atheist logic

[Zafran]

Perhaps you would like to mention which philosophers you have in mind here, and which arguments.

You named some of them and actually pointed at there arguments. No mention of emotion.

More far-fetched than a journey to heaven on winged horse?

I was thinking about our ancestors 2000 years ago, that you or me have no record of or have never seen and yet some how we believe they existed with absolute certainty. Unless you believe its as far fetched as the winged horse?

 

[greenhill]

Winged horse.. that journey was a miracle for the prophet. The evidence that it happened was his comments on the arrival of a caravan who were still days away. How would he know if it did not happen?

Jesus demonstrated greater miracles.. even then, there were still sceptics. Even those who ate from the the food that descended from heaven found reasons to doubt. That is worth pondering on ... why people would still reject the signs?


eace:

 

[greenhill]

[MENTION=2092]czgibson[/MENTION]

Reasons I am an atheist include

Lack of evidence for any gods
Problem of evil
Ockham's Razor
Incoherence of all religious texts that I have read
Obvious man-made nature of all religious texts that I have read
The fact that so many phenomena that used to be explained by reference to religion now have better (usually scientific) explanations
The lack of miracles in the modern age
Weakness of all philosophical "proofs" of God's existence
Sociological and psychological explanations of the function of religion by Feuerbach, Durkheim, Nietzsche and, to some extent, Freud
Philosophical considerations of religious belief by Kant, Hume, Schopenhauer, Russell and Mackie

Thank you.

There is quite a wide area of reasons you gave. There are not individual building blocks that are mutually exclusive but a mixture of beliefs that incrementally builds and solidify into what we view as consistencies and 'truths'.

As much I have been a believer all my life (even though I had a lot less knowledge then) I have found (and I repeat again and again) the fairly in depth explanation by Jeffrey Lang in the YouTube video 'the Purpose of Life'. The Purpose of Life!

The purpose of life, our eternal question. In my life, all 49 years of it I have yet to find anything like it. The fact that it was a personal journey made it all the more intetesting and incredible. Something that I myself as a born muslim missed.

With that as a starting, the purpose of life, then we open ourselves for the possibilities to find our Creator.

Without that as a basis, it will be like trying to find something that is so convoluted and confusing especially with all information available that is already at the peak of arguments...

eace:

 

[Zafran]

Winged horse.. that journey was a miracle for the prophet. The evidence that it happened was his comments on the arrival of a caravan who were still days away. How would he know if it did not happen?

Jesus demonstrated greater miracles.. even then, there were still sceptics. Even those who ate from the the food that descended from heaven found reasons to doubt. That is worth pondering on ... why people would still reject the signs?


eace:

salaam

Because a l lot of atheists are philosophical materialists.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I find this Odd - You have clearly heard of the philosophers and philosophical arguments for God that are based on Logic and reason. So you cant say its just "faith" and "emotion". Logical fallacy can be chucked at pretty much any argument.

What do you have in mind? The best "logical" arguments I have heard are the Kalam Argument and Pascal's Wager, both of which are deeply flawed (and I can take you through why if you like). Did you have something else in mind? Perhaps something I haven't heard?

We also know "evidence" itself that atheists claim to want can be pretty far fetched - especially when they believe in many things with out the same "evidence".

Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. I don't need much evidence from you to believe that you are the gender you say that you are and that you live where you say that you do, so long as the gender and place exist. If you told me that you were from Middle Earth and were a Hobbit... then I'd be far less likely to believe it, as I doubt either is possible. Also not much is riding on the claim, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt absent anything outlandish. If I have reason to question it later, I will. God isn't like that. God is a much more outlandish and fantastic claim.

I would actually settle for some very basic and simple evidence though, and if a God actually exists and wants to be known, it wouldn't be so hard to find. Fact is that whether or not you believe in a God, the world looks pretty much how we'd expect it to look if there wasn't one. This so-called God purportedly communicates to us not through making us know things, not through writing in the clouds or something, but by some humans long ago writing in a book... indistinguishable from some humans just writing in a book with no such divine guidance or command. Meanwhile we have "god's creation" claimed to be for our benefit and perfect, and including everything from botflies and wasps that eat their prey from the inside out to children with cancer.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Winged horse.. that journey was a miracle for the prophet. The evidence that it happened was his comments on the arrival of a caravan who were still days away. How would he know if it did not happen?

Jesus demonstrated greater miracles.. even then, there were still sceptics. Even those who ate from the the food that descended from heaven found reasons to doubt. That is worth pondering on ... why people would still reject the signs?


eace:

I see these as stories in a book. No more valid than the native american story of "how the eagle got his wings".... you can't point to stories in a book and expect us to accept them as evidence of anything. Nor can you point to "prophecies" in one section of a book and then point to how they came true in another section of the same book of fiction (as some Christians like to do).

