How should ignorant people be treated?

[Skavau]

Three words:

God's Infinite Mercy

Take advantage, avoid going to hell. Simple!

Not the point.

Firstly, I'm an atheist. I cannot believe in a God of any sort unless convinced first. I could at best pretend to do so, but that would make me a hypocrite - would it not?

Secondly, this really misses the point I was trying to make. It has resonating moral issues whether or not you can avoid going there or not. It is supportive of the concept of torture for what you think. It favours the idea of eternal punishment for 'crimes' you could not control, for 'crimes' you had no full knowledge over and more concernedly so, favours eternal punishment for finite actions.

 

[Skavau]

Amen to that sister! He needs God...allot! God wants him yet he denies Him? Why? I want this brother to meet me in Heaven but i fear i will not see him.imsad

Wellllllllllllll.........hope you got good cell service down there atheist people. I will send you a text message, God bless. And don't forget to bring sunscreen;D

I don't think acting childish is befitting of your character. This is what I mean when I say some religious people cheerfully welcome the prospect of hell for 'unbelievers'. It presents an extremely bad image for the faithless observer, I can't tell you how much it does. It gives an awful impression of sadism.

Also I don't 'deny God', I don't believe in God. For me, there's no active arbiter to deny much less recognise. Indeed, it is ironic you joke about hell to atheists when some Muslims would tell you yourself that you will in the same place as me unless you 'revert' to Islam.

 

[Italianguy]

I don't think acting childish is befitting of your character. This is what I mean when I say some religious people cheerfully welcome the prospect of hell for 'unbelievers'. It presents an extremely bad image for the faithless observer, I can't tell you how much it does. It gives an awful impression of sadism.

Also I don't 'deny God', I don't believe in God. For me, there's no active arbiter to deny much less recognise. Indeed, it is ironic you joke about hell to atheists when some Muslims would tell you yourself that you will in the same place as me unless you 'revert' to Islam.

Ok i am sorry bro but i cannot tiptoe around my beliefs for anyone anymore. I wasn't trying to be childish, i was tring to say in a nicer way tat THERE IS A HELL! And those whom don't believe in God, will see it.imsad I am tired of having to be nicer about it. If you do not believe in God...so be it. I am not cheerfully welcoming the prospect of hell to you, Nobody wishes that on anybody, I especially don't wish that on you! i am mearly telling you what will happen to you. It is written that way in almost everyones holy books. Now I do hope and pray that you will come to believe in God, you owe it to HIm, we all owe him His glory.

And as for my Muslim brothers and sisters.......I love them, and when I reach the pearly gates i pray they are right there next to me as well as in battle i will fight with them against the oppressor!.......Mohammad and I have an unfinished Canasta card game anyway;D

God bless you brother. Please go to Him, don't deny HIm.

So now that you know there is a hell,....and that i am praying for you...and that I as well as everyone here wants you to go to Heaven...what say you to this? Refute me....I want only the best for you bro and I want to help you believe in anyway I can. It is my duty. But we need to stop denying that there is a hell and how one gets there. The prospect of knowing one could go to the lake of fire or, hell fire should be enough?

 

[Life_Is_Short]

Not the point.

Firstly, I'm an atheist. I cannot believe in a God of any sort unless convinced first. I could at best pretend to do so, but that would make me a hypocrite - would it not?.

What sort of evidence do you want?

Secondly, this really misses the point I was trying to make. It has resonating moral issues whether or not you can avoid going there or not. It is supportive of the concept of torture for what you think. It favours the idea of eternal punishment for 'crimes' you could not control, for 'crimes' you had no full knowledge over and more concernedly so, favours eternal punishment for finite actions.

You approach learning about God the same way that you would treat learning about any other matter. Take, for example, learning about mechanical engineering. Consider these four option:

1. On your own: You could try to understand it and discover it from your own thinking and what makes sense to you without asking anyone or reading any books. Of course, this can take a lifetime and at the end you may or may not uncover some aspects of mechanical engineering. Most would say this approach is an unwise waste of your time. Some would say this is how a person not serious about studying mechanical engineering would approach the subject. (Amazingly enough, this is a common approach to learning about God.)

