Attention all Atheist forum members

[endymion248]

On topic, it's funny to see how these Atheists Movements have a greater number of signings from America, South America or Muslim Countries and that the atheists of these countries are more vehement towards religion.

It's very much like the proselytism of old times, except they now are atheists in mind and still religious in attitude.

How often do you see non-American atheists insulting christians because of their believes? Same about Muslims and newly atheists?

I quite enjoy reading atheist philosophers but, whenever I see such individuals, more often than not, it will be about shoving your atheism to everyone because it makes you the intellectual elite of the world and proving religion wrong, as opposed to original thinking.

Why is it that atheism in religious countries looks like a court where you prove the other wrong, as opposed to trying to create something, which mostly makes the second category appreciate the Quran or Bible, even if you don't believe it's from God?

Point in case, just have a look at books from Muslim converts. I'm yet to see something that's not ''I was a muslim, I had these bad experiences but I used to believe in God, then I had the epiphany thanks to these and now I'm looking at how dumb I was and how cruel these people are, as opposed to me now?''.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy comparative stories but some which actually go above these personal and irrelevant issues. Just have a comparison between that Jacq book (don't remember the name) and any atheist proselytist book you have read.

 

[endymion248]

Imam Abu Hanifah and the Atheist



http://www.haqislam.org/imam-abu-hanifah-and-the-atheist/

It's enjoyable. The ''atheist laughed'' ''smiled'' gave it a bit away that he was going to get his mouth shut by more than a miracle

And for the atheists like OP, here's a more suitable community than PP: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/

 

[Indiafan]

Imam Abu Hanifah and the Atheist



http://www.haqislam.org/imam-abu-hanifah-and-the-atheist/

Thats a very limited, human point of view IMO. A certain mountain shape can happen without any creator, just by years of erosion. The universe is very, very vast place and human beings are just accidents. Every religious book claim human beings as the ultimate creation of God and us being the subject of his test. But you just have to take a look at the universe to see how redundant that saying is. We are not even important on this planet, most of the planet is covered in water and there are many species and wonders human beings cannot even see because its under water. If the earth was built to test human's its a waste design as we dont even use most of it

similarly, earth is not important at all in the milky way. the milky way is not important amongst other galaxies. So many galaxies we never might get to explore. Yet somehow, this vast universe was created to test some insignificant apes in one insignificant part of the universe? Yeah, right!

Also, there is a long jump from there being a creator, to there being a benovelent creator, to there being a muslim creator. For all we know, the entire universe might be what happened when a giant, turtle shape creature, took a huge dump and he would be as oblivious of our worship as I would be if the bacteria in my burp started worshiping me for creating them. The turtle here is the "creator" but is he a God we should worship? Just there being a creator does not mean the creator is God. What if the entire universe is a cell in the body of some giant being, with the planets and stars being the equivalent of lysosomes and mitochondria with us being the equivalent of viruses who have festered in a small part of that cell, living our brief lives

 

[Robert]

True , atheists use God derived concepts to debunk God.I wonder why this is isn't so obvious to them as it is to many people.

Because they believe that the concepts you allude to are human-derived and not God-derived.

 

[Badsha]

Because they believe that the concepts you allude to are human-derived and not God-derived.

The concepts and logic we apply is divine logic.



You try and apply human logic which is where you fail. It's like telling a man in 3000 BC that a "fax machine" exists. He'll say it's not possible.

 

[cricketworm]

I think it's dangerous for religious ppl to get in argument with an Atheist, atheist will rarely turn back to be believer in God once again, but religious ppl will def. be shaken if they start seeing the logic. My recommendation to religious ppl is to stay away from this topic.

 

[cricketworm]

The concepts and logic we apply is divine logic.



You try and apply human logic which is where you fail. It's like telling a man in 3000 BC that a "fax machine" exists. He'll say it's not possible.

But creator of 'fax machine' is Human him/herself. Atheist believe God is human made as well, which may be proven at some point too, just like fax machine.

 

[pillionrider]

Advaita in Indian philosophy is non-duality basically and accepted as being part of the Hindu tradition. In essence, it is atheistic while retaining strong elements of spirituality.

The Rig Veda has these lines:

Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.

And so you can be a Hindu atheist if you're gonna claim that the Vedas ARE Hinduism

Just finding a way to bump this thread for atheists who might want to vent from time to time.

