Answering Atheism in one paragraph

[sambhunath]

Once I asked a doctor Post Graduate in Medicine about the utility of a specific medicines for fever. He advised me to take some crocin tablet. I again asked him that how did he know that this tablet will cure me. He told that he is a doctor and he knows if from his study from pharmacology I again asked him from which book he studied it and who was the writer? Was the writer. I again asked him from which sources the writer gained his knowledge about the raw material of the medicine. He answered that through research the medicine was produced. I asked him questions after questions to know the root of invention of medicines and the first inventor. Lastly I asked his where the inventor was either a medicine doctor of Phd holder. In reply he told me that there was not certificate during that time. Then I asked him who is the creator raw materials...in reply he told that there is top most doctor or head doctor or creator- and he does not know about him. He admitted that there most be a creator, are there are creations. If one atheist does not believe the existence of almighty,then he is a learner in this stage.

 

[Independent]

Once I asked a doctor Post Graduate in Medicine about the utility of a specific medicines for fever.

I don't think this is the best analogy out there. A doctor could legitimately prescribe a drug based on empirical evidence alone (ie 'it works') without being able to scientifically prove how or why. There are still drugs in use today that applies to.

He admitted that there most be a creator, are there are creations.

The word 'creator' leads to confusion because it implies a person. We end up with these tautologous arguments that 'if something is created, then there must be a creator'. This isn't logic, it's linguistics and it doesn't tell us anything.

If you change 'created and creator' for 'cause and effect' then it's much more accurate and can be applied usefully in science - ie 'every effect must have a cause'.

Now we can ask the same question about the origin of the universe without pre-supposing the answer. Maybe the cause is in the realm of physics, maybe religion. At least it's a fairly put question.

 

[M.I.A.]

I don't understand what you mean by this. Care to explain further?



Science?

i meant that athiests in general provide questions which make muslims uncomfortable..

well some of the time, other times the line of questioning and answers is of little use or just tail chasing.

for me i think its benefiting because it raises questions in my own head, sometimes not even directly related to athiest questions but in things they have said unwittingly.. which are harder to answer then the actual questions.

i dont mind being uncomfortable for a short time, if it leads to any sort of understanding.


the main troubles i have with science are mirrored by many other scientists.

i often frequent a science board and its mentioned sometimes by those that have noticed it.

mainly that science seems all encompassing and yet is made of distinct topics, which may be pieced together but one gets the idea that there may be several missing pieces in between.

its like missing the complexity of things.. the number of factors not taken into account because the scientific method of observable and reproducible results is used.

science is still complex and difficult to grasp but it does neglect things that it does not need.


iv been involved in research so its my own firsthand experience.


unfortunately my own findings were ridiculed.

i mean the machine trudges on and one day they will find an explanation for it and sort it.

but dont expect me to tell you they had the right idea all along.


but who on earth would expose there own failings?

too many people behind it already.


but the above statement is hardly empirical, its just how things work. imo.


i mean if your ever in a position to question something like that then you can figure out where you stand by the answers your given.


and choosing your own hell seems counter intuitive.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I don't think this is the best analogy out there. A doctor could legitimately prescribe a drug based on empirical evidence alone (ie 'it works') without being able to scientifically prove how or why. There are still drugs in use today that applies to.


The word 'creator' leads to confusion because it implies a person. We end up with these tautologous arguments that 'if something is created, then there must be a creator'. This isn't logic, it's linguistics and it doesn't tell us anything.

If you change 'created and creator' for 'cause and effect' then it's much more accurate and can be applied usefully in science - ie 'every effect must have a cause'.

Now we can ask the same question about the origin of the universe without pre-supposing the answer. Maybe the cause is in the realm of physics, maybe religion. At least it's a fairly put question.

Yes. A "created" obviously requires a "creator" by the name alone. You presuppose something was created if you call it "created". You presuppose something was caused by something else if you call it "caused". It doesn't really say anything. It is just playing with language.

 

[Pygoscelis]

i meant that athiests in general provide questions which make muslims uncomfortable..

well some of the time, other times the line of questioning and answers is of little use or just tail chasing.

for me i think its benefiting because it raises questions in my own head, sometimes not even directly related to athiest questions but in things they have said unwittingly.. which are harder to answer then the actual questions.

i dont mind being uncomfortable for a short time, if it leads to any sort of understanding.

This approach is so refreshing to see! Good on you.

mainly that science seems all encompassing and yet is made of distinct topics, which may be pieced together but one gets the idea that there may be several missing pieces in between.

its like missing the complexity of things.. the number of factors not taken into account because the scientific method of observable and reproducible results is used.

science is still complex and difficult to grasp but it does neglect things that it does not need.

Yes I agree with that. We will always have missing variables we fail to control for.

but who on earth would expose there own failings?

too many people behind it already.

