The Holy Qur'an is the Irrefutable Evidence

saeedalyousuf · Apr 9, 2005

Uthman · Apr 9, 2005

Indeed you are right.

The Qur'an itself could not have been created by a human.

Ansar Al-'Adl · Apr 10, 2005

Brother, why don't you copy and paste your messages here, so we can read them?

JazakAllah khair.

:w:

Uthman · Apr 10, 2005

He must have thought it would take up too much space.

saeedalyousuf · Apr 10, 2005

Osman said:
He must have thought it would take up too much space.

السلام عليكم إخواني الأعزاء المحترمين

Exactly, you are right brother Osman. Besides, I am almost alone facing an army of Atheists and therefore expect you brothers to join in the effort in order to demonstrate our Islamic brotherhood, understanding and cooperation.

والسلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته

Saeed

Uthman · Apr 10, 2005

Brother you shouldn't have to do this alone. When the last hour comes it will be too late for them and it will be us who are at fault which is why it is our duty to invite towards the way of Islam, the natural path. Perhaps what will help them to come to the truth more, along with your significant proofs, is an example of an atheist themselves converting to Islam. What say ye?

Ansar Al-'Adl · Apr 10, 2005

But I was really interested in reading your points brother saeed!

root · Apr 11, 2005

From my past discussion with the Atheists I have come to the conclusion that the Holy Qur'an is undeniably the uncorrupted message of Allah. I am posting the following links for corroboration:

I had a look at your suggestion:

Don't you read anyone else's posts dude or dood or doud?

There is NO creator. There is NO creation.

Prove otherwise. I DARE you. LOL!

Only problem you have is that it's a minority view

Regards

Root

Silver Pearl · Apr 11, 2005

root said:
Only problem you have is that it's a minority view

Regards

Root

peace,

I will probably have to agree but the majority of the world does not care about the hereafter, they have no desire to spare a minute to the creator. They create doubts and dismiss the existence of an omnipotent being or substance. Allah (swt) knows best of his form. However, there shall come a time where the true path will conquer but sadly the upraising of al-messah ad-dajjal will cause many to stray.

regards,

CE

root · Apr 11, 2005

I will probably have to agree but the majority of the world does not care about the hereafter,

I think you will be quite surprised. Besides, by breaking free from religous oppression in the extreme we have become more aware of an Evolving planet and it's consequences both present and in the future. Mankind acting now & together for a future on the planet is probably at the afore of thier minds and not salvation of one's self.

Besides, your faith itself would better have a good non muslim than a bad muslim.

Silver Pearl · Apr 11, 2005

I think you will be quite surprised.

peace,

I doubt that very much….

Besides, by breaking free from religous oppression in the extreme

The concept of extremism and oppression has been a terminology widely used by people who preach the rights of ‘freedom’ hypocrisy is very popular with man-kind more than we are let to believe sadly.

we have become more aware of an Evolving planet and it's consequences both present and in the future.

However, few people dwell on such issue and actually think about the consequence.

Mankind acting now & together for a future on the planet is probably at the afore of thier minds and not salvation of one's self.

selfishness no doubt has a great place in this time and the future.

Besides, your faith itself would better have a good non muslim than a bad muslim.

I fail to understand the implication of this point…what do you mean to say exactly?

regards,

CE

root · Apr 12, 2005

Crystal Eyes said:
I doubt that very much….

The concept of extremism and oppression has been a terminology widely used by people who preach the rights of ‘freedom’ hypocrisy is very popular with man-kind more than we are let to believe sadly.

Of course this is just an opinion of both yours and mine. With yours being a minority opinion.

Besides, your faith itself would better have a good non muslim than a bad muslim.

One of your prophets said that in reference to a non beleivers judgement. In that it is better (in the eyes of allah) to be a good non Muslim than a Bad Muslim? Maybe you will be best placed to expand on that.

Silver Pearl · Apr 12, 2005

peace,

Of course this is just an opinion of both yours and mine. With yours being a minority opinion.

You hold this arrogant sense of attitude while you reply...i hope the majority of the world are not like you. Opinions are a personal view, now my view can not be measured to be with the minority unless you've done research yourself…if you have then do enlighten us by posting the statistics.