2. Ask the experts: you could ask others about mechanical engineering. Of course, logically you would need to ask an expert on the subject or someone who has studied it. It would not make sense to ask a genetic engineer or a chemical engineer, much less an economist or a historian, about mechanical engineering. Asking a mechanical engineer is more helpful than the first approach, but still does not result in a deep level of knowledge.
3. Read about it: you could read books and articles on mechanical engineering written by mechanical engineers since they are the experts on the subject, ponder what you read, and ask questions to understand and learn.
This results in a deep level of knowledge.

4. Take a class: you could learn about mechanical engineering in a structured way by taking a class or several classes. This is the way to acquire comprehensive and deep knowledge of the subject.

So you have the same options when it comes to learning about your Creator, to gain that knowledge so you don't have to commit that crime.

If you take one step towards God, he will take two towards you. If you come to Him walking, He will come to you running.​

Now imagine a man traveling alone in a desert on a camel. He goes to sleep for the night and when he wakes up he finds his camel missing. He searches for his beast on foot for hours, during which time the sun warms up the desert, and thirst and hunger bring the man close to extinction. Just then he sees the camel walking towards him with water, food and other provisions. The happiness of God when a sinner returns to Him is like the happiness of this traveler at the moment he sees his lost camel.

Repent, therefore, to this loving and merciful God. But if you keep rejecting God's offer of mercy and forgiveness, then know that the judgment of God can come anytime. The same God that can be more loving than the most loving mother, also can at times be stricter than the most strict father.
​

 

[Supreme]

Ignorant people: try to educate them, and if they reject your attempts, ignore them.

 

[Skavau]

Ok i am sorry bro but i cannot tiptoe around my beliefs for anyone anymore. I wasn't trying to be childish, i was tring to say in a nicer way tat THERE IS A HELL! And those whom don't believe in God, will see it.

Okay. I know this is what you believe.

I don't really how to respond to the religious being concerned for my soul in the afterlife. The concept really is alien to me.

I am tired of having to be nicer about it. If you do not believe in God...so be it. I am not cheerfully welcoming the prospect of hell to you, Nobody wishes that on anybody, I especially don't wish that on you! i am mearly telling you what will happen to you. It is written that way in almost everyones holy books. Now I do hope and pray that you will come to believe in God, you owe it to HIm, we all owe him His glory.

I'm not asking you to be nice about anything. I honestly shrug when I am treated with contempt, or other people are treated with contempt for their beliefs. But to scoff about someone's future as one of torture in a mocking way really does not do other people who share your belief a great service.

And as for my Muslim brothers and sisters.......I love them, and when I reach the pearly gates i pray they are right there next to me as well as in battle i will fight with them against the oppressor!.......Mohammad and I have an unfinished Canasta card game anyway

?

Do you mean the devil?

So now that you know there is a hell,....and that i am praying for you...and that I as well as everyone here wants you to go to Heaven...what say you to this? Refute me....I want only the best for you bro and I want to help you believe in anyway I can. It is my duty. But we need to stop denying that there is a hell and how one gets there. The prospect of knowing one could go to the lake of fire or, hell fire should be enough?

Huh?

I only know that you believe there is a hell. The fact that you believe that this hell exists does not give me any reason to believe that it does. I accept your position as sincere and respect your intentions as well-meaning, but indeed you do appear to miss the point.

The matter is my disbelief in hell is based on the lack of evidence for hell, or some afterlife of any sort. I don't 'need' to refute something that you have not provided evidence for.

 

[Skavau]

What sort of evidence do you want?

Empirical evidence or deductive reasoning.

You approach learning about God the same way that you would treat learning about any other matter. Take, for example, learning about mechanical engineering. Consider these four option:

There's an unstated premise here. The premise being that there is a knowledge field of 'God'. I have no reason to accept that as true, just like I have no reason to accept there exists a valid knowledge field of alchemy and astrology.

1. On your own: You could try to understand it and discover it from your own thinking and what makes sense to you without asking anyone or reading any books. Of course, this can take a lifetime and at the end you may or may not uncover some aspects of mechanical engineering. Most would say this approach is an unwise waste of your time. Some would say this is how a person not serious about studying mechanical engineering would approach the subject. (Amazingly enough, this is a common approach to learning about God.)

