atheist logic

[Serinity]

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

you see, Allah can create anything, just like He SWT created the moon, the stars, the horse. he created the winged horse.

If Allah willed, He could create us with wings. The problem is not the winged horse, cuz Allah can create anything, we believe in Angels tho we see them not.

It is not outside Allah's power to create a horse with wings just as much as it isn't creating humans with wings.

What is now normal, may have been in the past science fiction. you seem to be limited by science. By that I mean, if someone said "building a floating Island is possible" you'd say "that isn't possible" but how do you know? Perhaps 40 or 100 years from now, there may be floating cars.

 

[Pygoscelis]

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

Science is all we have for explaining how the world world. It is the only tool we've got to develop and test new knowledge and create technology. No amount of navel gazing philosophy or praying to imaginary being will do that. I don't accept the prevailing scientific understanding 100% either. That is part of what science is. It is never 100% and is always subject to being tested, revised and improved. It demands that we always keep an open mind. That is what makes is so much better than dogma, which does demand 100% adherence (without any evidence).

 

[Pygoscelis]

What is now normal, may have been in the past science fiction. you seem to be limited by science. By that I mean, if someone said "building a floating Island is possible" you'd say "that isn't possible" but how do you know? Perhaps 40 or 100 years from now, there may be floating cars.

The difference is that the scientific person will get there through science and actual understanding, whereas the religious person pretends we were there with magic and woo. I will take the former, the actual getting there and understanding it, every time.

 

[Serinity]

Science is all we have for explaining how the world world. It is the only tool we've got to develop and test new knowledge and create technology. No amount of navel gazing philosophy or praying to imaginary being will do that. I don't accept the prevailing scientific understanding 100% either. That is part of what science is. It is never 100% and is always subject to being tested, revised and improved. It demands that we always keep an open mind. That is what makes is so much better than dogma, which does demand 100% adherence (without any evidence).

I'd rather think for myself, and science does not answer everything, it can not.

It may answer the hows, but it can never answer "why was it created? why did it start?" the why and who.

and you can keep believing that we believe blindly, except that we don't. Or at least I don't.

 

[sister herb]

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

I don´t know where you got the winged horses to this discussion but how you can say they aren´t true or that "we know it isn´t true"? As Allah has all the power, He can easily create a winged horse which has existed only at once (if it is what Allah wants). As we believe: “His command, when He wants anything, is only to say to it: Be, so it is.” [36:82]

 

[Pygoscelis]

I'd rather think for myself, and science does not answer everything, it can not.

Thinking for yourself is the whole point of science. You don't have to take anything a scientist tells you on faith. You can go and do the same research yourself, or carefully analyze the data and research methodology yourself, criticize it, and improve on it. That is what makes it so beautiful. Critical thinking and science goes hand in hand. If you can disprove the prevailing scientific theory with better evidence and research, then you have made a scientific breakthrough and your new research becomes the new prevailing scientific theory. Science strives to eliminate the authoritarianism, "faith", tribalism, and wishful thinking found in the alternative. Physics is physics. Chemistry is Chemistry. There is no "Italian Physics" or "Hindu Chemistry".

 

[Serinity]

Thinking for yourself is the whole point of science. You don't have to take anything a scientist tells you on faith. You can go and do the same research yourself, or carefully analyze the data and research methodology yourself, criticize it, and improve on it. That is what makes it so beautiful. Critical thinking and science goes hand in hand. If you can disprove the prevailing scientific theory with better evidence and research, then you have made a scientific breakthrough and your new research becomes the new prevailing scientific theory. Science strives to eliminate the authoritarianism, "faith", tribalism, and wishful thinking found in the alternative. Physics is physics. Chemistry is Chemistry. There is no "Italian Physics" or "Hindu Chemistry".

Except that limiting yourself to science isn't wise. or my thing.

you seem to view the world in a materialistic sense. Anyways, faith can be many things, how you apply it is what matters. Believing whatever you are fed, is blind following, which is wrong.

if 80% of it is proven correct, then the rest 20% of which is in the unseen, is based on faith.
May Allah guide you. Ameen.

 

[anatolian]

It's a poetic phrase, and I expect you could read multiple meanings into it. Perhaps my life-vein is my aorta or my jugular vein? Perhaps it's a term referring to a more general life force, used in a similar figurative way to a word like "heartbeat"? Perhaps the whole phrase means that Allah is so much closer to me than I realise, that I just can't see it; yet he has been sustaining me every moment of my life.

