Answering Atheism in one paragraph

[mjbenker]

It doesn't help your case to point at theoretical physicists you haven't read and understood, or to use what they say to claim certainty in theories and ideas they put forward tentatively. Hawking will be the first to admit that he is not certain, and that he is creating theory based on the evidence he has. And if you wish to claim him as an authority, then you should consider that he does not draw your further conclusions about Gods existing. He is not a theist, and certainly not a Muslim.



I do not contradict myself. I define myself as both atheist (lacking god belief) and agnostic (believing it is impossible to know for certain).



If you define agnostic as one who does not know for sure, then any sane person is agnostic.



How so? How do you define Intelligence and Widsom? And why would one without the other breed atheism?

And if what you say is true, then does Wisdom without Intelligence breed theism?



Agreed



I don't see how that premise forces that conclusion. As Independent noted, there are different dimensions that could be infinite.



Yes it is too hard for me. I don't claim to understand infinity very well. I don't think you understand it either.



That seems to depend on how you define a starting point. Numbers start at zero and count up to infinity for example.



You don't know that.




If you can't answer a question then admit you can't answer it. There is no reason to protect your ego and label what you can't handle "unintelligent".



How can you say that and then say there is no god but Allah? Is 1 not a number?

Also I don't see why you couldn't have 2 or more infinite things. I don't see how the number of things that are infinite would restrict them from being infinite.

Also I don't see why you couldn't have 2 or more infinite things. I don't see how the number of things that are infinite would restrict them from being infinite.

Hi there my friend,

Reading your posts, I understand where your thoughts are coming from. I called myself atheist not too long ago, but after learning more about the true nature of god, I felt this even more natural for me. I suggest reading the quran if you haven't and trying to understand what us muslims define as our version of God.

I strongly recommend looking up a Mr. Hamza Tzortiz. He engages in a lot of debates with athiests and is a quite well known islamic scholar.

And also, your curiosity is great.. Thanks and good luck.

 

[haroonqureshi89]

I think atheism is irrational. You would need to believe the world just popped into existence for no reason.

 

[titus]

I think religion is irrational. You would need to believe that God just popped into existence for no reason.

 

[NjmYqlb]

Just to give a heads up on a new research paper done

Quote from an article on naturalnews.com;

A new scientific paper published in arXiv (arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf) and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation. The title of the paper is Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation.
Here's the super easy way to understand all this. Your computer display screen has a finite number of pixels available, and this is called the "screen resolution" such as 1920 x 1440. This means there are 1920 pixels across and 1440 pixels vertically.


Everything you see on your computer screen must be drawn and depicted using these pixels, and nothing can be displayed that's only half a pixel. For example, you can't draw a vertical line on the screen that exists between the pixels that are hard-wired into the screen resolution. Everything you view on the monitor -- a computer game, a website, even a video -- is essentially transposed onto the "lattice" of pixels that exist in your hardware.


Your hardware, in effect, has a hard-wired "resolution limit" which defines the smallest size of any object that can be depicted on the screen.


Now, zoom out to the "real" world in which we live. Here in the real world, we think that there are no pixels and that we can move fluidly to any location we wish. We are not digitized being, we think; we're analog beings living in a fluid world without the pixelation of a computer screen, right?


Not so fast. As it turns out, our "reality" is also pixelated, just at a very fine resolution. This study out of Bonn revealed that the energy level of cosmic rays "snaps to" the "resolution" of the universe in which we live. The very laws of electromagnetic radiation, in other words, are confined by the resolution of the three-dimensional simulation we call a "universe."


The existence of this construct, if proven, also proves intelligent design by a conscious Creator who built the universe to begin with. This is the upshot of this scientific discovery that most scientists refuse to acknowledge. But the conclusion is inescapable: If our universe is a carefully-constructed simulation, then by definition there must have been a purpose behind its construction as well as a Creator who built it.

 

[Independent]

The existence of this construct, if proven, also proves intelligent design by a conscious Creator who built the universe to begin with. This is the upshot of this scientific discovery that most scientists refuse to acknowledge. But the conclusion is inescapable: If our universe is a carefully-constructed simulation, then by definition there must have been a purpose behind its construction as well as a Creator who built it.

No it doesn't! Quite the opposite. This is a very good example of how scientific research gets misread by people looking for confirmation of religious beliefs.