Mechanical engineering is a form of study devoted to the physical world whereas 'God' is contended to be something 'beyond' the physical world. Beyond study, observation and analysis. It is the very loophole that creation 'scientists' invoke to negate their position as being falsifiable.

The sincere application of this is and can only be philosophical contemplation - which could just as often as otherwise lead you to deism, atheism, pantheism, ignosticism or many other things.

2. Ask the experts: you could ask others about mechanical engineering. Of course, logically you would need to ask an expert on the subject or someone who has studied it. It would not make sense to ask a genetic engineer or a chemical engineer, much less an economist or a historian, about mechanical engineering. Asking a mechanical engineer is more helpful than the first approach, but still does not result in a deep level of knowledge.

See, this is where your analogy to mechanical engineering doesn't work. I have to accept that mechanical engineering is possible, or exists before studying about it. I am in dissent with the claim that a God does exist. You are asking me to suspend my disbelief, or develop a confirmation bias and be dishonest in my objectives. I can't do that.

3. Read about it: you could read books and articles on mechanical engineering written by mechanical engineers since they are the experts on the subject, ponder what you read, and ask questions to understand and learn.

I was to approach this completely non-biasedly, I'd read the dissenters as well - who are intellectual giants well read on the history of religion and philosophy.

So you have the same options when it comes to learning about your Creator, to gain that knowledge so you don't have to commit that crime.

This really doesn't get to the point here. My issues with the existence of hell are not just based in lack of evidential support, but there are also real moral issues I have with it.

Now imagine a man traveling alone in a desert on a camel. He goes to sleep for the night and when he wakes up he finds his camel missing. He searches for his beast on foot for hours, during which time the sun warms up the desert, and thirst and hunger bring the man close to extinction. Just then he sees the camel walking towards him with water, food and other provisions. The happiness of God when a sinner returns to Him is like the happiness of this traveler at the moment he sees his lost camel.

That's nice. I have seen many lovely stories in fiction that invoke feelings of warmness just as effectively, if not better than the above. But what reason do I have to accept that 'sin' exists? Or that a supernatural entity known as 'God' exists?

 

[Italianguy]

Okay. I know this is what you believe.

I don't really how to respond to the religious being concerned for my soul in the afterlife. The concept really is alien to me.

It's called loving one another and caring for those whom need guidence. It shouldn't be alien to you. You have it in yourself as well.

I'm not asking you to be nice about anything. I honestly shrug when I am treated with contempt, or other people are treated with contempt for their beliefs. But to scoff about someone's future as one of torture in a mocking way really does not do other people who share your belief a great service.

I am not attacking you, just trying to help you see.

?

Do you mean the devil?

And his adherents, unbelievers and those who would do evil towards believers, those who would oppress and negate violent acts against the inocent for their own agendas, those who are against God, and those who would prohibit us from believing in God.


Huh?

I only know that you believe there is a hell. The fact that you believe that this hell exists does not give me any reason to believe that it does. I accept your position as sincere and respect your intentions as well-meaning, but indeed you do appear to miss the point.

Point not missed....just doing my duty my friend Informing the unbeliever.

The matter is my disbelief in hell is based on the lack of evidence for hell, or some afterlife of any sort. I don't 'need' to refute something that you have not provided evidence for.

You can see hell everyday here on earth....not clear enough for you? Watch the news. Maybe you have not experienced what my family has gone through nor miliions of others, Jews, Christians and Muslims. As they are killed, beaten, terrorized, eliminated, burned, shot, tortured, skinned alive(my grandparents witnessed this in Italy) what more proof do you need? Clearly these acts are not brought forth by men of God, but those who would try to eliminate God from their doings and are doing nothing but helping satan in his plans. Men of God want peace, prosperity, and brotherhood for all.

sorry i tried to do the qoute boxes? I don't know how? so some of my answers are in your reply.

 

[Life_Is_Short]

Empirical evidence or deductive reasoning.

To prove (or alternately, disprove) the existence of God empirically, the scientific method has to be followed. The first step, naturally, is proposing a hypothesis, i.e. God (does not) exist(s) — depending on whether you're arguing for or against theism, include or exclude the portions in parentheses.

