If we were all atheists?

[Technics 1210]

Please show me where you have answered.

Once again, is it stupid/ridiculous/absurd to believe in a God that came out of nothing?

Once again, I have already made my view clear. Perhaps the photons aren't reaching the back of your retinas.

 

[Technics 1210]

You’re talking about the scientific possibility yet don’t know the basics of science?

To scoff at any notion without proof is foolish?

I’m not here to soothe your ignorance. You have posted liberally in this thread about science yet don’t know the basics (no need for inverted commas).

You are the one who is ignorant here. There is no such thing as proof in science; just evidence. This is why for any aspect to be scientific is must be falsifiable, which is why theories change, disqualified, in light of new evidence.

 

[miandadrules]

Once again, I have already made my view clear. Perhaps the photons aren't reaching the back of your retinas.

Probably.

So why don’t you clear up the confusion?

 

[miandadrules]

You are the one who is ignorant here. There is no such thing as proof in science; just evidence. This is why for any aspect to be scientific is must be falsifiable, which is why theories change, disqualified, in light of new evidence.

I think it’s obvious that I am the ignorant one.

In the context of the conversation you’ve inserted in to, are you also proposing the evidence of absence?

And your alternative (to science) is?

 

[amvbfm]

Burden of proof lies on the one who makes the claim. That is what theists don't get. If you claim that God exists, it is your responsibility to prove that He does.

Probably. The point i was making had more to do with not rejecting things outright as impossible from a scientific point of view. The issue with such debates is how incompatible the arguments of the two sides are. One are from a purely scientific viewpoint (again this is based purely on the existing body of knowledge and cannot in any way be claimed to be final) and the others are based purely on scripture. Reconciling them at this point in time is definitely impossible but I don't see how there can't be room for considering possibilities. Maybe at some point there will be a possibility of framing the problem from a purely scientific point of view. Maybe just like there has been a divergence between theology and science over the centuries, there will be a convergence as we discover more. Who knows?

 

[Technics 1210]

I think it’s obvious that I am the ignorant one.

And your alternative is?

Observe, test, and repeat, additional evidence in hope of falsifying your ignorance.

 

[Technics 1210]

Burden of proof lies on the one who makes the claim. That is what theists don't get. If you claim that God exists, it is your responsibility to prove that He does.

If God's existence could be proved, belief in God would not be a faith. You militant Atheists will never understand this simple yet glaring point.

 

[miandadrules]

Observe, test, and repeat, additional evidence in hope of falsifying your ignorance.

What’s wrong?

Why are you afraid to answer the question? You have the the most powerful entity that has ever been on your side, why the trepidation?

Is it ridiculous to believe that God came in to being spontaneously, from nothing?

 

[miandadrules]

If God's existence could be proved, belief in God would not be a faith. You militant Atheists will never understand this simple yet glaring point.

Simple glaring point or out and out ignorance and indoctrination?

 

[amvbfm]

You’re talking about the scientific possibility yet don’t know the basics of science?

To scoff at any notion without proof is foolish?

I’m not here to soothe your ignorance. You have posted liberally in this thread about science yet don’t know the basics (no need for inverted commas).

I really don't see how this thread is about science. It is as much about philosophy and religion as it is about science. For me that is a clear indication of the narrow mindedness with which you are approaching this. Also much as you have talked about science and its basic principles none of your posts have included anything remotely scientific but I will stop arguing with you here because you seem to be too confident in your knowledge and certainty about everything despite professing to be scientific in thought.

 

[Technics 1210]

What’s wrong?

Why are you afraid to answer the question? You have the the most powerful entity that has ever been on your side, why the trepidation?

Is it ridiculous to believe that God came in to being spontaneously, from nothing?

Why are you afraid to accept my answer which I have repeatedly said above? No wait, I can see what is going on here. My answer has planted the seed of doubt in your mind and now you want more answers. Not my fault your faith, in what ever it is, is weak. Though if you are in search of knowledge, reading is a good start.

 

[Technics 1210]

Probably.

So why don’t you clear up the confusion?

That's not my job to clear up your confusion and mental state. If your belief is full of conviction then you wouldn't be following me like a stray puppy.

 

[miandadrules]

I really don't see how this thread is about science. It is as much about philosophy and religion as it is about science. For me that is a clear indication of the narrow mindedness with which you are approaching this. Also much as you have talked about science and its basic principles none of your posts have included anything remotely scientific but I will stop arguing with you here because you seem to be too confident in your knowledge and certainty about everything despite professing to be scientific in thought.

Oh I am confident.

You were the one the mentioned science and I pointed out the fallacy of your argument. Yet you chose to go around in circles.

I’m here as soon you want to pick up where you have left off.

 

[miandadrules]

That's not my job to clear up your confusion and mental state. If your belief is full of conviction then you wouldn't be following me like a stray puppy.

So, after all that bravado your can’t even substantiate your own claims.

After all those posts you can’t even apply your own rationale to your belief system.

Round of applause (that’s probably what it sounds like to you, but make no mistake about it, it’s a slow handclap).

It’s hilarious how you leave out the question each time you quote me. Speaks volumes about the veracity of your statements.

As you say, I am incredibly ignorant yet I can maintain a consistent train of thought. What do we call someone who can’t even do that?

I’ll defer to you as you have far greater experience in that field.

 

[Technics 1210]

So, after all that bravado your can’t even substantiate your own claims.