 

[pillionrider]

Cool, but just don't let life pass you by. The world will still be here when you are long gone.

The irony of this statement


If you look at the history of religions and gods, plenty of them have come and gone. So really, that statement should read, "The world will still be here when your religion is long gone."

 

[sweep_shot]

Atheism is lame.

This world is way too systematic. There is no way everything happened by chance.

 

[Robert]

Atheism is lame.

This world is way too systematic. There is no way everything happened by chance.

The “system” is the relationship between the four forces - electromagnetism, gravity, strong nuclear, weak nuclear. Everything that exists flows from this relationship. Stars firm from hydrogen clouds. Stars go nova and the rubble forms planets and new stars. The rubble goes into orbit round new stars and forms planets. Some planets have liquid water. Some planets with liquid water have a Van Allen Belt. On these, life can evolve. On a few of these, sentient life evolves, and starts to ask questions.

See, there is no need for a Creator for everything to be the way it is. There might be one, but there doesn’t have to be. And seeing as there is no evidence for a Creator, the idea can be safely discounted.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The irony of this statement


If you look at the history of religions and gods, plenty of them have come and gone. So really, that statement should read, "The world will still be here when your religion is long gone."

I didn't even realise I had been quoted from 9 years ago but this thread popped up again and I decided to open it. I think my quote holds up pretty well. You are right as well, everything has a lifespan, but some things hold up longer than others. Just ask yourself this though: ultimately what matters more, understanding whether there is a God or enjoying a cool milkshake?

 

[pillionrider]

Just ask yourself this though: ultimately what matters more, understanding whether there is a God or enjoying a cool milkshake?

I think anyone who's been brought up with religion, long after they've shaken it off, will still be drawn to topics related to God. Maybe it's part of the cleansing process, maybe it's a matter of reiterating things to yourself.

I thought you yourself get hot sometimes on matters of faith and seem in need of a cool milkshake Apology if I confused you with someone else. I can always make it up, if you visit India though. I make a pretty renowned milkshake from yelakki banana, dates and groundnuts.

 

[Energy]

The “system” is the relationship between the four forces - electromagnetism, gravity, strong nuclear, weak nuclear. Everything that exists flows from this relationship. Stars firm from hydrogen clouds. Stars go nova and the rubble forms planets and new stars. The rubble goes into orbit round new stars and forms planets. Some planets have liquid water. Some planets with liquid water have a Van Allen Belt. On these, life can evolve. On a few of these, sentient life evolves, and starts to ask questions.

See, there is no need for a Creator for everything to be the way it is. There might be one, but there doesn’t have to be. And seeing as there is no evidence for a Creator, the idea can be safely discounted.

What you're saying, including the Van Allen Belt is discovery in process, as astro science advances. However, to claim that everything happened by chance is as absurd as you'd think people believing in religion are. There has to be a starting point, somewhere. Life does not evolve by chance. The complexity of human body function is not by chance.

The below is written 1400 years ago.

“And We have made the heavens as a canopy well-guarded: Yet do they turn away from the Signs which these things (point to).” (al-Anbiya: 32)

 

[Robert]

What you're saying, including the Van Allen Belt is discovery in process, as astro science advances. However, to claim that everything happened by chance is as absurd as you'd think people believing in religion are. There has to be a starting point, somewhere. Life does not evolve by chance. The complexity of human body function is not by chance.

The below is written 1400 years ago.

“And We have made the heavens as a canopy well-guarded: Yet do they turn away from the Signs which these things (point to).” (al-Anbiya: 32)

The starting point is the Big Bang.

Where did I mention chance? I am talking about inexorable and inevitable physical and chemical processes. Once a self-replicating molecule occurs, then life becomes inevitable. There was a planet-sized Petri dish and billions of years for this to happen. I expect it has happened on thousands on planets in this galaxy alone, where they exist on the “Goldilocks Zone”.

 

[Technics 1210]

The cornerstone of Atheism is Time, Chance, and Matter. Simply put the universe and all within can be explained in these 3 aforementioned terms.

Bottom line: unless science can demonstrate empirically, inanimate matter transforming in animate matter, though the known 4 universal physical forces, then their story remains as such, a story. The Human Cell is the most complex piece of biological engineering known to man. DNA the biological code of life. How was the first cell created? We are told in some primordial soup. This is the Ashiest answer.

