Hey Agnostics & Atheists: Do you ever worry?

[Skavau]

but look?!
Atheists this is you situation now:
the Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." (25) Others they keep away from it and themselves they keep away; but they only destroy their own souls and they perceive it not. (26)(Translation of surat Al'anam)

this is what i was refering to

Okay. So?

You have a signature which is a veiled ad hominem against atheists.

 

[Uthman]

Hi Skavau,

but look?!
Atheists this is you situation now:
the Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." (25) Others they keep away from it and themselves they keep away; but they only destroy their own souls and they perceive it not. (26)(Translation of surat Al'anam)

this is what i was refering to

Okay. So?

You have a signature which is a veiled ad hominem against atheists.

I disagree. There is no ad hominem since her signature isn't trying to make an argument for the existence of God but rather describing the position of the atheists.

 

[Skavau]

I disagree. There is no ad hominem since her signature isn't trying to make an argument for the existence of God but rather describing the position of the atheists.

An ad hominem remains an ad hominem irrelevant to whether it is making an argument for God or not.

At best, Makki's signatures makes an unsubstantiated assertion that atheists are destroying their own souls.

 

[*Marwah]

i would just worry :-\

and ask allah,which is the right path to Jannah

 

[Uthman]

Hi Skavau,

An ad hominem remains an ad hominem irrelevant to whether it is making an argument for God or not.

I was under the impression that an ad hominem refers to a type of argument which is fallacious. Thus, my view was that there was no ad hominem since no argument was being made. As far as I'm aware, the term ad hominem is shortened etymologically from argumentum ad hominem and so the term can only be used in connection to an argument that is being made. That is only if we analyse it linguistically. Otherwise, I suppose if you look at it outside the realm of logic, it could be defined more liberally as a personal attack. As for whether Makky's signature is a personal attack on atheists, that really depends on his intention so neither you or I can really comment.

At best, Makki's signatures makes an unsubstantiated assertion that atheists are destroying their own souls.

Agreed. Of course, the fact that it hasn't been substantiated doesn't necessarily make it false but as a person well-versed in logic, you will no doubt already know this.

Regards

 

[barney]

God's first creation was a pen..

And the second must have thus been Ink, then paper, then a language. Then humans.
Who lived for 150000 years before using language.

I assume the pen is a metaphorical spiritual pen symbolising knowlage? (although even that wouldnt make sense...it still makles more sense than gods first creation being a pen)

 

[جوري]

And the second must have thus been Ink, then paper, then a language. Then humans.
Who lived for 150000 years before using language.

I assume the pen is a metaphorical spiritual pen symbolising knowlage? (although even that wouldnt make sense...it still makles more sense than gods first creation being a pen)

You can assume what ever tickles your *****

Mankind always thinks highly of itself.. perhaps it is just you? We are not the most important creation!

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ
هَلْ أَتَى عَلَى الْإِنسَانِ حِينٌ مِّنَ الدَّهْرِ لَمْ يَكُن شَيْئًا مَّذْكُورًا {1}​

[Yusufali 76:1] Has there not been over Man a long period of Time, when he was nothing - (not even) mentioned?


cheers

 

[Converse02]

the Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." (25) Others they keep away from it and themselves they keep away; but they only destroy their own souls and they perceive it not. (26)(Translation of surat Al'anam)

I just want to clarify:
This is not an ad hom fallacy. It's an appeal to force.
Basically, do what I want, no matter how illogical, or I will hurt you.

It's like saying "believe in the tales of the invisible pink unicorn, or she will trample on your soul upon death, for all eternity.":raging:

 

[Uthman]

Greetings Converse02,

the Unbelievers say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." (25) Others they keep away from it and themselves they keep away; but they only destroy their own souls and they perceive it not. (26)(Translation of surat Al'anam)

I just want to clarify:
This is not an ad hom fallacy. It's an appeal to force.
Basically, do what I want, no matter how illogical, or I will hurt you.

It's like saying "believe in the tales of the invisible pink unicorn, or she will trample on your soul upon death, for all eternity.":raging:

I disagree with that. As you are aware, appeal to force is a logical fallacy, the use of which renders an argument invalid. The quotation cannot be committing this fallacy, since it is not making an argument. An argument consists of premises and a conclusion. When the Qur'an claims that the unbelievers are 'destroying their own souls', it is merely describing the state of the unbelievers and not trying to use that as a sort of argument, thus the statement cannot be fallacious.