One of your prophets said that in reference to a non beleivers judgement. In that it is better (in the eyes of allah) to be a good non Muslim than a Bad Muslim? Maybe you will be best placed to expand on that.

Well could you state which prophet (pbuh)? Or else there is no point in dwelling in such issue if we do not have evidence for the point we want to discuss about.

regards,

CE

root · Apr 13, 2005

You hold this arrogant sense of attitude while you reply

I am sorry if you feel this way, but if we look at the title of this thread:

The Holy Qur'an is the Irrefutable Evidence

Are you trying to say that statement is a majority opinion, and do you not find an arrogance about it.

Regards

Root

Khattab · Apr 13, 2005

No way is that the Quran is seen by the majority as the "Irrefutable Evidence". There have been more in the past and now who have rejected it or followed a different way. This is also told to us by Allah (SWT), many times throughout the Holy Qu'ran.

"Do they not look at the earth,- how many noble things of all kinds We have produced therein? Verily, in this is a Sign: but most of them do not believe. " (26:8-9)

"The Hour will certainly come: Therein is no doubt: Yet most men believe not. "(40:59)

The Ruler · Apr 13, 2005

root said:
Only problem you have is that it's a minority view

Regards

Root

peace,

i am very curious about what athiests believe about life after death?

Can you (root) please explain.

peace
Tagrid

Silver Pearl · Apr 13, 2005

I am sorry if you feel this way, but if we look at the title of this thread:

Peace,

You should not need to put on a front if you do not mean it sincerely dear.

The Holy Qur'an is the Irrefutable Evidence

Are you trying to say that statement is a majority opinion, and do you not find an arrogance about it.

Regards

Root

I think the extraction of the word ‘the’ in the title would make it more approachable and not give a sense of arrogance. It is how individuals phrase certain things that can be portrayed as being arrogant. In my humble opinion I would eliminate certain words from the title, however, it is not my thread.

In addition I think that for now that the Qur’an being irrefutable is hold by minority of the world population…though 80% and over of the world believe the existence of a powerful and omnipotent being it does not reflect the ideologies taught in Islam.

Now I will not dismiss this obvious fact, it is a saddening reality….on the other hand, this is nothing in comparison to how it will be….not a single being will utter ‘Allahu akbar’ (God is the greatest). Nevertheless, man-kind will be saved and this view held by the members in this forum will be the majority, Just not while ignorance is at its peak and people love the fabrication of this world more than the hereafter.

regards,

Crystal Eyes

Khattab · Apr 13, 2005

Tagrid said:
peace,

i am very curious about what athiests believe about life after death?

Can you (root) please explain.

peace
Tagrid

Dust and bones according to most I have spoke with

Uthman · Apr 14, 2005

Same here.

Here, please read this. It's from an atheistic point of view.

Hope it's allowed. Is it?

The only atheistic hypothesis of life after death that I know of is naturalistic reincarnation, which some atheistic religions accept.

Otherwise, all life after death hypotheses involve some form of the supernatural, and require that some supernatural entity (a god or deity or similar entity) performs the work necessary to turn a dead person somehow back into a living person. Atheism is the rejection (or the lack of acceptance) of such a hypothesis.

Materialism would suggest that the conscious, aware "Self" is established by the structures and processes of the brain. When these structures are destroyed and the processes cease, the conscious, aware "Self" ceases to exist. Similarly, a television picture requires a functioning television set in order to exist; if the TV is broken, no television picture can exist. In this sense, the conscious, aware "Self" would be akin to the television picture, not the TV set itself. When the TV is functioning, a television picture results; when the TV set ceases to function, there is no picture in that TV set.

Everything we know about biology and neurology and how the brain works points toward the likelihood that this marvelous organ contains everything needed to establish a conscious, aware "Self." In fact, the case can be made that the consciousness is necessary in an organism that survives by its mobility, that organisms which evolved to be mobile necessarily evolved the ability to be consciously aware -- however dim that awareness may be in the simpler organisms such as worms.