What Silas Bean is doing is, firstly, to try and simulate our universe by computer modelling.

Because the universe is enormously complex, he can only simulate an area a few centimetres across. He estimates that if our computing power continues to increase at the same rate as currently, he should be able to simulate the whole thing about 500 years from now. (He really said this.)

Nevertheless this is an exercise worth doing because you can still make theoretical deductions based on a small sample area.

The interesting part is that, in building any simulation, you have to use certain constraints and build it within a repeating gridlike structure. Silas then realised that if you could find similar constraints and structures in the real universe then that would imply it too is a 'simulation'.

In other words, because his attempt to build a computer simulation requires certain techniques and limitations, Silas has noticed that the universe appears to show evidence of similar techniques and limitations.

More detail given here: (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-10/11/universe-computer-simulation)

What we do know, though, is that when we create such a simulator, there's some kind of underlying lattice that holds everything together like a kind of framework. Think of it as the smallest scale at which a simulator runs -- like the way a grid divides up the playable space in a chess game. You can't move a piece less than one grid space.


If we were living in a simulator, we'd expect to find evidence of that lattice if we looked close enough to the edges of the observable universe -- and that's what Silas Beane from the University of Bonn and colleagues have calculated, in a paper published in arXiv. As cosmic particles fly through the universe, they lose energy and change direction and spread out across a spectrum of energy values. There's a known limit to how much energy those particles have, though, and Beane and his colleagues have calculated that this seemingly arbitrary cliff in the spectrum is consistent with the kind of boundary that you'd find if there was an underlying lattice governing the limits of a simulator. It should also, if present, scatter the particles in a certain way as they come up against it, and we should be able to investigate whether that's the case.

If such an investigation does look consistent with a simulator lattice, then that could mean several things. It could show us that there's a boundary out there consistent with Beane et al's hypothesis, and it works a bit like the one we'd expect if we were living inside a simulator based on the same principles as one we would also build. It could be, though, that we're incorrectly interpreting evidence of certain fundamental laws we are as yet unfamiliar with. It could even be that this isn't evidence at all for a simulator, as a real lattice might work in a different way to how we would envision it.


As this extract says, this is highly theoretical at this point. Even if it turns out that our universe is a computer simulation, this most certainly does not imply a divine being. It implies that we ourselves might be able to simulate such universes in the future, and that we may therefore be living in a simulation of our own creation.

If you've never seen the film Tfe Matrix, now's the time.

 

[IAmZamzam]

I think atheism is irrational. You would need to believe the world just popped into existence for no reason.

From roughly the age of ancient Greece there has almost never been a single atheistic counter-argument in all of history that did not sound like a child going, "I know you are but what am I?" They never have an actual answer, just an evasion miserably attempting to ricochet things back onto God. For once in my life, surprise me.

The world was never supposed to be a spiritual entity divorced from normal spacetime restraints, nor is it theorized by modern science as something omnitemporal or eternal. Try again. Or rather I should say *actually* try for real.

 

[Independent]

They never have an actual answer, just an evasion miserably attempting to ricochet things back onto God. For once in my life, surprise me.

I've read your post a few times but I can't work out what it is you want an answer for?

 

[IAmZamzam]

I was merely pointing how how titus was engaging in the invariable and inevitable practice of deflecting the issue back onto God instead of actually rebutting it, and specifically why this doesn't work. As sure as he was born the atheist always, always, always does that. An atheist in an argument is as predictable and circle-bound as a clockwork dancer. Logic dictates, on the other hand, that when two people are walking through the wild and come across, say, a rock structure, and one of them asks either how it got there in the first place or how it could possibly have gotten its smooth and well-proportioned shape as it is, the other guy is going to get looked at funny if he tries to dodge the question by asking who the sculptor's parents were. It's a complete non-sequitur, if not a reductio ad absurdum. The rock is the subject under discussion; leading things into a potential infinite regression has never solved anything in the history of human thought. It has never been practical to anything. It has never been a brave and direct man’s honest answer to anything either. The atheist calls their little trick “trying to get us to understand that we’re not following our own logic” or something stupid like that. I call it “refusing to sit down and address the issue”. Of course on the rare occasion that they *do* address it that just means I’m about to hear the equally inevitable and groan-inducing “I’m using the phrase ‘quantum flucation’ like it’s some kind of ‘get out of jail free’ card” argument, so why I am complaining really? I can’t win. Actually, as long as they're not ridiculing us with talk of fairy tales or flying spaghetti monsters I *am* winning, so I *shouldn't* complain.