This too is an unfortunate truth. Scientists are human and have human failings, and too often they get attached to their theories. It sometimes seems that science advances only as the old generation dies out and is replaced by the new generation with a more open mind and less attachment to the old predominant theory. Maybe in the future science will be done more by computers and robots without human ego and emotion to cloud it so much.

 

[M.I.A.]

Maybe in the future science will be done more by computers and robots without human ego and emotion to cloud it so much.

thats the irony.... really the biggest irony.



if man could make the perfect machine...


it would be human.


self repairing.

self replicating.

self learning.

able to adapt thaught and body to suit the needs of the job.


...i guess its still no proof of god.


unfortunately what is it that programs us?

its not something that is a one paragraph answer.



something that should make you smirk is the idea that humans are lesser than angels, in terms of adherance to god.


that ego and emotion.

that idea of freedom of choice.

that soul.


no offence intended to angels...

i have no idea what they really feel.




but going back to the idea of machines, if you had the perfect machine.. what would be the next step.

giving it character?

 

[haroonqureshi89]

Atheism does not make sense because it requires us to believe the universe cam from nothing for no reason. Also if God does not exist there is no objective Moriarty. And if there is no objective morality then anything is permitted which makes life absurd.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Atheism does not make sense because it requires us to believe the universe cam from nothing for no reason.

This has been addressed numerous times in this thread. If you can't be bothered to read and/or respond to it, then I really can't help you.

Also if God does not exist there is no objective Moriarty.

How does God existing make morality any more objective than God not existing?

 

[Scimitar]

Moriarty?

 

[Indian Bro]

As-salamu alaykum,


Atheists (disbelievers) have existed for ages. Verily, no one understands atheists more than Allah (swt) Himself.

They deny the meeting with Allah (swt) as mentioned in the Qur'an.
Rather, they are, in [the matter of] the meeting with their Lord, disbelievers.[32:10]

Allah (swt) has sealed their hearts and they cannot see.
Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil.[2:7]

Can anyone give direction to one who is deaf and blind?
Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe.[2:6]

Surely no one can guide a disbeliever except Allah (swt) Himself.

May Allah (swt) guide us all to the straight path

 

[iRock]

Our world have too many religions :heated:

 

[Muhaba]

I love this verse of this very beautiful Surah (Surah Tur) of the Quran:
Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.
(52: 35-36)

I think it says it all.

 

[Independent]

An interesting new theory has just been published in relation to this thread. Some people have latched onto Big Bang because they think it provides the universe with a definite beginning, and a definite end, that needs to be explained by a divine being. But a new theory derived from the latest information about the Higgs Boson particle suggests that the fate of our universe may not be indefinite expansion and entropy, but destruction and renewal in a potentially endless (and beginningless) cycle. In addition, it holds out the prospect that we may be able to confirm that an endless cycle of repeating universes is scientifically verifiable:

(Passages in bold highlighted by me):

Scientists say they may be able to determine the eventual fate of the cosmos as they probe the properties of the Higgs boson. A concept known as vacuum instability could result, billions of years from now, in a new universe opening up in the present one and replacing it.


It all depends on some precise numbers related to the Higgs that researchers are currently trying to pin down. A "Higgs-like" particle was first seen at the Large Hadron Collider last year. Associated with an energy field that pervades all space, the boson helps explain the existence of mass in the cosmos. In other words, it underpins the workings of all the matter we see around us.


Since detecting the particle in their accelerator experiments, researchers at the Geneva lab and at related institutions around the world have begun to theorise on the Higgs' implications for physics. One idea that it throws up is the possibility of a cyclical universe, in which every so often all of space is renewed.


"It turns out there's a calculation you can do in our Standard Model of particle physics, once you know the mass of the Higgs boson," explained Dr Joseph Lykken. "This bubble will then expand, basically at the speed of light, and sweep everything before it. If you use all the physics we know now, and you do this straightforward calculation - it's bad news."


"What happens is you get just a quantum fluctuation that makes a tiny bubble of the vacuum the Universe really wants to be in. And because it's a lower-energy state, this bubble will then expand, basically at the speed of light, and sweep everything before it," the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory theoretician told BBC News.


(Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21499765)

Once again, this is cutting edge physics and may or may not turn out to be correct. No one who isn't an expert in astrophysics has any chance of knowing how plausible this is.

The point is that it is unwise to grab hold of particular scientific theories which, in some people's views, appear to substantiate their reading of the Qur'an or other holy texts. We have to keep an open mind to the origin of the universe for now. And any argument based on the 'something cannot come from nothing' line of logic is premature.

There are other reasons for faith, but science does not offer any proof as yet.

 

[Indian Bro]

Peace be with you Independant,

There will always be people theorizing on the origins of the universe, truth be told, no one will ever find out the exact details of how the universe was formed, even Muslims. The Qur'an doesn't give such immense details on how the universe started, but whatever is mentioned in the Qur'an about how the universe began, we believe. And if tomorrow science contradicts with what is in the Qur'an then we'll just have to acknowledge that Science is wrong about that particular concept because Science has been wrong before thousands of times and it can be wrong again whereas the Qur'an has never been wrong even once before and neither will it be wrong ever. This is the miracle of the Qur'an, a miracle that was revealed to the last and final Messenger of this world and other unknown worlds, a miracle that will remain to exist till the Last Day.