 

[greenhill]

I don't know for sure, but I am off the opinion that the major points would be the creation story offered by the people of the Books that is countered by the Big Bang and evolution theories.

Would you agree with that? Everything else will be the philosophies provided by various thinkers?

Would that be a fair general classification?


eace:

 

[Serinity]

While I do believe in Allah, and have my reasons. I do understand where you guys are coming from..

So questions are basically like this:

Belief in God, why believe in God when there is no proof? (There is: The creation - our existence)

But you want to like see God 100% with your own eyes right? Not gonna happen. The signs are plenty - what signs? Everything that has been created.

All I can say is that to continue to be curious and sceptic - and search for God anyway. There isn't much in saying "Oh God, help me" and not trying to do anything.

Why waste out on using your brain, and searching for truth? Just like in a math's equation, there is only one answer. 2+2=4 and never 2+2=5

The Pascal's wager thing requires one to turn off their brains - we are not saying that. Think and reason.

Be sceptic, the Truth is out there. Just like we feel there might be other life out there, though we may see them not. But I find it quite arrogant to assume, Whatever you see- exists. Whatever you don't - doesn't.

We are not the one's to choose what exists and what doesn't. And as much as you'd like to think that we Believe in Allah on blind faith - there is reason. And the fact that we've been created, by the fact we exist.

Haven't you guys pondered the possibility of a herafter, and the Existence of One God? Explore.

The Brain is God's creation, as such, the religion of God, must coincide with the nature of the brain....... Tho there may be things that are beyond your capability. Like you don't see the Akhira, but it exists.

It is like a child questioning the doctor "Why are you cutting that leg?!" but it was all to remove cancer. my point is, there are things that you don't know, that are out of your capability of thought.

Try ask God: "Oh God, if you are there, then guide me, guide me to You" And start using your brain while keep saying "Guide me," anything that'd satisfy you to believe.

you guys seem to rely on logic - tho relying solely on your senses is quite, how do I put it? The fact that you(that is the vibe I get) are like "whatever I can see exists, whatever I can't doesn't" is pretty arrogant. There was a time when we didn't know about the respiratory system, or much about nature. yet it existed.


May Allah guide you. Ameen.

 

[greenhill]

I see these as stories in a book. No more valid than the native american story of "how the eagle got his wings".... you can't point to stories in a book and expect us to accept them as evidence of anything. Nor can you point to "prophecies" in one section of a book and then point to how they came true in another section of the same book of fiction (as some Christians like to do).

I was just drawing your attention to a simple cross reference. I was not giving an all in one answer.

The prophet claimed that he went on a night journey to a certain place. Hardly believable.

To show sincerity he recalled seeing a caravan and cited it. Nobody knew of this and subsequently found to be true when that caravan arrived.

That is all. So the scrutiny is about the winged horse. Not about the message or the fact the the caravan did arrive..

So we are not really looking at the proof that was given. Those people did arrive. Then go on to question how he got the answer? Ignoring the point that he did most likely travelled that night in a way incomprehensible to us.. after all, he only wanted to convey a message.

Got to remember that he was married to a wealthy widow and was a up amd coming successful merchant but chose to live the hardship life as was commanded by Allah and was charitable with his possession and died with zero wealth.

eace:

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

You named some of them and actually pointed at there arguments. No mention of emotion.

There seems to be some misunderstanding here. The philosophers I mentioned heavily criticised standard arguments supporting God's existence, yet you apparently wish to bring them in to support the believer's position. How?

Please be specific with what you are talking about.

I was thinking about our ancestors 2000 years ago, that you or me have no record of or have never seen and yet some how we believe they existed with absolute certainty. Unless you believe its as far fetched as the winged horse?

Again, you've lost me. Are you saying that believing people existed 2000 years ago is somehow comparable to believing in God?

Winged horse.. that journey was a miracle for the prophet. The evidence that it happened was his comments on the arrival of a caravan who were still days away. How would he know if it did not happen?

Winged horses do not exist and never have. It may have been a remarkable thing that he arrvied in a particular place at a particular time, but there will be a simpler explanation that doesn't rely on positing the existence of a magical flying horse.

Be sceptic, the Truth is out there. Just like we feel there might be other life out there, though we may see them not. But I find it quite arrogant to assume, Whatever you see- exists. Whatever you don't - doesn't.

Being sceptical leads to disbelief in God almost by definition, so it's surprising to see you recommend it.

