-- you bet
entirely observable? no way
could other interact with it, the way you were? no way!
could others relate to it in universality-- I will have to say with assertion, unless you were physically born with CIPA or HSAN5 type 5 in which case you have complete insensitivity to pain, I guarantee that it is a global experience!
thus I conclude that your original conclusion is faulty! you know not accounting for everything and in one of those tiny things you didn't account for, could lie your answer!

7. The evidence for a God regarding existence is simply non-existent. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that a God, of whatever understanding exists.

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

8. Considering (2) and (5), something must be eternal.

Indeed God is!

9. The assertion that the Universe is the eternal existence has infinitely more evidence in its favour than assuming that a God is the source of eternal existence because as (1) and (6) demonstrate, the universe is directly observable. There is no evidence for any God.

evidence of God is observed in tiniest cell to fall-blooming annuals to the grandest of galaxies.. it would be a shame to miss it!

10. Therefore it is a bold step to assume Allah exists.

I rather think the converse.. a sheer bluff to deny his existence!

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

peace!

 

[ranma1/2]

….
They state they have created alternative theories to how we existed other than God. But close inspection on those theories, they have a huge GAP and are not complete - while the God theory is absolute and would explain everything.

The god theory is a non answer and explains nothing. Not to mention the complete lack of evidence.

….
Not only this, none of the theories would disprove God in any way in the unlikely chance they would be true.

Its hard to disprove anything. Disprove zeus doesn’t exists. The easter bunny. My invisible friend bob. Etc…

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

Nor would they contradict Yanyyug guash, Its hard to contradict something that has no definite definition and varies from one person to another.
We can look at certain claims and evaluate them with what we know. Claim. The earth was made in 6 days, global flood, we were created from nothing.etc..
These claims science has pretty much established as false.

….
All of these theories have required either matter, energy or meaningless forces (as described by them in their own words) - So what atheists do is say if X and Y existed, this could do process Z via Y and create M... Thats what all their theories are. You see the gap? Not one atheist has explained where X and Y came from or even a cause to them! If anything these only say God must exist to me.

There is nothing wrong with saying we don’t know.
“GOD did it!” is not an answer though. Where did god come from? typical answer. It has always existed. What made god. Nothing….. etc. etc..
As for explaining where X or Y came from , scientists have ideas and not one scientific answer is GOD did it.

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

Give us some credible evidence for a gods existence and perhaps give a definition of god. And support this with evidence. Till then disprove that Zeus didn’t do it.

….
When an atheists can give plausible reasons why such things can exist to begin with, only then can they realistically call themselves atheists rather then theist or AGNOSTIC.

We have discussed this to death in another thread. One deals with belief one with knowledge. Like wise by your logic you can’t really call your self a Muslim but only an agnostic.

….
But, they themselves know, they will never work it out. They live in a world where they think process theories disprove God, when in fact it never does.

We are still waiting for evidence that a god exists “not to mention clear agreed upon criteria and definitions of god/s”

….
So why does God belief have credibility? With our understanding of existence, matter and energy, we see that there to be an absolute, that absolute must be independent of the materialism that we see everything as.

An absolute what? And evidence for this claim?

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

….
Is it ignorant to believe in God? No, Il explain. You say we can't see him or really prove its existence. But we can make a proof by deduction that is, without any other explanations to explain my existence, I must accept what I have at the time (scientists should be familiar with this methodology). I can't even consider other options because they have yet to exist - as said above people claimed to have created alternatives but they haven’t. Fine, you don't have to accept God exists but how can you say he doesn't?

Where is this proof?
And. I don’t think or believe a god as commonly defined by most religions exists. I find creation myths to be contradictory to the scientific knowledge we have and thus false.

….
You must be theist or agnostic to not be ignorant. Theists would only be ignorant if they did not consider all options - but i'll repeat there has been no selection to choose from!

Ignorant of what?
Evidence? What knowledge does agnostics or theism provide? I find we are all ignorant of a lot of things. I find many people are even willing ignorant and put on blinders to knowledge.

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

Right and wrong. Atheism only deals with a belief in god/s. Morality is defined by society just as it for anyone else.

 

[Skavau]

Ok

Yes.

You'll have to forgive that I am a bit slow and first to admit it.. what does that mean to you?

It means that every cause must have its own cause.

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

Indeed everything has a cause!

Yes.

well this really goes both ways for the Atheist and the theist..

Yes it does.

The existence of whom or what I should say?

Existence itself.

plus this is sort of a non sequitur to your previous conclusions!

If an infinite regression of causes exists then it follows that existence must be infinite from it. If you break it and assume an uncaused cause (or a beginning of existence) of some description then the idea of every cause must have a cause becomes void.

Do you believe that you have indeed observed all that is in the universe and interacted with it?

No.

But we know that the universe does exist.

Is everything in the universe indeed discernible and observable?

Possibly, possibly not.

for instance let me give you an example we can all relate to.. surely at some point in your life you've felt pain or a headache.. was that observable or even quantifiable save by your own subjective scale? in fact if you were to present some to an ER some where, and tell them, I have a really bad headache, everyone would understand what you are talking about, but no one will be able to quantify it for you. You'l then say on a scale from one to ten it is a six.. then someone will take your word for it and treat you accordingly!
the headache/pain existed-- you bet
entirely observable? no way

I'm not seeing the relevance.

thus I conclude that your original conclusion is faulty! you know not accounting for everything and in one of those tiny things you didn't account for, could lie your answer!

This is incoherent. I really don't follow and I suspect it might be a language barrier.

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

You forget that this is meaningless if the conclusion of my idea is correct.

This appears to be an Argument From Design?

evidence of God is observed in tiniest cell to fall-blooming annuals to the grandest of galaxies.. it would be a shame to miss it!

Except that is only evidence of God to you. Not to me.

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