Maybe you would like to tell me what you think it means?

Peace

Peace friend. Yes life-vein is your jugular vein. I dont know what it really means. I just wanted to know your opinion. Perhaps It means Allah is within you. If something is nearer to you than your jugular vein, that thing is indeed within you. Have you ever looked for Allah within yourself?

 

[Serinity]

Peace friend. Yes life-vein is your jugular vein. I dont know what it really means. I just wanted to know your opinion. Perhaps It means Allah is within you. If something is nearer to you than your jugular vein, that thing is indeed within you. Have you ever looked for Allah within yourself?

Idk really what you mean, but Allah is above the heavens, above the Throne, afaik.

Allahu alam. but He SWT is not inside us...... Afaik.

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1730&Itemid=106 Try to take a read here. It is Allah's angels that are near us, afaik.

 

[M.I.A.]

Greetings,



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.



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:



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.



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



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 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

...ay yes phlogiston was widely blamed for spontaneously combusting monks..

So aangry I could jus.. And that's why ignorance is bliss.

On the subject of radio announcements.. Isn't it wierd how the entire internet floats through the air..

Seriously talk about traffic. Luckily can't see it so nothing to worry bout.

 

[Bhabha]

As the brother above me said, Science is not 100% factual. The scientific discoveries, the theories, the ones which have been "legitimized" go through a massive power dynamic of which information is presented, which is validated and often times which is disregarded because it is too much for people to know. If we are to decide that science is 100% factual, we disregard the things which have been promoted in the name of science, such as scientific racism... which was used to legitimate the colonization, eradication and subjugation of so many people and continues to exist within the generational minds of people who were colonized. The Quran contains knowledge that did not make sense in the minds of people more than 1,000 years ago. It contains information that is literally just beginning to make sense now.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I am alarmed by the casual dismissal of science that we are seeing in this thread. I am not a scientist, and I have no special interest in defending it, but I have to wonder: have the people who criticise science here somehow not noticed the massive advances that it has made available to us as a species? Improvements in medicine and technology alone have improved the lives of millions in ways that could never have been imagined even a hundred years ago.

To say that science isn't 100% factual is no valid criticism at all. Science is by its very nature permanently incomplete; that is the whole point. It is an evolving body of knowledge, and is the best approach that humans have found so far for making sense of the universe and everything in it. It isn't perfect, and sometimes it give rise to anomalous results, but anyone who has ever learned anything knows that this is just part of the learning process. Given that science is a collective human activity, it is hardly surprising that its history is littered with numerous blind alleys and false assumptions such as the theory of humours, eugenics or alchemy.

To dismiss the whole of science on the basis of mistakes made by some of its many thousands of practitioners is frankly bizarre in the light of the many obvious advantages it has given us.

Peace

 

[Bhabha]

Greetings,

I am alarmed by the casual dismissal of science that we are seeing in this thread. I am not a scientist, and I have no special interest in defending it, but I have to wonder: have the people who criticise science here somehow not noticed the massive advances that it has made available to us as a species? Improvements in medicine and technology alone have improved the lives of millions in ways that could never have been imagined even a hundred years ago.

To say that science isn't 100% factual is no valid criticism at all. Science is by its very nature permanently incomplete; that is the whole point. It is an evolving body of knowledge, and is the best approach that humans have found so far for making sense of the universe and everything in it. It isn't perfect, and sometimes it give rise to anomalous results, but anyone who has ever learned anything knows that this is just part of the learning process. Given that science is a collective human activity, it is hardly surprising that its history is littered with numerous blind alleys and false assumptions such as the theory of humours, eugenics or alchemy.

To dismiss the whole of science on the basis of mistakes made by some of its many thousands of practitioners is frankly bizarre in the light of the many obvious advantages it has given us.

Peace

We are not dismissing science, we are saying science is not 100% factual because of its nature it is (as you state) incomplete. It is by God (Allah) that human beings are guided to make these discoveries in science and to unleash their intellectual faculties. There is no impermeable barrier between science and Islam, for there are scientific items inscribed within the Qu'ran that were provided before their human discoveries were made. Everything in nature is so perfect, the way the cell works, the way a child is made. In the Qur'an there are even verses that describe in detail the formation of a child in uterus, before there were machines that could see the formation of a baby. The sight, the brain, all of the things that marvel scientists are perfect in their formation.