Thanks for trying, and playing!

 

[amvbfm]

Oh I am confident.

You were the one the mentioned science and I pointed out the fallacy of your argument. Yet you chose to go around in circles.

I’m here as soon you want to pick up where you have left off.

Didn't go around in circles, didn't profess any scientific expertise and didn't profess any religious conviction. The only thing i wanted to point out was how science is evolving, how there are possibilities beyond what is presently known and how the religious question could possibly be framed scientifically as our body of knowledge expands. I do not know how any of that is unscientific when science is never supposed to be certain or final (if things were as final as you make them out to be all progress would have halted centuries ago) in any way. I am all for fruitful discussions, and to learn from others and I have no qualms in admitting the inadequacy and limitations of my knowledge but it is pointless if the other person is so set in his beliefs. For me it was about possibilities and reconciliation, for you and some of the theists here it is about repudiation and forceful conversion.

 

[miandadrules]

Thanks for trying, and playing!

The words;

Tuck, tail and legs come to mind.

God who came from nothing will not be happy with you.

 

[miandadrules]

Didn't go around in circles, didn't profess any scientific expertise and didn't profess any religious conviction. The only thing i wanted to point out was how science is evolving, how there are possibilities beyond what is presently known and how the religious question could possibly be framed scientifically as our body of knowledge expands. I do not know how any of that is unscientific when science is never supposed to be certain or final (if things were as final as you make them out to be all progress would have halted centuries ago) in any way. I am all for fruitful discussions, and to learn from others and I have no qualms in admitting the inadequacy and limitations of my knowledge but it is pointless if the other person is so set in his beliefs. For me it was about possibilities and reconciliation, for you and some of the theists here it is about repudiation and forceful conversion.

You asked for proof of absence, yet don’t see how it is unscientific, yet you didn’t bring science in to it?

Set in beliefs? Once again conflating knowledge and faith.

If your ludicrous approach is to be taken nothing would be achieved as nothing can be ruled out.

I asked you a question based on your logic. Please provide evidence of the absence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster that created everything.


Here’s a simple exercise. You claim one thing, I claim the opposite. We both believe it to our core, how does a third person decipher the truth?

 

[Technics 1210]

The words;

Tuck, tail and legs come to mind.

God who came from nothing will not be happy with you.

Whatever helps your intellectually bankrupt mind!

 

[miandadrules]

Whatever helps your intellectually bankrupt mind!

Oh no my mind is intellectually bankrupt!

What gave it away?

Was it my failing to apply my own logic and principles to my own beliefs?

Are you going to answer the question, as to whether it is absurd to believe God came from nothing?

 

[Technics 1210]

Oh no my mind is intellectually bankrupt!

Indeed.

What gave it away?

Your ignorance and intellectual bankruptcy.

Was it my failing to apply my own logic and principles to my own beliefs?

Resounding yes.

Are you going to answer the question, as to whether it is absurd to believe God came from nothing?

Already have answered, multiple times. directly to you, read my responses on page 2.

I don't intend on appeasing your insecurities anymore. Now have a good day and get back to worshiping your God of chance.

:

 

[amvbfm]

You asked for proof of absence, yet don’t see how it is unscientific, yet you didn’t bring science in to it?

Set in beliefs? Once again conflating knowledge and faith.

If your ludicrous approach is to be taken nothing would be achieved as nothing can be ruled out.

I asked you a question based on your logic. Please provide evidence of the absence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster that created everything.


Here’s a simple exercise. You claim one thing, I claim the opposite. We both believe it to our core, how does a third person decipher the truth?

I did talk about the proof but the actual point I made was about possibilities. There were other things there as well which you conveniently continue to ignore and keep on harping about your scientific thinking.

The term belief was used intentionally and has to do with your belief in the finality and immutability of science. I can only imagine where science would have been if this line of thought had prevailed.

My approach is exactly what science is based on. Science doesn't believe in categorical statements like the ones you make without any basis in evidence. I on the other hand simply talked about a possibility but your black and white system obviously doesn't cater to that.

The truth is rarely black and white as you make it out to be, if there is any such thing as absolute truth. And if you had read my posts carefully you would've realized that I don't believe "to the core" in anything but was merely arguing about possibilities and the limitations of science.

 

[miandadrules]

Indeed.




Your ignorance and intellectual bankruptcy.




Resounding yes.




Already have answered, multiple times. directly to you, read my responses on page 2.

I don't intend on appeasing your insecurities anymore. Now have a good day and get back to worshiping your God of chance.

:

So you won’t give the answer. Or at least a link to it?

 

[miandadrules]

I did talk about the proof but the actual point I made was about possibilities. There were other things there as well which you conveniently continue to ignore and keep on harping about your scientific thinking.

The term belief was used intentionally and has to do with your belief in the finality and immutability of science. I can only imagine where science would have been if this line of thought had prevailed.

My approach is exactly what science is based on. Science doesn't believe in categorical statements like the ones you make without any basis in evidence. I on the other hand simply talked about a possibility but your black and white system obviously doesn't cater to that.

The truth is rarely black and white as you make it out to be, if there is any such thing as absolute truth. And if you had read my posts carefully you would've realized that I don't believe "to the core" in anything but was merely arguing about possibilities and the limitations of science.

I claimed the finality of science? Care to point out where?

I didn’t chose to ignore anything. Your first line had a gaping flaw, asking to prove something doesn’t exist. If you can’t even resolve this, there is no point for me to carry on.