Perhaps it is arrogant of you to assume that atheists do in fact believe that whatever they see exists and whatever they can't doesn't. I believe in plenty of things that I can't see with my own eyes.

For instance:

• Oxygen
• Australia
• The planet Neptune
• My own brain
• The fact that dinosaurs existed
• The fact that my girlfriend loves me

There is strong evidence for all of these things, and some of them can be measured, observed and tested very precisely. The fact that I can't see them now doesn't mean they don't exist. None of them is comparable to belief in God, who cannot be measured or observed in any way.

There was a time when we didn't know about the respiratory system, or much about nature. yet it existed.

Well, as soon as convincing evidence for God arrives, then I will have to change my mind. Until then, I'm going to follow your advice and remain sceptical.

Peace

 

[sister herb]

• The fact that my girlfriend loves me

The fact that God loves you.

I see those two things comparable. But of course you can easily see that your girlfriend exists, I don´t deny this. Imagine the existence of God of course demands a lot of more.

;D

 

[Serinity]

Greetings,


There seems to be some misunderstanding here. The philosophers I mentioned heavily criticised standard arguments supporting God's existence, yet you apparently wish to bring them in to support the believer's position. How?

Please be specific with what you are talking about.



Again, you've lost me. Are you saying that believing people existed 2000 years ago is somehow comparable to believing in God?



Winged horses do not exist and never have. It may have been a remarkable thing that he arrvied in a particular place at a particular time, but there will be a simpler explanation that doesn't rely on positing the existence of a magical flying horse.



Being sceptical leads to disbelief in God almost by definition, so it's surprising to see you recommend it.

Perhaps it is arrogant of you to assume that atheists do in fact believe that whatever they see exists and whatever they can't doesn't. I believe in plenty of things that I can't see with my own eyes.

For instance:

• Oxygen
• Australia
• The planet Neptune
• My own brain
• The fact that dinosaurs existed
• The fact that my girlfriend loves me

There is strong evidence for all of these things, and some of them can be measured, observed and tested very precisely. The fact that I can't see them now doesn't mean they don't exist. None of them is comparable to belief in God, who cannot be measured or observed in any way.



Well, as soon as convincing evidence for God arrives, then I will have to change my mind. Until then, I'm going to follow your advice and remain sceptical.

Peace

But what do you want of proof to believe in God? Have you ever questioned whether it is you that is the problem?

I remember once my relative said "God will always wait for you, you just have to make the move"

I find it, although I can't put it in words that, "Whatever I see, exists, whatever I can't, doesn't" - flawed. It gives off the vibe that you rely on your senses 100% or on science 100%. Take science, 100 years ago, they thought the sky was hold up by mountains (or whatever) would you believe that?

Or if a radio said "2 miles a head there is an accident, take the nearest exit" would you say "meh, I can't see it! I won't believe it till I see it!" and then you drive.. And then you say "oh!! How I wish I should have taken that exit!"

You seek concrete PHYSICAL or any convincing evidence, right?

it has to be reliable, but when has science ever been reliable? I see science as a tool - a good one, but it may also be a bad one. What they say of today, may be wrong tomorrow, because of more knowledge.

I find this mindset, wishy washy.

May Allah guide you and all of us. Ameen.

 

[greenhill]

My point is not about the winged horse.

It was a description of his transport. It would, I presume, be the nearest analogy.

The question is not about the existence or non existence of the winged horse.

The point is about his message. The ordering of stuff that had been sent down piece meal up to then. The place of the 'disclosure' of information has a different story leading up to it hence it required for the prophet to go and meet his maker (similar to when Moses went for 40 days).

So when they asked he explained, and he spoke of the caravan. It appeared to be true. Then, how did he know?

The winged horse is irrelevant already. He saw the caravan. They arrived. Whether it was a winged horse or anything else for that matter, it had no bearing in the development of the deen. It was the message, not the vessel that should be pondered on.

eace:

 

[Bhabha]

I see these as stories in a book. No more valid than the native american story of "how the eagle got his wings".... you can't point to stories in a book and expect us to accept them as evidence of anything. Nor can you point to "prophecies" in one section of a book and then point to how they came true in another section of the same book of fiction (as some Christians like to do).

If you are a skeptic and need actual "proof" just visit Mecca itself and see the water that springs in the middle of the desert and how it has not stopped running, this water came out as a means to quench the thirst of Haggar who was left with her son Ishmael. This is a miracle, still running through the lands of Saudi. Imagine, water in the middle of a supposed barren and dry land, still continues to run today.