 

[MuslimInshallah]

Greetings,

I am alarmed by the casual dismissal of science that we are seeing in this thread. I am not a scientist, and I have no special interest in defending it, but I have to wonder: have the people who criticise science here somehow not noticed the massive advances that it has made available to us as a species? Improvements in medicine and technology alone have improved the lives of millions in ways that could never have been imagined even a hundred years ago.

To say that science isn't 100% factual is no valid criticism at all. Science is by its very nature permanently incomplete; that is the whole point. It is an evolving body of knowledge, and is the best approach that humans have found so far for making sense of the universe and everything in it. It isn't perfect, and sometimes it give rise to anomalous results, but anyone who has ever learned anything knows that this is just part of the learning process. Given that science is a collective human activity, it is hardly surprising that its history is littered with numerous blind alleys and false assumptions such as the theory of humours, eugenics or alchemy.

To dismiss the whole of science on the basis of mistakes made by some of its many thousands of practitioners is frankly bizarre in the light of the many obvious advantages it has given us.

Peace

Hello CZ,

Mmm... I studied in the sciences. The way many people talk about science bothers me. It is invoked like a god (you can almost hear the capital S many people use when talking of it). Generally, we can talk of the scientific method of inquiry. This is just a way of trying to analyze the world around us. It's a tool. And like other tools, it can be used by different people, including theists. (twinkle) Like myself.

When people say : Science tells us X, they are often making an appeal to an authority, in a rather similar way as theists do when they refer to God. But it would be more accurate to say: humans have studied phenomenon X, and we believe that we can explain it this way... we try testing our ideas in different ways, and if the results are generally as we predicted with our explanation, we feel we are on the right track. (mildly) And our explanation can be very useful (even if it is not wholly correct all the time). But I think that one always has to keep a little corner of our mind open to seeing where our explanations don't quite work out... for these can yield even more fascinating ideas about the ways things work, that may be of use to us.

There is no problem for a Muslim to use the scientific method to try to understand the world. Indeed, there have been, and continue to be, many Muslim scientists. (smile) Personally, I like exploring this beautiful Creation with my mind. I see it as a form of worship to study and appreciate His Work. (smile) And yes, it can yield some useful things for my daily life. But it is also enjoyable to explore Creation for the sheer beauty and wonder of it.


May God Bless you, CZ.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Indeed there need not be any conflict between science and religion. Some of the first scientists were priests. But sometime the two do conflict.

 

[sister herb]

Indeed there need not be any conflict between science and religion. Some of the first scientists were priests. But sometime the two do conflict.

Also, we know the Islamic scientists. I too wonder sometimes why, when we are talking about faith and atheism, it goes so often to some kind of depate between religion and science. Why don´t we just stay on topic and talk differencies (and similarities) of faith and atheism/belief and disbelief.

 

[anatolian]

Idk really what you mean, but Allah is above the heavens, above the Throne, afaik.

Allahu alam. but He SWT is not inside us...... Afaik.

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1730&Itemid=106 Try to take a read here. It is Allah's angels that are near us, afaik.

Salam bro. I am gonna make another thread on that

 

[Serinity]

Science is a tool, and we are not saying NOT to use it, you should use it. Studying God's creation is a good thing. But taking everything as 100% factual in science is wrong.

It is a tool, like any other tool, albeit useful. The problem is when people take it as god, no difference from what the polytheists did years ago. I hate it when people can't see that. People in class take it as 100% fact some times.

I know tho, that you guys don't.
@anatolian ok,

 

[Pygoscelis]

Anyway, going back to the OP...

No.. Atheism is not like a fish denying the existence of water. A fish denying the existence of water would be like a human denying the existence of air (and oxygen). These things can be tested for and measured, unlike Gods.

 

[Serinity]

Anyway, going back to the OP...

No.. Atheism is not like a fish denying the existence of water. A fish denying the existence of water would be like a human denying the existence of air (and oxygen). These things can be tested for and measured, unlike Gods.

Before talking about religion, we talk about God, before we talk about God, we talk about proof of His existence.

To make up 'gods' is delusional, I get that.

What matters is 'how' did you come to believe in the existence of God.

If I carved a face on a huge wall of stone, and I hid the items without you knowing, and I took you to a trip and we saw the mountain, carved. Would you believe me if I said "this occured through thousands and millions of years of wind, and corrosion"

no. Why? Cause wind, etc. has not a mind of its own, to be able to make such a thing.

So my point is, we come to the conclusion of a designer, from what we have of remaints / signs.