Life only comes from life [biogenesis]. During all recorded history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing. In fact, when the DNA system was discovered and understood, the Darwinists/Atheist ideologies should have come to a screeching end.

Goldilocks is based on chance, a 1 in 3 shot, you have all read the story. 'Random' Mutation, is based on chance. We are told by Atheists, that when it comes to life, 'it just happened', ask for scientific evidence, "oh it's inevitable". This is not science, it's fraud, desperation, and story telling.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I think anyone who's been brought up with religion, long after they've shaken it off, will still be drawn to topics related to God. Maybe it's part of the cleansing process, maybe it's a matter of reiterating things to yourself.

I thought you yourself get hot sometimes on matters of faith and seem in need of a cool milkshake Apology if I confused you with someone else. I can always make it up, if you visit India though. I make a pretty renowned milkshake from yelakki banana, dates and groundnuts.

No I have a fairly ambivalent attitude to religion, you must have mistaken me for someone else. Religion matters most to two types of people: those who are very religious, and those who are religiously atheist. These people can tend to get quite angry, but the vast majority of people don't usually want to get to hung up on stuff they can't prove one way or the other.

 

[pillionrider]

Bottom line: unless science can demonstrate empirically, inanimate matter transforming in animate matter, though the known 4 universal physical forces, then their story remains as such, a story. The Human Cell is the most complex piece of biological engineering known to man. DNA the biological code of life. How was the first cell created? We are told in some primordial soup. This is the Ashiest answer.

So this is the latest gauntlet thrown down. And the use of the word 'story' coming from people who live their lives and impose the same, based on stories

It wouldn't have been DNA. Something closer to RNA. There might never be a way to conclusively uncover how life specifically began on Earth (before you jump onto that, read on), but there certainly will be explanations on how life could have begun, by demo-ing it in the lab. For decades now, there have been plenty of peer-reviewed experiments where natural selection has been observed with randomly assembled RNA molecules.

Science has consistently broken down religious truths. There is no evidence to suggest science will not be able to answer and demonstrate how the first self-replicating molecule emerged. There is a reason why the phrase God of the Gaps exists. Because that's where God remains now. In the gaps.

Life only comes from life [biogenesis]. During all recorded history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing. In fact, when the DNA system was discovered and understood, the Darwinists/Atheist ideologies should have come to a screeching end.

Not sure how DNA should have shut down anything but religion.

The rest of the statement is similar to someone confidently saying - lol these guys think humans came from monkeys. So why aren't monkeys giving birth to humans lololol

Goldilocks is based on chance, a 1 in 3 shot, you have all read the story. 'Random' Mutation, is based on chance. We are told by Atheists, that when it comes to life, 'it just happened', ask for scientific evidence, "oh it's inevitable". This is not science, it's fraud, desperation, and story telling.

It's amazing how often religious people rely on science to find a crutch to lean on, so long as they can somehow twist their religious verses to have a vague scientific connotation.

All the big religions that exist today are based on things written before Galileo and Newton. Wouldn't it be amazing if, before these writings gave such complex explanations on where life came from and where life will go after death, they instead just have told all the illiterates of their time - keep walking or swimming, you won't fall off, because the earth is not flat and also, you know guys, the sun doesn't revolve around us. Something as basic as that would have been nice, before they tried to conquer the harder problems

 

[Technics 1210]

This topic has been debated to death.

Time, Chance and Matter - the cornerstone of Athiesm - cannot explain how life was created. This is a fact. If it could then atheists wouldn't ramble on but present the empirical evidence.

Religion says intelligence (God), Atheists say it was a fluke.

While God cannot be empirically proven since God is a matter of faith, science can be proven, empirically, through matter, but atheists are struggling big time, and require more leaps of faith than theists.

The science says, the 4 known fundamental forces of the universe cannot give rise to life, but add God to the equation as the 5th force, and it all makes perfect sense.

 

[James]

[MENTION=149166]Technics 1210[/MENTION] have you heard of the Five Ways by St Thomas Aquinas? Very good.

 

[Technics 1210]

[MENTION=149166]Technics 1210[/MENTION] have you heard of the Five Ways by St Thomas Aquinas? Very good.

Just looked it up. Thanks for reference!