Regards

 

[Pygoscelis]

It is an assertion. It can be untrue (which would seem to be the same as fallacious, semantics semantics). You are right that it is not an argument.

 

[Skavau]

I was under the impression that an ad hominem refers to a type of argument which is fallacious. Thus, my view was that there was no ad hominem since no argument was being made.

Well, this depends upon whether Makki was using it as an argument.

As far as I'm aware, the term ad hominem is shortened etymologically from argumentum ad hominem and so the term can only be used in connection to an argument that is being made. That is only if we analyse it linguistically. Otherwise, I suppose if you look at it outside the realm of logic, it could be defined more liberally as a personal attack. As for whether Makky's signature is a personal attack on atheists, that really depends on his intention so neither you or I can really comment.

Agreed.

Agreed. Of course, the fact that it hasn't been substantiated doesn't necessarily make it false but as a person well-versed in logic, you will no doubt already know this.

Absolutely.

But I would like to take this time to point out to Makki, and any other Muslim on this forum that referencing any given verse with absolutely no substantiation behind it in order to 'show' something to atheist is utterly pointless.

Valid or otherwise.

 

[Muezzin]

Everybody, can we stay to das topic? Danke.

Jawohl.

 

[Converse02]

Since this thread is on if atheists/agnostics worry, I have a question for Muslims:

Muhammad al-Warraq was a 9th century skeptic of the existence of Allah because he thought: He who orders his slave to do things that he knows him to be incapable of doing, then punishes him, is a fool.


Consider: If a being give a creation free-will, and foresaw that the creation would used it’s free-will incorrectly (foresaw he would choose incorrectly and disobey), do you think it is wise and merciful to create this creation at all, and see him punished for eternity? Is it wise to create this a particular free-willed being with that knowledge? Would you?

Curious as to what Muslims think of this.

 

[جوري]

when you are unable to understand the nature of what you are dealing with (as an atheist) you'll always have a desire to bring it down to the lowest common denominator, and in doing so, impose on others your same low standards in approach to every topic.. You have figured out a formula for distance and now trying to apply the same physics to figure out volume!

If something is beyond human definition.. then every scenario you come up with, is a mere conjecture..
..To make this simple:
the last numerical number
the physical end to outer space..
measure of emotions
what happens after death..

You can come up with a thousand story of what happens upon death.
well first as with everything in life, you need an orientation, but isn't it awful that you have to wait in such a long line after all those newly dead? I mean it is shocking to be dead already, why must you also wait in line? Why can't other dead people be sensitive to the fact that you died under worst circumstances than they?

Fact is we know not what happens after death..
so how can one concoct such a cockamamy story, with such incredible definition and expect others to come up with a plausible scenario to the thought of those imposing orientation on the newly dead .. even worst than concocting a foolish story is borrowing someone else's take on a foolish story.. as it shows complete lack of imagination and really affirms my beliefs that atheists can't think outside the box, but are mere organized herds no different than any religious zealot who blindly follows without a thought as to why!

 

[Tornado]

Fact is we know not what happens after death..

Pretty much. That's why I don't worry because who knows what will happen. Any religion can be right in terms of what the afterlife will bring. The odds are so stacked against me that I'll most surely pick the wrong religion. I won't bother to choose one out of who knows how many because I know I'd be lying to myself and an all-knowing god would know my intentions.

 

[جوري]

Pretty much. That's why I don't worry because who knows what will happen. Any religion can be right in terms of what the afterlife will bring. The odds are so stacked against me that I'll most surely pick the wrong religion. I won't bother to choose one out of who knows how many because I know I'd be lying to myself and an all-knowing god would know my intentions.

Faith is personal.. you tell yourself whatever you need!

cheers

 

[Tornado]

What do you mean?

 

[جوري]

which part of what I wrote was difficult to understand?

 

[Tornado]

The second. Not sure what you were talking about.

 

[جوري]

The second. Not sure what you were talking about.

You have expressed that an all knowing God, knows you so you are under no obligation to invest in religion..

to which I have replied as above to denote: you can convince yourself of whatever truth you desire!