What categorical statement did I make? What evidence did I fail to supply?

I made the truth black and white?

I will ask you once again if two people make opposing claim how do you differentiate?

Hopefully, you’ll actual provide a substantive answer rather than waffle.

 

[Technics 1210]

I did talk about the proof but the actual point I made was about possibilities. There were other things there as well which you conveniently continue to ignore and keep on harping about your scientific thinking.

The term belief was used intentionally and has to do with your belief in the finality and immutability of science. I can only imagine where science would have been if this line of thought had prevailed.

My approach is exactly what science is based on. Science doesn't believe in categorical statements like the ones you make without any basis in evidence. I on the other hand simply talked about a possibility but your black and white system obviously doesn't cater to that.

The truth is rarely black and white as you make it out to be, if there is any such thing as absolute truth. And if you had read my posts carefully you would've realized that I don't believe "to the core" in anything but was merely arguing about possibilities and the limitations of science.

The only truth(fact) in our existence is death. Or in scientific terms, entropy.

Every other aspect of our existence is subject to falsification and requires faith at some point.

Sticking with Thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is based on our observable understanding of the universe. However based on this understanding, the creation of the universe puts this law to test.

If energy is source of this creation, where did this energy come from? What is this energy? If energy is not the source of creation, then it means our understanding/laws of thermodynamics is only applicable to this universe, or is wrong, thus what is outside of this universe is not subject to our understanding.

 

[amvbfm]

I claimed the finality of science? Care to point out where?

I didn’t chose to ignore anything. Your first line had a gaping flaw, asking to prove something doesn’t exist. If you can’t even resolve this, there is no point for me to carry on.

What categorical statement did I make? What evidence did I fail to supply?

I made the truth black and white?

I will ask you once again if two people make opposing claim how do you differentiate?

Hopefully, you’ll actual provide a substantive answer rather than waffle.

The point I was making was about not discounting the scientific possibility of the existence of a God. You asked about evidence for God, I asked whether you had any evidence to the contrary. Neither of us did. In such a case can either theism or atheism be termed the "truth" from a scientific pov? Wouldn't true science tend towards agnosticism as neither side can provide evidence.

I don't see how it was a gaping flaw when the thing cannot be proved either way. You are adamant (your categorical statement) that the absence of evidence is proof whereas I disagree and say that since it is not possible to disprove therefore we shouldn't dismiss the notion outright.

You are basing your supposed truth on the fact that anything that has no evidence cannot exist whereas I am saying that maybe it is the limitation of our faculties that make it impossible for us to recognize it as a truth. Did the solar system not exist before it was discovered by us? Would a 10th century miandadrules scoffing at the idea of a solar system have been right? With the body of knowledge then available he would have been but had he totally dismissed the idea and so did everyone else we wouldn't have known about it today.

Again I am merely talking about possiblities and how science is based on them and not on categorical and final statements like this can't be.

And both of us know that neither can provide any substantive proof either way.

 

[pillionrider]

Whether it be the 4 fundamental forces of the universe, or Gravitational Waves of causing ripples in the fabric of space-time our understanding of the universes begins with plank time and ends at present time. Any belief in what occurred before plank time (the creation of our universe) is a matter of faith.

What is plank time

 

[DeadBall]

What is plank time

At first I thought he meant this



or maybe even the more complex Pakistani Plank



But it's actually this



Mind Blown.

 

[pillionrider]

At first I thought he meant this

or maybe even the more complex Pakistani Plank

)

A religious fanatic is dangerous, but what's more dangerous is a religious fanatic armed with high-school science+internet physics like our friend here.

Deepak Chopra is a more educated and sophisticated version. This is my favourite Chopra takedown moment. You might have seen it.

 

[RameezRambo_Fan]

Human being are naturally divisive creatures. We would find something to argue about regardless.

 

[yasir]

We? Call yourself an Atheist? Atheists claim the universe was created from nothing by chance with no purpose. So much so they come out with the nonsense of multi-universe hypothesis which has no evidence in an attempt to counter fine tuning of the universe. You are no different to Theists, you have hope, you have faith, that the universe was created from nothing and all can be explained in terms of chance, matter, and time.

If you claim you do not know how the universe was created, that makes you an Agnostic.

My suggestion to you is instead of asking theists for evidence of God, why don't you do a little reading on what Atheism actually believe with respect to science, and find out what you really believe in.

God cannot be observed in any physical manifestation, very much like a force of the universe. We cannot observe forces, but we can observe the effect of forces, in the same way theists will argue that they can obverse the effect of God.

When you come off the bandwagon that science disproves religion, you will realise that both religion and science compliment each other - but first get a grasp on what you actually believe in before you demand evidence from others.

You have lot of misconceptions about Atheists, they are not very organized to begin with. Let me have a shot the thinking behind Atheists...

There are two Propositions or Claim possible about God:

Prop 1: God Exists, with Characteristics defined by Theist:

This proposition that not only God Exists, but with specifics details, presented in most if not all religions. Throughout Human history 3000+ Gods of various kind in all human cultures have been presented, with little to no evidence of their existence.

Atheists specifically deny all of these Gods, that's why 'A' in the 'Theist' comes from. Primarily, since no evidence has been presented of existence of any of those Gods. Many if not most of the characteristic of Gods are Scientific in nature, hence requires Scientific investigation rather than belief. The primary reason they are scientific in nature, at the end they interact with physical world. We don't see signs of God interfering with physical world, as claimed by theist. Nor they are able to present any evidence of how God interact with physical world, how he created the world? Or How he was created in the first place?