At this very first stage, we run into problems. How do you define God? What definition of God do we use? I think the following definition would probably be acceptable to monotheists:

God is an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being.
​

Our hypothesis thus becomes:

An omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being (does not) exist(s).
​

Now, let me ask you... Just how on earth do you prove or disprove this hypothesis? If this being is omniscient — all-knowing — it will know we're looking for it. And if it is omnipotent — all-powerful — it can hide itself at will.

The result is that unless this being chooses to reveal itself to us, it is impossible to prove or disprove the hypothesis, since the subject of our experiments will be able to manipulate the evidence at will. Some creationists when confronted with radiocarbon dating argue that God put the dinosaur bones in the ground and artifically backdated them, but in reality we were created 10,000 years ago.

If such is the case, how do you empirically and scientifically prove or disprove God? You definitely can't disprove him, because of this manipulation of the evidence, if there is a God.

At the same time, you can't prove God's existence unless he comes out and issues a statement along the lines of "Hey guys, I'm God. See, I can prove it — I'll just turn this wine to water." Without such hard evidence, all the theists have left going for them is aphorisms like "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (Intelligent design as a scientific theory is utter bunk — all the proofs of intelligent design are nothing more than critiques of evolutionary theory as it is currently understood, and don't in themselves prove that there is a higher being.)

But what does this failure to prove or disprove God actually bode? Does this mean religion or atheism is pointless, since we can't prove any hypotheses about God's existence or lack of it?

I don't think so. I think there is actually a subtle beauty in our inability to prove God's existence empirically. Being able to prove that God is real would actually be the real death blow for religion.

The point of religion is faith — to believe, not just accept. Followers of other religions will be able to find passages in their own holy book with similar meanings.

If there is empirical evidence God exists, there is basically no point in believing — you are forced to believe God exists, not because you are convicted in your heart that he is real, but because the evidence is there and you can't run away from it.

Believing because you have to, and believing because you hold a conviction in your heart are two totally different things.

The fact that God has not given us evidence of his existence is meant to affirm our free will, and to lend our faith a meaning. Hard atheist Richard Dawkins says that if after dying, he finds himself in front of God, he will tell Him, "Not enough evidence, God. Not enough evidence."

But the point of the evidence's absence is to give us a choice, and to make believing truly believing. That is something all people, theists and atheists, have to come to terms with. Trying to empirically prove that God exists, or to disprove his existence, beyond as some mental exercise, is a complete waste of time.

Source: http://www.infernalramblings.com/

 

[Skavau]

It's called loving one another and caring for those whom need guidence. It shouldn't be alien to you. You have it in yourself as well.

Oh I understand the message of goodwill and desire to help embedded in it - it is just something that I don't know how to respond to it because as you know, I don't believe in hell.

It would be like me stating that I wish you would come to empiricism and rationalism whilst leaving concepts such as faith behind. Perhaps you would understand the desire to help behind it, but you couldn't make sense of the request. For you, your beliefs are rooted into your life and mean a lot to you - for someone to tell you that you should change it all, as it is in your 'best interests' is hard to respond to - as you feel you will always disappoint.

Needless to state these differences between you and I, and others cannot be resolved through pleading.

I am not attacking you, just trying to help you see.

Okay

And his adherents, unbelievers and those who would do evil towards believers, those who would oppress and negate violent acts against the inocent for their own agendas, those who are against God, and those who would prohibit us from believing in God.

Okay

You can see hell everyday here on earth....not clear enough for you? Watch the news.

The torment that people suffer in real life only shows us that people in real life, happen to suffer. To some (including myself) it suggests that the likelihood an omniscient benevolent being is observing with our interests in mind is very slim indeed. While you may contend there are scriptural justifications, predictions and prophecies for this 'suffering' in general, I don't consider it so and nor consider it that this suffering is therefore 'absolute' in some sort of hell.

Maybe you have not experienced what my family has gone through nor miliions of others, Jews, Christians and Muslims. As they are killed, beaten, terrorized, eliminated, burned, shot, tortured, skinned alive(my grandparents witnessed this in Italy) what more proof do you need?

What does this have to do with the existence of hell? I already understand that life is tough, that people are harsh, cruel, sadistic and act this out. I already understand that nature shows little consideration for life as it reaps destruction on the least-deserving.