Plants are not mobile and thus do not need to perceive, make decisions, attack prey, run and hide from predators, or find and attract (or subdue) mates. We can expect an organism that depends upon its mobility to have a consciousness as part of its ability to detect patterns of information and thereby develop an accurate understanding and awareness of its surroundings. In the mammals, the consciousness is much more sophisticated than in other species; in the human, one part of our brain has developed the amazing capacity to become aware of itself and its destiny (death).

If we could know that a deity exists, who created us and who cares about us, we could reasonably expect His world to be fair. This world cannot be called "fair" by any stretch: Life is good, to be sure, particularly if you get a few good breaks; but life is not fair. My little brother's only chance to live ended shortly after he was born. If there is no God watching after my brother, then those few barely conscious moments were all he gets. I hate even thinking about this, but I cannot bring myself to assent to any of the arguments that have been presented to me which claim that my little brother gets more than those few, brief, barely cognizant years of life. But then, most people who could have existed never did, or never breathed that first breath of air. Life is not fair. If it were, I would be much closer to assenting to one or the other of the god claims that I've heard.

The prospect of personal annihilation is staggeringly frightening to most. Many of us would prefer almost any route other than to be given a convincing argument that death is final. In fact, many people will still opt to find ways to justify believing in the more comfortable and more comforting myth, even if shown that annihilation is extremely likely and that other possibilities are very unlikely. They can see it but they won't buy it. Of course: if a loved one is missing, people will ponder just about any scenario besides the prospect of her demise, clinging unashamedly to any hope of her survival. If diagnosed with a grave medical condition, we tend to think that something will happen and we will become one of those amazing success stories in the annals of medicine. This is so natural to the human that many will tell you that the route of "denial" is healthier if one is given such a diagnosis. But the face of the inevitable watches in pitiless consumption as we whistle in the dark valley of the shadow of death. *

Most of the life-after-death scenarios I've heard are so entirely vacant that they don't make sense at all: sense cannot be made of them. Nevertheless, people tend to say they believe these ideas, to think they believe these ideas, to think the ideas are true, even though, when asked to describe what life after death will be like, they cannot do this. They believe it's true and believe this very strongly, yet they cannot even begin to describe what this state will be like.

But if materialism is right, if the conscious, aware "Self" is established by the structures and processes within in the brain, then what "after death" will be like is what "before birth" was like: not. It will be, for us, as if we had never lived at all.

When I think about that, I can fully empathize with those who would go running to a comfortable myth -- any myth at all -- to avoid facing the full impact of what this means. I have forced myself to face what this means and I will never be the same. Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the famous death with dignity advocate and perhaps the world's foremost student of the dying process, created a painting, "Nearer My God to Thee," ** which portrays a person, green with death, falling into the black pit of death but scratching the sides of the pit in an attempt to keep from entering. He says, "This depicts how most human beings feel about dying ... despite the solace of hypocritical religiosity and its seductive promise of an after-life of heavenly bliss." With Dr. Kevorkian I wonder just how much solace religion brings. I know when I was religious, I could not bring to mind a realistic hope for the afterlife. It was relatively easy for me to think of others in Heaven or even Hell (gaud for bid!), but I could not see this for myself. I repeat: I never saw or felt that I would partake of either. I cannot tell you what I did think, as that concept never got formed. But I did not feel any "comfort" or "assurance" of salvation from beyond physical death. If the Christian religion was about helping me overcome the fear of death, it did not work for me. I am much closer to overcoming this fear by facing it through such means as studying the work of Kevorkian and others who themselves are not afraid of the prospect of annihilation.

Kevorkian concludes, "After all, how excruciating can nothingness be?" The nothingness itself? Not! But ayyyy! the prospect of not being when I happen to be right now! Thus far in my personal journey, I have accepted that there's nothing I can do to hold on to my life. Nothing will let me keep my life and I will have to die. I have accepted that much. I don't have to like it; after all, there are many things in life that I don't like. There are many things in my life that others are not required to endure but I am, and I don't like that. But still I live and function and, at times, even thrive. I have likewise, with Dr. Kevorkian, candidly asked myself how excruciating nothingness can be. Finally, with novelist Anthony Burgess, I have at least recognized that the "vestigial fear of Hell" is, at most, a conditioned reflex from a childhood indoctrination.