 

[Pygoscelis]

How would you have us respond to unfalsifiable claims without convincing evidence? The "who made the creator " line is just an attempt to underscore the faulty logic of saying everything needs a creator or that everything complicated or advanced does. Addressing the logic fails of theists is really all atheists can do, given unfalsifiable claims.

 

[IAmZamzam]

---

I may as well explain, though, that, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a common metaphor for unfairly loaded questions. I thought it was well known enough so as not to need explaining, but I realize now that this was itself an unfair assumption which did produce something cryptic and I apologize for that.

"Falsifiable" is such a convenient term. By it atheists usually mean "empirically falsifiable", which makes their argument handily "heads I win, tails you lose" when you're talking about spiritual entities and other such metaphysical matters. Then again, when the occasion suits them the same people will usually turn right around and use the fact that Science (you can hear the capital S in their voice) doesn't claim real and final verification or falsification of anything. Whatever the case, in actual fact outside of mathematics nothing is really provable in this world. You just have to do the best you can.

 

[NjmYqlb]

For the brothers and sisters here, our duty is to relay the message. We do the best we can and all results are up to Allah so there is no cause for stress or disappointment. Allah evaluates our actions, not results

It is God, and God alone, who can guide the people and truly explain the message of the book to the ones who deserve the guidance.The Quranic verses which confirm this truth are numerous, such as:“.... God is the only One who guides in accordance with His will, and in accordance with His knowledge of those who deserve the guidance.” 28:56
And in 72:21 the messenger is commanded to proclaim to all people:“I possess no power to harm you nor to guide you” 72:21
The messenger is a tool and a medium between God and the people, but the messenger cannot change what is in the heart nor can he implant belief into any heart nor can he guide anyone, he can only pass the message:"The sole duty of the messenger is to deliver the message (Quran)" 5:92
This duty does not only apply to the messenger, it applies to any Imam or teacher or preacher

The entire human scientific knowledge is based on what is observed by 5 human senses from Earth and it's immediate surroundings (part of the sol system) as a vantage point, which is smaller than a speck of dust compared to the size of the universe. This means that human scientific knowledge is very very little. To prove the existence or non-existence of god 100% scientifically is not possible at the current level of scientific knowledge.

From the scientific perspective there are 2 possibilities, god either exists or doesn't exist. What are the implications of believing or disbelieving? Believers in god have a chance of being guided to do what is commanded by god and therefore being rewarded with something better than what is on Earth in the afterlife for all eternity, because god, afterlife, heaven and hell are tied with the belief of god in many religions. They are however restricted in their conduct and must perform extra spiritual duties in their lives. Disbelievers of god have a chance to be burned in fire for all eternity. They are still restricted in their conduct due to man made laws, but can enjoy a little more of Earthly life. So as a believer of god, you sacrifice a little of Earthly enjoyment for a chance of heaven, as a disbeliever, you gain a bit of extra Earthly enjoyment but risks hellfire. If there is a god, true believers get heaven, disbelievers get hellfire. If there isn't, believers lose out a little on the Earthly things and nothing else happens. Disbelievers risks eternal hellfire, believers risk a little of Earth.

What I am trying to say is this, I cannot convince people to believe as i do but my duties are to relay it. I have to say to the atheist brothers in humanity, please consider the potential cost and benefit of your belief because from where i am, i see that the potential cost of disbelief as too high. It is more prudent to believe in god until science can prove it otherwise (which i personally believe is never).

 

[Indian Bro]

As-salamu alaykum,

Any atheist stranded on a raft in the middle of the ocean would ask God for help before he breathes his last breath when he feels there is no hope left. Why? Human beings are programmed by default to pray to the Almighty. It's default in everyone's brain, it's just that atheists do all they can to fight this inner-conscience by grasping on any straws that even sway the the tiniest bit towards their inclinations. So even if the atheist stranded on the raft doesn't pray to God, no atheist can deny that the thought of "Ask God for help" wont pop up inside their head before they breathe their last gasp of life.