Prop 2: No God could ever exist.

This proposition is not something Atheists believes in, for this to be true, we have to evaluate all the possibilities and then nullify this hypothesis. In Logic or philosophy this is called 'null hypothesis' which cannot be falsify. Since we cannot first of know what possibilities exists, so evaluating them is a step further.

Atheists don't focus on this part, that will be waste of time and stupid to begin with


Origin of matter/universe/life

Origin of things(matter/life/universe etc) is still an unknown entity in the realm of Science. There is no reason to assume that it will be like that for ever. Infact lot of phenomena considered impossible to understand, are no more the case. Religion has failed and way off the mark for most of them. Theist are jumping on origin now, since this is the only place left for them to jump on, this is where GOD of GAPS comes in.

Religion Fails at explaining Operation of Cosmos:

Religion has not only talked vaguely about Origin, but a lot of focus on Operation of the Cosmos. Earth Quakes, floods, Hurricanes, epidemic diseases and many natural disasters are considered to be work of God, when he is not happy with certain group of people or community etc. This is how many stories goes in Ibharimic religion, many of them were copy/pasted from local legends and culture of that time But reality is all these natural disaster has nothing to do with God, but more to do with Geology, Climate of planet and star system you are living in. All of them can be explain by Science. This also shows, all these religions were Scams to control poor people by fear.

There are no angles who control wind or water, as deemed by many religious folk tails. Cosmos works on laws of nature, not angles and demons. There are no angles or demons interacting with Cosmos, nobody has presented any evidence of that. Again that was fear tactics, taking advantage of lack of knowledge of masses.

Same goes for Adam/Eve story, which is complete garbage, there never was first Human or first of any species. Evolution does not work that way, again religion is completely false on that...Religion also cannot explain why God took 13.7B years to create Human? if that was purpose of universe, it should have been done in the beginning... Similarly, Earth is no Central focus on universe as presented by religion...List can go on and on...

Scale, depth and breath of only our Universe is greatly underestimated by all religions, with the help of Science we are beginning to know about it. Same goes for micro biology. Plagues and other micro organism diseases are not curse of God, but are now understood thanks to advancement of Science and Biology. Prophet of Islam himself had suffer infant child deaths, because it has nothing to do with God, more to do with advancement of modern medicine to control infant death rate, which cause exponential growth of human population. Brith and Death are not controlled by God, another fearful idea propagated by religion and falsify by Science. Most of the operational aspects of religion are falsified by Science. They never presented proof of their universe operation model either, by Science proof, they are not only wrong, but completely off track, their motives have been to control people by fear, its all nothing by SCAM.

Religion will jump on anything not know at the time and bring Spiritualism and other garbage in it. Now their only play ground is Origin, its not like they have contributed anything to solve that problem, but rather leading people to more ignorance. They have zero track record of demystifying anything in past. Spiritualism is garbage, we have not discovered anything using that tool. Most of religion is a political tool, politics of fear is what they are good at. They have no substance to offer, want to control people by fear. They want masses not to focus on reason and evidence base knowledge, which has been most successful tool we have ever created in human history. We have been most successful when we focus on evidence based reason!!

 

[Robert]

A simple reversal of logic really. If someone can ask for the evidence of existence then it is equally logical to ask for evidence proving nonexistence. Isn't that how science works?

No, it’s a contradiction in terms. You cannot prove a negative proposition.

 

[amvbfm]

No, it’s a contradiction in terms. You cannot prove a negative proposition.

Ok since all of you are missing my point and constantly focusing only on this then let me put it this way: can the proposition "God exists" be disproved?

 

[ElRaja]

Ok since all of you are missing my point and constantly focusing only on this then let me put it this way: can the proposition "God exists" be disproved?

it cannot, because god, as an entity or concept patently exists. whether it exists as a creation of human psyche or a real physical being is the debate.

you can no more disprove the statement "god exists" as you can "no other gods exist". so if you're argument is based on the idea that the existence of a specific god cannot be disproved, it in as much means the existence of any other god, and no god can not be disproved either.

 

[Robert]

Ok since all of you are missing my point and constantly focusing only on this then let me put it this way: can the proposition "God exists" be disproved?

No more than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or herds of pink unicorns galloping across the frozen ammonia plains of Neptune can be disproved.

 

[Robert]

it cannot, because god, as an entity or concept patently exists. whether it exists as a creation of human psyche or a real physical being is the debate.

you can no more disprove the statement "god exists" as you can "no other gods exist". so if you're argument is based on the idea that the existence of a specific god cannot be disproved, it in as much means the existence of any other god, and no god can not be disproved either.

Top thinking [MENTION=56933]ElRaja[/MENTION].

 

[amvbfm]

it cannot, because god, as an entity or concept patently exists. whether it exists as a creation of human psyche or a real physical being is the debate.

you can no more disprove the statement "god exists" as you can "no other gods exist". so if you're argument is based on the idea that the existence of a specific god cannot be disproved, it in as much means the existence of any other god, and no god can not be disproved either.