I'm not sure how you think this proves a metaphysical realm known as 'hell exists.

Clearly these acts are not brought forth by men of God, but those who would try to eliminate God from their doings and are doing nothing but helping satan in his plans. Men of God want peace, prosperity, and brotherhood for all.

Some of the acts that you reference have been done by men claiming to be under guidance, and acting on behalf of God. You could say that they weren't really of God and under a malevolent presence, but nonetheless they certainly believed so.

The acts of destruction in this world by man we see are done for many different reasons.

sorry i tried to do the qoute boxes? I don't know how? so some of my answers are in your reply.

Oh, okay.

You simply type

and [ /quote] when you want to end the box (minus the space). So to quote you I would go

and then end it by typing [ /quote].

 

[cat eyes]

Well, it's minor things such as Allah sending only the good Muslims to heaven and condemning everyone (christians, atheist, jews etc) to hell for eternity.

They carefully search for punishments and trials set by Allah but they fail to see the infinite mercy of Allah.

For one who really loves the religion of islam, it is very difficult to sustain the anger. :raging:

I know this is a test of patients for me and they will get what they deserve. imsad

you are talking on a very sensitive topic and a topic which in my opinion should be avoided because only Allah knows what will happen to the non muslims whether its bad or good. you or me have no say what happens to the non muslims even its wrong to say that a kafir will go to jannah when Allah has made it clear they won't so we should not dispute about this rather we should guide as much people to the truth with kindness and leave the rest to Allah swt
:wa:

 

[Life_Is_Short]

you are talking on a very sensitive topic and a topic which in my opinion should be avoided because only Allah knows what will happen to the non muslims whether its bad or good. you or me have no say what happens to the non muslims even its wrong to say that a kafir will go to jannah when Allah has made it clear they won't so we should not dispute about this rather we should guide as much people to the truth with kindness and leave the rest to Allah swt
:wa:

I didn't dispute over this with them. I gave them what it says in the Quran and Hadeeth regarding this matter and moved on. They're the ones that kept bringing up more misconseptions and choose to subjectively ignore information.

 

[bewildred]

There ain't more def than the one who doesn't want to hear...........not more blind than the one who doesn't want to see....... Why don't we just ignore ignorance?????

 

[Skavau]

To prove (or alternately, disprove) the existence of God empirically, the scientific method has to be followed. The first step, naturally, is proposing a hypothesis, i.e. God (does not) exist(s) — depending on whether you're arguing for or against theism, include or exclude the portions in parentheses.

Huh?

Does the author not know what a hypothesis is? A Hypothesis is a considered explanation for an observed behaviour of natural phenomena. Claiming 'God exists' or 'God does not exist' is not a hypothesis, but a claim.

At this very first stage, we run into problems. How do you define God? What definition of God do we use? I think the following definition would probably be acceptable to monotheists:

God is an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being.

Absolutely. Which is why I often casually consider myself an ignostic. God as a term is often used confusingly, meaninglessly and without reason underpinning it.

Nonetheless it is up to the theists to 'define' God, and declare the attributes of this being they believe exists.

Our hypothesis thus becomes:

An omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being (does not) exist(s).

That's not a hypothesis, nor is it even my hypothesis (or claim). The article writer is either building up a big strawman here or talking to some hardheaded strong atheist.

Now, let me ask you... Just how on earth do you prove or disprove this hypothesis? If this being is omniscient — all-knowing — it will know we're looking for it. And if it is omnipotent — all-powerful — it can hide itself at will.

Exactly.

It is set up to be unfalsifiable. There's always some 'exemption clause', a special plea, or some sort of inherent attribute of God that makes him outside of explanation, understanding or even consideration. This effectively means that at current time, God might as well not exist if he can so convincingly hide behind the curtains. God might as well be nothing if he does nothing.

Irrespectively, to put this position into perspective. If I was to claim that an immaterial object existed in my garden - it would have exactly the same amount of evidential support for God. It would be just as detectable, just as observable and just as impervious to reason.

