To atheists...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fishman
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 97
  • Views Views 15K
I will respond to your quote instead of going to the website anybody can cut and paste.
What you have quoted are just statements from the Quran. There is no evidence to back these statements up lots of "holy" books have similar claims but have no evidence to back them up.
 
Fishman said:
If you strongly deny that the Quran is a true revelation
Click to expand...


There is no god and therefore nothing to reveal.


Fishman said:
then you have to have some idea of what a true revelation is like.
Click to expand...

A visit from god to the earth.

A man telling me about a supernatural being is not a revelation.
 
instead of arguing about what a true revelation should/should not contain and whether what is a true revelation or not-why don't you guys go and actually read the quran from beg. to end?!

when you finished-then come back and argue...



(by the way-once you've finished-see if you can meet the challenges set in it to prove it's false..)
 
Fishman said:
:sl:
If you strongly deny that the Quran is a true revelation, then you have to have some idea of what a true revelation is like. What do you believe that that a true revelation should and shouldn't contain?
:w:
Click to expand...

There is a minor flaw in the question. In order for an atheist to believe in a true revelation from God(swt), the atheist would need to believe in God. Without a belief in God(swt) there will be no proof for the existance of God(swt). For a person who believes in God(swt) no proof is needed, for a person who does not believe no proof is sufficient.

An atheist actualy has no concept of what a revelation is like. The atheist has no reason to believe any revelation is true. The only revelation an atheist would accept, is one in which the atheist has verifiable proof that he is not an atheist.
 
Woodrow said:
There is a minor flaw in the question. In order for an atheist to believe in a true revelation from God(swt), the atheist would need to believe in God. Without a belief in God(swt) there will be no proof for the existance of God(swt). For a person who believes in God(swt) no proof is needed, for a person who does not believe no proof is sufficient.

An atheist actualy has no concept of what a revelation is like. The atheist has no reason to believe any revelation is true. The only revelation an atheist would accept, is one in which the atheist has verifiable proof that he is not an atheist.
Click to expand...
You converted from atheism to Islam, Woodrow, didn't you?
What did it take to convince you? Was it a sudden revelation upon reading the Qur'an, as Marya seems to indicate? Or something else?
Or were you secretly still a believer, but disppointed with your previous faith and actually looking elsewhere?

I do think there are atheists who fall into this 'searching' group.
But others are utterly clear that they do neither need nor seek a divine influence in their lives.And I agree with you, for those people no proof would ever be good enough. Even God standing on your doorstep could be put down to hallucinations or mental disorders ... :rollseyes

Peace.
 
Religious people have different revelations which they all believe are true yet they say contradictary things. why is your revelation so special. It is just the same as anybody Else's. Without evidence for you revelation it is just of no use. Nobody should trust any revelation not based on evidence. it has nothing to do with whether i believe in god or not.

I have already some verses in the Quran it is no different from lots of other religious writings that are in the world.
 
WOOAH!! hey -woodrow reverted to islam?!!?
hey-TAKBEER
masha allah bro-may Allah keep you guided, Ameen.
 
I really agree with Joe on this. Why does God reveal himself through men? A man revealing God to me, is not the same as a true revelation. A revelation must come from God, otherwise it is unreliable.
 
yeah but God is beyond us-and if He revealed Himself directly we wouldn't be able to handle the awe..we're just mere humans after all
 
yeah but God is beyond us-and if He revealed Himself directly we wouldn't be able to handle the awe..we're just mere humans after all
Click to expand...

That is nearly as funny as this:

evo.gif
 
Dont you think if someone says they have a revelation from god and you just believe it because they said it is a bit stupid?
 
Why do I get the feeling this thread is being taken over by atheists??! ;D

Peace, you guys. :)
 
KAding said:
Why does God reveal himself through men?
Click to expand...
Did you know the Qur'an itself responded to this argument 1400 years ago?

64:6 That was because there came to them messengers with Clear Signs, but they said: "Shall (mere) human beings direct us?" So they rejected (the Message) and turned away. But Allah can do without (them): and Allah is free of all needs, worthy of all praise.

17:94-95. And nothing prevented people from believing when the guidance came to them except that they said: What! has Allah raised up a mortal to be a messenger?
Say, Had there been in the earth angels walking about as settlers, We would certainly have sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a messenger.

The function of a messenger is not only to convey the message but implement, explain and practice it, so the people can see how it is to be practiced by another human being, so that they can see how the code of life is to be lived, so that they will not be able to say, "We thought it wasn't possible for human beings to live that way", and so that He could honour the most pious amongst human beings.
 
to all the peopel saying that A revelation would only be considered "true" wen it comes with evidence.

1. So for the sake of argument, that means that if there were a God that wishes to test your faith, he is unable to because any test will be logically refuted by the lack of evidence. But then again believing has nothing to do with evidence right? So I repeat the origenal question What would a hypotetical revelation need in order for you to BELIEVE in it.