 

[sister herb]

^^ I afraid kind of proof wouldn´t make an atheist any assured as he only would tells you about the groundwater beds under the deserts which sometimes pierce the shell of the ground...

Where we see a miracle, they see only "the natural phenomenons".

 

[Pygoscelis]

It isn't like the writers of these stories didn't know what could be convincing. They added such things to the stories (to which nobody else on earth who should have seen it recorded it). Split the moon in two or part the Red Sea by sheer willpower, and I'll have to seriously reconsider my position.

 

[sister herb]

Nah, you just would wait that scientists will find the explanation for the splitted moon or shared Red Sea (what about the radical change in the magnetic field for example?). That´s how those skeptics do for every miracles already.

 

[M.I.A.]

Ok then here we go...

Robots - Have a creator
Humans - Created by chance

Computers - Have a creator
Human Brains - Created by chance

Operating Systems, Android Systems, IOS Systems - Have a creator
Digestive Systems, Muscular Systems, Nervous Systems,
Reproductive Systems, Urinary Systems, Skeletal Systems,
Cardiovascular Systems, Respiratory Systems, Endocrine Systems, etc. - CREATED BY CHANCE

What more arguments do you need to define the dumbness of Atheists?!

Well I agree and then some..

Technological advances are exactly that.. Improvement and development of previous ideas and technology..

And so, even evolution is guided.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I find it, although I can't put it in words that, "Whatever I see, exists, whatever I can't, doesn't" - flawed.

Perhaps you did not read what I wrote in my previous post. This is not what I believe, and if you continue to assume that it is then we may as well finish the discussion.

It gives off the vibe that you rely on your senses 100% or on science 100%. Take science, 100 years ago, they thought the sky was hold up by mountains (or whatever) would you believe that?

First of all, scientists did not believe the sky was held up by mountains a hundred years ago. Secondly, science evolves, and in deciding what my beliefs are I would follow the evidence available at the time.

There used to be a scientific theory to do with combustion, which stated that an element called phlogiston was contained inside burning objects and released as they burned. We now know that this isn't true, but, based on the available evidence, many intelligent people believed this theory. Had I lived then, there is every chance I would have believed it too.

In fact, I have often thought that if I had been alive in the Middle Ages, I would have been a monk. Monasteries used to be intellectual centres in Europe, and certain monks would be among the relatively few people in their societies who could read and write. I also think that, given the evidence available at the time, I might well have believed in God as well. Imagine that! :nervous:

Or if a radio said "2 miles a head there is an accident, take the nearest exit" would you say "meh, I can't see it! I won't believe it till I see it!" and then you drive.. And then you say "oh!! How I wish I should have taken that exit!"

Can you not see that the radio announcement counts as evidence here? There is no compelling reason for the traffic announcer to lie, is there? If they routinely lied about traffic events, people would not trust their information and the station would suffer as a result.

You seek concrete PHYSICAL or any convincing evidence, right?

I seek convincing evidence, yes. It doesn't have to be physical.

it has to be reliable, but when has science ever been reliable?

The fact that we are having this conversation now is a demonstration that science is reliable. Scientists designed and built the machines and networks we are using, and they will continue to refine and improve them as time goes on. The fact that science makes discoveries and evolves makes it a growing body of knowledge, it doesn't mean it's unreliable. It gets results.

My point is not about the winged horse.

It was a description of his transport. It would, I presume, be the nearest analogy.

The question is not about the existence or non existence of the winged horse.

My point definitely is about the winged horse. Your religion asks you to believe things which are not true, and this is one of them. It's no good saying "that's not the important part of the story" or "it must be an analogy" - why believe it when you know it isn't true?

Peace

 

[Serinity]

That seals it for me. you may believe whatever the scientists come up with, but I don't base my trust on science 100%.

I mean the credibility of science is as such I'd never base my reality on it, or more accurately, I would not base my beliefs on it. I'd rather think for myself.

Yeah, of course if science said "the wind comes from [location]" it might be wrong, but given the evidence, I believe that. But when given the unreliability of science, or more accurately, the limitations of science, I don't base my reality off of it, solely.

Man don't know everything, and science is limited. What may have been true, according to science, may be false today. So by that, I don't trust science.

Science is a tool - it doesn't show everything, nor do I put my trust in it 100% cuz I know, that it is limited. Every man-made instrument has its limitations, cause we are ourselves limited.
I see science as a tool to discover God's creation. we both study the same universe but the conclusions we reach are worlds apart. wr


edit: I am sorry for assuming wrong of you. (regarding the "whatever I see exist.." thing.
May Allah grant you insight to see His signs. Ameen.