 

[Independent]

The Qur'an doesn't give such immense details on how the universe started, but whatever is mentioned in the Qur'an about how the universe began, we believe. And if tomorrow science contradicts with what is in the Qur'an then we'll just have to acknowledge that Science is wrong about that particular concept because Science has been wrong before thousands of times and it can be wrong again whereas the Qur'an has never been wrong even once before and neither will it be wrong ever.

I understand this and wholly respect your point of view.

What I do object to, is people telling me (as in the start of this thread) that science proves the existence of a divine being - because it does not. Maybe it will one day, but right now that's not the case.

 

[Hulk]

Not science per se but rather reason. My faith is not based on fallible scientific study. Though I might be open to someone who might correlate a scientific study with a verse from religious text in no way is that the basis upon my belief.

 

[Pygoscelis]

And if tomorrow science contradicts with what is in the Qur'an then we'll just have to acknowledge that Science is wrong about that particular concept because Science has been wrong before thousands of times and it can be wrong again whereas the Qur'an has never been wrong even once before and neither will it be wrong ever.

\

That is because science makes itself falsifiable. The whole point is to make better and better guesses as we investigate the world, so it is going to be wrong over and over as we get a better and better understanding, backed by an ever growing body of evidence. It is useful for technology (medical, industrial, military, etc).

Religion takes the opposite approach, and declares itself unfalsifiable. It declares "facts" by "revelation" and then fits everything to them. If anything looks wrong in the Quran it will be declared allegory or metaphor. It is useless for technology, but more useful for culture, cohesion, and stability.

Both can be used for good or ill, both can bring comfort or pain, and I think it is a matter of opinion which is more important to the world.

 

[Hulk]

Thor the god of war

please just stop

 

[Muhaba]

An interesting new theory has just been published in relation to this thread. Some people have latched onto Big Bang because they think it provides the universe with a definite beginning, and a definite end, that needs to be explained by a divine being. But a new theory derived from the latest information about the Higgs Boson particle suggests that the fate of our universe may not be indefinite expansion and entropy, but destruction and renewal in a potentially endless (and beginningless) cycle. In addition, it holds out the prospect that we may be able to confirm that an endless cycle of repeating universes is scientifically verifiable:

(Passages in bold highlighted by me):

Scientists say they may be able to determine the eventual fate of the cosmos as they probe the properties of the Higgs boson. A concept known as vacuum instability could result, billions of years from now, in a new universe opening up in the present one and replacing it.


It all depends on some precise numbers related to the Higgs that researchers are currently trying to pin down. A "Higgs-like" particle was first seen at the Large Hadron Collider last year. Associated with an energy field that pervades all space, the boson helps explain the existence of mass in the cosmos. In other words, it underpins the workings of all the matter we see around us.


Since detecting the particle in their accelerator experiments, researchers at the Geneva lab and at related institutions around the world have begun to theorise on the Higgs' implications for physics. One idea that it throws up is the possibility of a cyclical universe, in which every so often all of space is renewed.


"It turns out there's a calculation you can do in our Standard Model of particle physics, once you know the mass of the Higgs boson," explained Dr Joseph Lykken. "This bubble will then expand, basically at the speed of light, and sweep everything before it. If you use all the physics we know now, and you do this straightforward calculation - it's bad news."


"What happens is you get just a quantum fluctuation that makes a tiny bubble of the vacuum the Universe really wants to be in. And because it's a lower-energy state, this bubble will then expand, basically at the speed of light, and sweep everything before it," the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory theoretician told BBC News.


(Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21499765)

Once again, this is cutting edge physics and may or may not turn out to be correct. No one who isn't an expert in astrophysics has any chance of knowing how plausible this is.

The point is that it is unwise to grab hold of particular scientific theories which, in some people's views, appear to substantiate their reading of the Qur'an or other holy texts. We have to keep an open mind to the origin of the universe for now. And any argument based on the 'something cannot come from nothing' line of logic is premature.

There are other reasons for faith, but science does not offer any proof as yet.

They will believe everything except God. To athiests, every farfetched theory is acceptable except the theory (fact) that God exists and created everything.

 

[Pygoscelis]

They will believe everything except God. To athiests, every farfetched theory is acceptable except the theory (fact) that God exists and created everything.

No, there are plenty of other farfetched theories most atheists don't subscribe to, lots of other mythical creatures for that matter, from vampires to faeries to the loch ness monster. Most (but not all) atheists are skeptics, and criticism of religion is just one small segment of that. There are in fact entire skeptic magazines and podcasts, often those running them are atheists, that never even mention Gods.