So what does this mean? It means that claims such as 'God exists', or 'God is beyond detection, beyond time, beyond our universe' have no meaning whatsoever. They do not help advance our understanding of the universe, they provide no useful explanation to anything. They exist only as superficial explanations. Just because you set up some concept to be absolutely disprovable does not mean it is valid, quite the opposite. What can be claimed in absence of evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The result is that unless this being chooses to reveal itself to us, it is impossible to prove or disprove the hypothesis, since the subject of our experiments will be able to manipulate the evidence at will. Some creationists when confronted with radiocarbon dating argue that God put the dinosaur bones in the ground and artifically backdated them, but in reality we were created 10,000 years ago.

Firstly, it is of note here that the author is perfectly comfortable to believe in a willfully deceptive god that hides evidence of his existence. Secondly, it is of note that the paragraph takes a suddenly arbitrary turn to talking about creationism - noting something about the creationist claim of embedded age being false.

If such is the case, how do you empirically and scientifically prove or disprove God? You definitely can't disprove him, because of this manipulation of the evidence, if there is a God.

Of course, if a God does exist and pretends like he does not exist - then he might as well not exist.

At the same time, you can't prove God's existence unless he comes out and issues a statement along the lines of "Hey guys, I'm God. See, I can prove it — I'll just turn this wine to water." Without such hard evidence, all the theists have left going for them is aphorisms like "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (Intelligent design as a scientific theory is utter bunk — all the proofs of intelligent design are nothing more than critiques of evolutionary theory as it is currently understood, and don't in themselves prove that there is a higher being.)

I'm glad the author understands Intelligent design to be bunk and really just a thinly veiled anti-evolutionary movement more concerned with the impact they think it has on a literal reading of the Bible, and the passive effects on society because of that.

I don't think so. I think there is actually a subtle beauty in our inability to prove God's existence empirically. Being able to prove that God is real would actually be the real death blow for religion.

I don't think many adherents would agree with that. I can see mass parading on every street corner by certain religious groups if their particular rendition of God was demonstrated as valid.

The point of religion is faith — to believe, not just accept. Followers of other religions will be able to find passages in their own holy book with similar meanings.

The point of religion is to test the capability of the human mind to accept claims without evidence?

Okay, my mind can't quite do that, or won't do that. Not seeing a positive argument here.

If there is empirical evidence God exists, there is basically no point in believing — you are forced to believe God exists, not because you are convicted in your heart that he is real, but because the evidence is there and you can't run away from it.

Here's the strange confusion between ought and is that many theists passively make too much. Belief is not (generally) motivated by ought, it is motivated by a specific subjective understanding of what is. It comes from a specific experience of natural phenomena combined with learned knowledge up to that point (personality plays a part in bias, and is the biggest player in the motivation of faith).

To note, there are many atheists that don't believe in God but wish they could (I am not one of them). They wish they could be convinced and have some 'faith' but really can't. They are people with the same yearning of those of faith, but have differentiated beliefs from desire, ought from is effectively. Are they 'worse' because they cannot suspend their disbelief? Are they of less heart because they can't endorse the concept of believing what you wish to be true, rather than believe what you understand to be true?

The fact that God has not given us evidence of his existence is meant to affirm our free will, and to lend our faith a meaning. Hard atheist Richard Dawkins says that if after dying, he finds himself in front of God, he will tell Him, "Not enough evidence, God. Not enough evidence."

I'm not sure if Dawkins said this, but it wouldn't surprise me.

And he's absolutely right. Why give us the gift of rationality and then expect us to forgo its usage to ascend?

But the point of the evidence's absence is to give us a choice, and to make believing truly believing. That is something all people, theists and atheists, have to come to terms with. Trying to empirically prove that God exists, or to disprove his existence, beyond as some mental exercise, is a complete waste of time.

This could be applied with anything. Any one of any metaphysical, spiritual or supernatural leaning could make the exact same claims. Their beliefs transcend and are not based in or for evidence. Why should a skeptic say believe the claims of a Christian, over a Muslim if evidence no longer players a role in it?

I cannot also abide a God that gives us the capacity to understand and explore our world through our own intellect and our own creativity and then insists we suspend it in order to ascend to the supernatural peak.

 

[Life_Is_Short]

Why don't you ask your questions to a scholar? They have much more knowledge about this then i do. I am still a student and learning and exploring.

Please ask here: http://www.justaskislam.com/