Where my "vestigial fear of Hell" came from is anybody's guess: I was raised by atheists who did not talk about the Christian Hell except to tell me, when I asked, that they did not believe in it. I think the prospect of the Christian Hell is utterly foreboding, so much so that I think even a single exposure to this concept at just the right moment can damage certain youngsters for life.

As for justifying our thoughts, I will speak for all atheists in saying that we believe this way first and foremost because we think it is true. We have no reasons for believing any of the claims that there is an afterlife.

Period.

I would love to hear from any atheist who believes there is no life after death for any other reason. If I get any responses in the affirmative, I will link them from this document once it gets posted.

Christians (and a few others) accuse us of wanting to avoid the fear of the Christian Hell. If my experience with Christianity failing to relieve my fear of physical death is any indication, it just doesn't work that way: not with me, anyway. If Christians think it does work that way, this becomes, to my mind, a potentially revealing observation about Christianity itself, particularly about its usefulness in relieving the fear of physical death (or, at least, distracting the Christian from having to face this prospect head-on).

Meanwhile, what I see is people and animals having evolved and needing a consciousness to survive. I then see these animals and people die. I have absolutely no reason for believing otherwise than that their conscious, aware "Self" dies with them, the animal or human being fully equipped, complete, and ready to begin functioning once life begins. If an afterlife exists, it is the burden of the person who claims its existence to demonstrate to us that this is the case, that an afterlife exists. In lieu of evidence and strong argument, we are left with only one option: not believing that such a thing exists. This is the only option, anyway, for a person dedicated to following truth wherever she may lead.

Some people do not hold that high a priority for truth: other matters, such as living a peaceful life, being as free from worry as possible, or getting along in the community, come first. Many, if not most, are so busy getting on with the job of living that they never get around to pondering questions such as these: the first "answer" they heard as a child, that very first "Aha!" they experienced, is the same "answer" they use throughout their lives.

I cannot speak for all atheists, because some tell me they have no fear of annihilation. One woman, whose husband was an atheistic activist, quietly deconverted and later told her husband how much of a relief she felt not having to think there was an afterlife. That was not my experience. It is a relief to know that the Christian Hell is a story out of the Christian Bible, which tells me many testable and verifiable (rather, refutable) things about how situations on Earth are. So, if the Christian Bible shows itself unreliable in matters that I can go and verify, then why should I trust what it says about matters that we cannot verify? I shouldn't, and I won't.

Source

root · Apr 15, 2005

Khattab said:
Dust and bones according to most I have spoke with

I agree in part, though a more accurate statement would be Star-Dust & bones. Though bones are star dust too, but the atoms which form our bones are of a complex structure giving a durability to them. And this is the key to an atheistic beleif of death.

The atoms that make up my body in life cannot be destroyed by death, the only way to destroy all my atoms would be to turn them into raw energy which would create an explosion more powerfull than all the nuclear weapons in the world going "Bang" all at the same time.

My atoms having come from star dust will return to star dust, ultimately my atoms will be found in the universe billions of years from now when our solar system is dark and our galaxy the milky way collides with andromida ALL our atoms will be redistributed into the chaotic universe, from that point on My atoms could go on to be part of a star, moon, planet or even a comet in fact it can be of any matter within the visible universe. Some of my atoms could even be sucked into a "black hole" and then after passing through the singularity my atoms will be totally destroyed or recycled in some way that we know not of yet.

Of course this is not science fiction but science fact.........

I think "reincarnation" is a scientific fact in principle but again this is at an atomic level.

The Holy Qur'an is the Irrefutable Evidence

The Holy Qur'an is an irrefutable evidence for the God.

Rising Member

LI News Service

Jewel of LI

LI News Service

Rising Member

LI News Service

Jewel of LI

IB Expert

Ahlaam ma'aya!

IB Expert

Ahlaam ma'aya!

IB Expert

Ahlaam ma'aya!

IB Expert

Elite Member

렌

Ahlaam ma'aya!

Elite Member

LI News Service

IB Expert

Similar Threads