Well I believe given the preceding discussion it should be rather clear that the assertion wasn't about the existence of a concept. What I am simply saying is that since some people want those claiming "God exists" to provide hard evidence, it is equally appropriate that they provide evidence for their assertion that "God does not exist" (I am assuming that's what the people leaning towards the atheist side are asserting). If you look at it both the assertions are equally categorical in nature. If however, i am mistaken and the actual point they are making is more like they think that there is no God and which can change if evidence is provided then that is more agnosticism than atheism. I am simply saying that hard atheism just doesn't make much sense and is almost the same as theism as it makes a categorical assertion about the nonexistence of God when just like theism its advocates have no evidence other than their conviction (faith) to verify the assertion.

 

[DeadBall]

Well I believe given the preceding discussion it should be rather clear that the assertion wasn't about the existence of a concept. What I am simply saying is that since some people want those claiming "God exists" to provide hard evidence, it is equally appropriate that they provide evidence for their assertion that "God does not exist" (I am assuming that's what the people leaning towards the atheist side are asserting). If you look at it both the assertions are equally categorical in nature. If however, i am mistaken and the actual point they are making is more like they think that there is no God and which can change if evidence is provided then that is more agnosticism than atheism. I am simply saying that hard atheism just doesn't make much sense and is almost the same as theism as it makes a categorical assertion about the nonexistence of God when just like theism its advocates have no evidence other than their conviction (faith) to verify the assertion.

You are right to a point given the definition of atheists but most people contradicting you here are actually anti theists i,e the possibility of the existence of the God/s described by the existing religions is close to zero due to the many discrepancies and logical fallacies.

There is a difference between saying a God might exist or a Mayan/Egyptian/Christian/Jewish/Muslim etc God might exist. We are all for accepting that a God might exist as we can scientifically speaking not rule it out even if there is a 0,00000000001% possibility of it happening but the existing Gods don't pass the litmus test.

We do not claim that there is no God but that the Gods but the Gods and religions presented so far have a lot of mistakes and fallacies so far.

So if you claim that your God is the true God then the burden of the proof lies with you to prove it.

 

[ElRaja]

What I am simply saying is that since some people want those claiming "God exists" to provide hard evidence, it is equally appropriate that they provide evidence for their assertion that "God does not exist" (I am assuming that's what the people leaning towards the atheist side are asserting). If you look at it both the assertions are equally categorical in nature.

it is a fair demand to make however i would contend they are not equivalent statements because the presenting of any unequivocal evidence for the presence of a god would prove the existence of said god, however one would have to prevent unequivocal evidence to disprove every god, and every conception of god to prove the latter statement true.

If however, i am mistaken and the actual point they are making is more like they think that there is no God and which can change if evidence is provided then that is more agnosticism than atheism. I am simply saying that hard atheism just doesn't make much sense and is almost the same as theism as it makes a categorical assertion about the nonexistence of God when just like theism its advocates have no evidence other than their conviction (faith) to verify the assertion.

hard atheism doesn't appeal to me either, it assumes we are all knowing, which given the propensity for human ignorance is as dogmatic statement to make as any religion can come up with. however the conception of agnosticism, as i understand it, is not that one lies one way or another on the question of the existence of some consciousness beyond the human experience, but of the acceptance of the irrelevance of the presence or lack of, of any such entity, given its nature of being outside our understanding and experience either way. that's how i think of it at least.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Would the world be more peaceful if we were all atheists? Hey, we all believe in no divine force now so just one big happy family?? I think countries will still fight over land and the earth's resources.

I haven't looked back over this thread to see if I gave the same answer previously, but I was thinking that it's the natural order of existence to fight over resources if you observe the animal kingdom, such as lions fighting hyenas over a kill, which I suppose can be demonstrated across all species, hence the atheistic view which led to theories like the food chain and survival of the fittest.

But then you could argue that man has access to reason so has the potential to rise above it. Wasn't that the idealism which communism or socialism models were derived from? So do we think that failure to implement these is proof that we are still a long way from enlightenment or that it goes against our basic nature?

 

[PakLFC]

I haven't looked back over this thread to see if I gave the same answer previously, but I was thinking that it's the natural order of existence to fight over resources if you observe the animal kingdom, such as lions fighting hyenas over a kill, which I suppose can be demonstrated across all species, hence the atheistic view which led to theories like the food chain and survival of the fittest.

But then you could argue that man has access to reason so has the potential to rise above it. Wasn't that the idealism which communism or socialism models were derived from? So do we think that failure to implement these is proof that we are still a long way from enlightenment or that it goes against our basic nature?

I have concluded that people will always fight over something. The supposed wisdom we possess fails in front of selfishness. The so called religious people are no exception to this rule like they believe. Mullah's have made Islam in to a business. Only some divine miracle or money losing it's value can change the human attitude.

 

[Abdulm123]

So, Religion is violent and causes war and death?

Tell me more about the history of the USSR and Communist China

 

[90MPH]

Yes war would always be fought.

There are Limited resources. These resources will become more scarce as population grows so we will always fight.

I bet you most of the brutal Arab dictators don’t believe in God, including Saudi Arabia.

 

[yasir]

I haven't looked back over this thread to see if I gave the same answer previously, but I was thinking that it's the natural order of existence to fight over resources if you observe the animal kingdom, such as lions fighting hyenas over a kill, which I suppose can be demonstrated across all species, hence the atheistic view which led to theories like the food chain and survival of the fittest.

But then you could argue that man has access to reason so has the potential to rise above it. Wasn't that the idealism which communism or socialism models were derived from? So do we think that failure to implement these is proof that we are still a long way from enlightenment or that it goes against our basic nature?