2. Try to assume for a second that there actually were miracles in teh past. Now tell me, do you think peopel of the present would accept these assumed factual miracles when there is only a writen record of them?

What I'm trying to do here is show how circular this set of thoughts is.
1. Religion is false ->
2. Record of miracles must be false ->
3. There is no proof that the revelation was devine ->
4. Therefor religion is false.

Quite cunning. However I still have an ace down my sleeve. The biggest miracle proving Muhammed (pbuh) was a prophet has been preserved throughout history! That miracle is the holy Qur'an. And it is still here for anyone to read it. And those who do not want to believe are not convinced by it, but even if the angels would apear in front of them those will still not believe. But those who are not afraid to give religion the benefit of the doubt will apreciate the depth and wonders of the qur'an. those will haev there proof.

Finally I would like to add to this something I already posted in another thread:
Difrent people hold difrent criteria to judge what is or isn't a fact. In the end there is no universal way to determine fact over falsehood.
I'm quite aware that my belief is unproven, yet it feels so certain to me I aproach it as a fact. I would even go so far that on a personal level I consider my religion more factualthen I consider scientific facts to be factual.
 
However I still have an ace down my sleeve. The biggest miracle proving Muhammed (pbuh) was a prophet has been preserved throughout history!
Click to expand...

I would hardly call less than 2000 years being "throughout history" Steve.

Finally I would like to add to this something I already posted in another thread:
Difrent people hold difrent criteria to judge what is or isn't a fact. In the end there is no universal way to determine fact over falsehood.
I'm quite aware that my belief is unproven, yet it feels so certain to me I aproach it as a fact. I would even go so far that on a personal level I consider my religion more factualthen I consider scientific facts to be factual.
Click to expand...

perhaps we should reinforce that science does not really offer facts. merely the probability of a given theory being correct based on the scientific data. For example, the scientific data supports the theory that our planet has been geologically evolving over billions of years and continues to do so. natural disasters are the consequences of an actively evolving planet.

if we look at those two points from a religous point of view, the earth was created and natural disasters are a result of God punishing or testing our faith. the latter simply does not support the scientific data. I also think that miraculous events which by some strange use of logic ends up implicating the existence of a God is not proof. I don't even think religion should "proove" itself (and sometimes I wish they would stop trying). I think between the two issues here (creation of planet and natural disasters as punishment/tests of god" or "an evolving planet with natural disasters a consequence of this process" that logically the scientific data supports the POV that does not support your religion.
 
Man yall should chill.

Like Shaykh Yasir Qadhi said (summat along his words) "If a person comes up to you, and start telling you there in no sun out there. Even though you know its a hot sunny day. Would you bother to argue with him, try to proof that there is sun outside? obviously you will not waste your time. Its same thing with atheist when they say there is NO GOD"

Seriously Allah swt just gave ONE ayah against atheist in Qur'an. No more or less. Because Its pointless talking about them.

So why should we try bothering to preach something to atheist? Five mins on them is MORE than enuff.

No offense to any1 on here

Asalamaulykum warahmatullah
 
the scientific data supports the theory that our planet has been geologically evolving over billions of years and continues to do so. natural disasters are the consequences of an actively evolving planet.
Click to expand...


I think natural disasters have been happening for a all time root. I think what you want to say is that science is evolving not the Earth, It is we who are changing the planet.
 
root said:
I would hardly call less than 2000 years being "throughout history" Steve.
Click to expand...
Ok :)
What I meant was that it is still in the same state so that we can still witness that miracle of 1400 years ago today. As opposed to other miracles wich we can no longer witness but only examine out of man-made records.

perhaps we should reinforce that science does not really offer facts. merely the probability of a given theory being correct based on the scientific data. For example, the scientific data supports the theory that our planet has been geologically evolving over billions of years and continues to do so. natural disasters are the consequences of an actively evolving planet.
Click to expand...

Quite right.

if we look at those two points from a religous point of view, the earth was created and natural disasters are a result of God punishing or testing our faith. the latter simply does not support the scientific data. I also think that miraculous events which by some strange use of logic ends up implicating the existence of a God is not proof.
Click to expand...

Well I don't think one view contradicts the other. The scientific volution of earth tells us "how" (method, cause and reaction) the earth changed. Religion tells us "why" (motive, purpose). I understand how you fail to acknowledge it as proof. Like I said, everybody holds difrent criteria for that.

I don't even think religion should "proove" itself (and sometimes I wish they would stop trying). I think between the two issues here (creation of planet and natural disasters as punishment/tests of god" or "an evolving planet with natural disasters a consequence of this process" that logically the scientific data supports the POV that does not support your religion.
Click to expand...
Yes in the end of the day we're asked to "believe" not to "proof". But if you "believe" something strong enough, it will eventually become more of a certainty then a proven fact. That is what the true meaning of believing is: "To accept as true without having proof of it."

I'm curious though Root: What would a hypotetical revelation/religion need in order for you to BELIEVE in it?
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top