And when adversity touches you at sea, lost are [all] those you invoke except for Him. But when He delivers you to the land, you turn away [from Him]. And ever is man ungrateful. [17:67]


Salam 3laikum

 

[IAmZamzam]

Indian Bro, I'm just as suprised as you here but I'm going to take their side for a moment. I'm not the least bit interested in whether there are any atheists in the foxholes and you shouldn't be either. Some believers end up giving up their piety in a crisis too, developing a lifelong hatred of God or even giving up their belief in His existence: what is that supposed to prove?

 

[sister herb]

Salam alaykum

The atheist just don`t believe Allah/God exists. If Allah/God wants they believe, then ok. If not, ok.

I was the atheist before too but Allah wanted me to be muslim... Maybe those atheists in this forum are muslims tomorrow.

Only Allah knows.

:nervous:

 

[Pygoscelis]

In regard to Gods being falsifiable, specifically Allah since this is a muslim board, I have yet to meet a muslim who would ever indicate otherwise, empirically or otherwise. Is Allah falsifiable? What could be discovered, found, felt, sensed or whatever that would disprove Allah? Is there anything? Is there anything we could find that must be evidence against Allah existing, and that wouldn't simply be interpreted to suppurt that he is there? If not, then how could you ever expect a satisfactory argument from atheists beyond them not being convinced by you or pointing at holes in your logic? You can't expect evidence against Allah if you define Allah as unfalsifiable

In regard to people turning to desperate and irrational measures in desperate times, such as atheists looking for Gods, or people going to psychics, or whatever, this is not surprising at all. Some people in desperate times will even go full on delusional and think they are somewhere or talking to people who are not there.

 

[Pygoscelis]

"Falsifiable" is such a convenient term. By it atheists usually mean "empirically falsifiable", which makes their argument handily "heads I win, tails you lose" when you're talking about spiritual entities and other such metaphysical matters. Then again, when the occasion suits them the same people will usually turn right around and use the fact that Science (you can hear the capital S in their voice) doesn't claim real and final verification or falsification of anything. Whatever the case, in actual fact outside of mathematics nothing is really provable in this world. You just have to do the best you can.

The huge difference is that in science you can find evidence against a theory. The whole idea is to do so. With enough evidence, you move to a new theory. You try not to cling to bad theories, even though I suppose you can't completely 100% disprove anything with absolute certainty. In religion the opposite approach appears to be taken. What would be evidence against your God? Is there anything?

In science you start with admitting you don't know, and you ask questions and seek answers. In religion you start with pretending to know the answers, and you declare "revelation" and "faith". The two approaches are not comparable.

 

[IAmZamzam]

We've had this conversation before, at least four times or so. I'm not having it again. It's no use. You're a lost cause.

 

[May Ayob]

Indian Bro, I'm just as suprised as you here but I'm going to take their side for a moment. I'm not the least bit interested in whether there are any atheists in the foxholes and you shouldn't be either. Some believers end up giving up their piety in a crisis too, developing a lifelong hatred of God or even giving up their belief in His existence: what is that supposed to prove?

Nothing,really, I mean it doesn't go to prove that God doesn't actually exist, it's just a human's reaction towards unappealing life events. But if does prove anything it may tell more about the person themselves and how they choose to react to those events, it can prove that they are easily distrustful at the first thing that goes wrong and they didn't have profound trust in their faith. I think your point is very clear though and it's a good one too. The atheists in foxholes thing troubled me for sometime but I guess in the end it really shouldn't matter because infact it is irrelevant.

 

[Pygoscelis]

We've had this conversation before, at least four times or so. I'm not having it again. It's no use. You're a lost cause.

How delightfully passive aggressive of you. You entered a thread directly addressed at atheists, a thread in which I have been participating since the first page, and then you whine about me and other atheists posting and failing to say what you want us to say, without telling us what that is, we address it as best we can, and then you mouth off a bunch of personal attacks, get moderated, and now you run away. You're an odd one.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Nothing,really, I mean it doesn't go to prove that God doesn't actually exist, it's just a human's reaction towards unappealing life events. But if does prove anything it may tell more about the person themselves and how they choose to react to those events, it can prove that they are easily distrustful at the first thing that goes wrong and they didn't have profound trust in their faith. I think your point is very clear though and it's a good one too. The atheists in foxholes thing troubled me for sometime but I guess in the end it really shouldn't matter because infact it is irrelevant.

Plus there actually were and are atheists in foxholes. There are plenty of combat soldiers who do not believe in Gods. So the desperation turning to Gods thing is not universal.