If people are thinking that been Atheists or rational thinking will make us halt all fighting, they are in for disappointment. That is wrong expectation, sort of what we saw today from some PPer, some people were actually expecting Pakistan to win by 300+ run on demand and qualify for semis, they were upset at team for not doing so


There is another reason to build your Society on reason rather than faith. It’s old vs new technology. There could be some businesses you can find today, where you do all the paper work manually and not use internet and modern technology, although it is hard to find, it would be rare exception than the norm, you got to be focusing on building work force that can produce and consume(more so produce in long term) modern science and technology than not....

Problem with religion is it dumbs down the intellect, focus on emotion rather than reason, which in long run is a bad investment. Much like Army, which is good for generals and officers but bad for soldiers, they takes highest risk and have very little say in strategy side, that's why they are trained on emotions of nationalism and religion rather than reason of science and tech... where as western middle class is built on reason, that had helped them in building strong economics and vibrant, dynamic and much wider spectrum of people who can think for themselves, that has helped those societies to innovate and produce lot more than others...Top down authoritarian model does not work very well in modern times.

In 21C you would be lot more successful by investing in reason rather than emotion or obedience.

 

[DeadBall]

hence the atheistic view which led to theories like the food chain and survival of the fittest.

I think you meant the scientific view come upon by centuries of thorough observation, trial and error.

 

[Sidilicious]

There has been a lot of nonsense written in this thread atheism.

Firstly, most atheist are technically not atheist, but agnostic. Why? Because atheism stems from the idea that since there is no proof of god, then god does not exist. Atheism is not a belief, but a thought process. It arises after a rational discourse (generally within oneself) on the existence of god, given the current scientific knowledge (any era) and religion.

Thus, if somehow, evidence comes to light proving that god exists, atheists will start believing in god.

Thinking rationally, the default position of every human is that of an atheist. Explaining it in a different context - would you believe someone who says that they are the richest person in the world. No. You would naturally ask them to prove their claims. That is simply what an atheist does. Asks for evidence for the claims of the existence of god. As long as there is no such evidence, an atheist does not have to believe in god. If you can't prove to me that your religion is right, then how is someone else's claim of a diety being a flying spaghetti monster incorrect.

As for Religion and Morality? Morality has existed before religion.

Well, lets think about this rationally. How long has Islam existed? About 1300 years. But was there morality before that? Of course. Otherwise we would have killed each other.

You might say, that there was religion before Islam? It was. But doesn't Islam claim that it is the only true religion. Then morality existed with false religion. That only leads to 2 conclusions
1. Morality can exist with any religion, even the false ones.
2. Morality does not need religion to exist.

If the first is true, then surely we dont need to fight over religion or even invent any or claim that any religion is the correct one.

If the second is true, then case closed.

 

[amvbfm]

You are right to a point given the definition of atheists but most people contradicting you here are actually anti theists i,e the possibility of the existence of the God/s described by the existing religions is close to zero due to the many discrepancies and logical fallacies.

There is a difference between saying a God might exist or a Mayan/Egyptian/Christian/Jewish/Muslim etc God might exist. We are all for accepting that a God might exist as we can scientifically speaking not rule it out even if there is a 0,00000000001% possibility of it happening but the existing Gods don't pass the litmus test.

We do not claim that there is no God but that the Gods but the Gods and religions presented so far have a lot of mistakes and fallacies so far.

So if you claim that your God is the true God then the burden of the proof lies with you to prove it.

Makes sense, if that is how the people I was arguing with were framing their argument (felt otherwise). And my point wasn't about a specific god or religion but more philosophical in nature about the potential existence of something that imposes order and regulates everything and which need not be limited by the traditional bounds of any specific religion (and hence the disagreement with the total negation of theism). Perhaps I came across as supporting specific beliefs or idea but that was surely not my intention.

 

[amvbfm]

but of the acceptance of the irrelevance of the presence or lack of, of any such entity, given its nature of being outside our understanding and experience either way. that's how i think of it at least.

I think the term "apatheism" has been coined for that but then again all this is too abstract to cleanly categorize or classify so I agree with you

 

[ElRaja]

I think the term "apatheism" has been coined for that but then again all this is too abstract to cleanly categorize or classify so I agree with you

too many isms, too many schisms, its all the same light just a different prism.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

There has been a lot of nonsense written in this thread atheism.

Firstly, most atheist are technically not atheist, but agnostic. Why? Because atheism stems from the idea that since there is no proof of god, then god does not exist. Atheism is not a belief, but a thought process. It arises after a rational discourse (generally within oneself) on the existence of god, given the current scientific knowledge (any era) and religion.

Thus, if somehow, evidence comes to light proving that god exists, atheists will start believing in god.

Thinking rationally, the default position of every human is that of an atheist. Explaining it in a different context - would you believe someone who says that they are the richest person in the world. No. You would naturally ask them to prove their claims. That is simply what an atheist does. Asks for evidence for the claims of the existence of god. As long as there is no such evidence, an atheist does not have to believe in god. If you can't prove to me that your religion is right, then how is someone else's claim of a diety being a flying spaghetti monster incorrect.

As for Religion and Morality? Morality has existed before religion.

Well, lets think about this rationally. How long has Islam existed? About 1300 years. But was there morality before that? Of course. Otherwise we would have killed each other.

You might say, that there was religion before Islam? It was. But doesn't Islam claim that it is the only true religion. Then morality existed with false religion. That only leads to 2 conclusions
1. Morality can exist with any religion, even the false ones.
2. Morality does not need religion to exist.

If the first is true, then surely we dont need to fight over religion or even invent any or claim that any religion is the correct one.

If the second is true, then case closed.

I disagree with that, the reason there is a differentiation between atheism and agnosticism is that agnostics are generally not as dogmatic as atheists in their conclusion that god does not exist because there is no proof. There is a possibility that we have limited perceptions in the same way other animals do, for example a dog can only see in limited colours. So an agnostic would not rule anything out per se, that is my view.

 

[pillionrider]

I disagree with that, the reason there is a differentiation between atheism and agnosticism is that agnostics are generally not as dogmatic as atheists in their conclusion that god does not exist because there is no proof. There is a possibility that we have limited perceptions in the same way other animals do, for example a dog can only see in limited colours. So an agnostic would not rule anything out per se, that is my view.

In my experience, an agnostic is a reasonable atheist. A pure atheist can be as annoying as a religious dude.

 

[Sidilicious]

I disagree with that, the reason there is a differentiation between atheism and agnosticism is that agnostics are generally not as dogmatic as atheists in their conclusion that god does not exist because there is no proof. There is a possibility that we have limited perceptions in the same way other animals do, for example a dog can only see in limited colours. So an agnostic would not rule anything out per se, that is my view.

Well, I would disagree on the definition. The ones who are extremely dogmatic, would be defined as anti-theists.

I am an atheist, and came to the conclusion after observing all major world religions. If asked, I clearly say that there is no evidence of god, so why should I believe in one. That is also the general thought process amongst any of my friends.

An agnostic will clearly say that he/she doesnt know if god exists or not. Athiest on the other hand, refuse to believe in one until they are provided with a proof. Why should one believe in something that has no proof of. The difference is actually quite small. Also, atheist on being provided a proof, will start believing in god.

You will not believe a claim, until its proven. That is the atheist mantra.

 

[miandadrules]

I think the term "apatheism" has been coined for that but then again all this is too abstract to cleanly categorize or classify so I agree with you

I disagree with that, the reason there is a differentiation between atheism and agnosticism is that agnostics are generally not as dogmatic as atheists in their conclusion that god does not exist because there is no proof. There is a possibility that we have limited perceptions in the same way other animals do, for example a dog can only see in limited colours. So an agnostic would not rule anything out per se, that is my view.

Well, I would disagree on the definition. The ones who are extremely dogmatic, would be defined as anti-theists.

I am an atheist, and came to the conclusion after observing all major world religions. If asked, I clearly say that there is no evidence of god, so why should I believe in one. That is also the general thought process amongst any of my friends.

An agnostic will clearly say that he/she doesnt know if god exists or not. Athiest on the other hand, refuse to believe in one until they are provided with a proof. Why should one believe in something that has no proof of. The difference is actually quite small. Also, atheist on being provided a proof, will start believing in god.

You will not believe a claim, until its proven. That is the atheist mantra.

They’re not debating in good faith.

This is the Standard MO, especially from an Abrahamic theist. When it dawns on them that they can’t debate on facts, reality or morality, they look for the only sliver of hope they can.

That sliver is now, “well, you can’t definitely exclude God, ergo Islam is the truth and science is ‘young’ and will soon come to that conclusion too”. Totally ignoring the absurdity of the statement.

Oh and then it’s followed by the caveat of “I’m don’t have a position” “ I’m playing devils advocate” “I’m just saying”. All is used as an escape clause when you corner them on their nonsense.

I’m surprised people can’t see through such duplicity.

 

[miandadrules]

The only truth(fact) in our existence is death. Or in scientific terms, entropy.

Every other aspect of our existence is subject to falsification and requires faith at some point.

Sticking with Thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is based on our observable understanding of the universe. However based on this understanding, the creation of the universe puts this law to test.

If energy is source of this creation, where did this energy come from? What is this energy? If energy is not the source of creation, then it means our understanding/laws of thermodynamics is only applicable to this universe, or is wrong, thus what is outside of this universe is not subject to our understanding.

Mr Intellectual Heavyweight (IH),

I’m still waiting for your answer. Surely this should be a breeze for someone of such elevated cognition.

Is it Mr IH or Professor IH? Or maybe Dunning-Kruger would be more apt?

 

[Sidilicious]

In my experience, an agnostic is a reasonable atheist. A pure atheist can be as annoying as a religious dude.

What is a pure atheist and a reasonable atheist?

If no one can prove the existence of god, why should I not believe that there is no god.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Well, I would disagree on the definition. The ones who are extremely dogmatic, would be defined as anti-theists.

I am an atheist, and came to the conclusion after observing all major world religions. If asked, I clearly say that there is no evidence of god, so why should I believe in one. That is also the general thought process amongst any of my friends.

An agnostic will clearly say that he/she doesnt know if god exists or not. Athiest on the other hand, refuse to believe in one until they are provided with a proof. Why should one believe in something that has no proof of. The difference is actually quite small. Also, atheist on being provided a proof, will start believing in god.

You will not believe a claim, until its proven. That is the atheist mantra.

No one is saying you have to believe any claim, but you could believe there are other possibilities beyond your perception. You for example will only believe what you can see, but for me that is like the dog who believes everything must be black and white because that is all the dog can see.

So without getting pedantic about language, an atheist will limit himself to his or her perceptions, while an agnostic is prepared to accept there could be other realities he or she is not capable of recognising.

 

[pillionrider]

Is it Mr IH or Professor IH?

It's Mr. N_H

What is a pure atheist and a reasonable atheist?

If no one can prove the existence of god, why should I not believe that there is no god.

A pure atheist tends to be militant in his/her views and eager to shove their views on others. They usually are extremely concerned with displaying their belief in a lack of belief which can grate during conversations. It's also often the case that a pure atheist is a recent convert An agnostic is often a former pure atheist who has now adopted a live and let die approach.

So without getting pedantic about language, an atheist will limit himself to his or her perceptions, while an agnostic is prepared to accept there could be other realities he or she is not capable of recognising.

But this does not equate to an agnostic giving any sort of allowance for existing religious texts. The limits of our intelligence rendering us incapable of understanding and perceiving possible alternate realities or intelligence does not allow for a God to slip in there, because God has been defined within the realms of our intelligence.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

It's Mr. N_H



A pure atheist tends to be militant in his/her views and eager to shove their views on others. They usually are extremely concerned with displaying their belief in a lack of belief which can grate during conversations. It's also often the case that a pure atheist is a recent convert An agnostic is often a former pure atheist who has now adopted a live and let die approach.



But this does not equate to an agnostic giving any sort of allowance for existing religious texts. The limits of our intelligence rendering us incapable of understanding and perceiving possible alternate realities or intelligence does not allow for a God to slip in there, because God has been defined within the realms of our intelligence.

Well I never mentioned anything about existing religious texts or any form of God as defined therein. Not sure that your definition is strictly true either. We may not be able to perceive alternate realities, but we can be aware that there might be alternate realities.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

They’re not debating in good faith.

This is the Standard MO, especially from an Abrahamic theist. When it dawns on them that they can’t debate on facts, reality or morality, they look for the only sliver of hope they can.

That sliver is now, “well, you can’t definitely exclude God, ergo Islam is the truth and science is ‘young’ and will soon come to that conclusion too”. Totally ignoring the absurdity of the statement.

Oh and then it’s followed by the caveat of “I’m don’t have a position” “ I’m playing devils advocate” “I’m just saying”. All is used as an escape clause when you corner them on their nonsense.

I’m surprised people can’t see through such duplicity.

Are you saying I'm not debating in good faith or are you advising me someone else in the thread isn't debating in good faith?

 

[miandadrules]

Are you saying I'm not debating in good faith or are you advising me someone else in the thread isn't debating in good faith?

To debate you need knowledge.

But yes I was referring to you.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

To debate you need knowledge.

But yes I was referring to you.

Ok, just wanted to clarify.

For those replying to my posts or quoting me, please bear miandadrules advice in mind.

 

[troodon]

I think you misunderstood. We do not believe God was created. God is uncreated and He just exists. He has no beginning and He has no end; He is eternal.

What kind of proof are you seeking? I am not clear actually.

An entity that can create Universe simply exists without any creator )

Cool story bro. Who told you God is Uncreated and he just exists?

 

[troodon]

I urge all critics and skeptics of Islam to read the Quran. It should answer your questions. The book has less than 7000 verses. You can finish the book in one month.

I know many non-Muslims who converted to Islam after reading Quran. Latest example is Joram van Klaveren. He used to be a far-right politician from Netherlands and now he is a Muslim.

What is there in Quran that we need to know? Where did it answer any questions?

Quran says Mountains are like Pegs that stops Earth from quaking. Sun sets in a Muddy Spring and it Prostrates to Allah before rising again. Is this the knowledge you are talking about?

 

[sweep_shot]

An entity that can create Universe simply exists without any creator )

Cool story bro. Who told you God is Uncreated and he just exists?

That's the authentic Islamic belief, if I am not wrong.

You either believe or you don't. I obviously can't prove it; it is a matter of faith.

What is there in Quran that we need to know? Where did it answer any questions?

Quran says Mountains are like Pegs that stops Earth from quaking. Sun sets in a Muddy Spring and it Prostrates to Allah before rising again. Is this the knowledge you are talking about?

I urge critics to read the whole book. It is not just about those scientific statements; read the whole thing. See how you feel and see if the book answers your questions.

 

[troodon]

That's the authentic Islamic belief, if I am not wrong.

You either believe or you don't. I obviously can't prove it; it is a matter of faith.



I urge critics to read the whole book. It is not just about those scientific statements; read the whole thing. See how you feel and see if the book answers your questions.

I may not have read the whole thing, but I know enough to know that Quran is just another book that orders its believers to believe without asking any questions.

How can an all knowing, all powerful God not know that Mountains are the result of continental plate collision (Quakes) and the other way around? How can God not know that Sun does not set anywhere. It is just an illusion to living things on Earth.

See the simple things that even a 2nd grader knows these days were not known 1400yrs ago.

 

[sweep_shot]

I may not have read the whole thing, but I know enough to know that Quran is just another book that orders its believers to believe without asking any questions.

How can an all knowing, all powerful God not know that Mountains are the result of continental plate collision (Quakes) and the other way around? How can God not know that Sun does not set anywhere. It is just an illusion to living things on Earth.

See the simple things that even a 2nd grader knows these days were not known 1400yrs ago.

How do you know that science got it right? Science keeps on changing. Science may say one thing today and completely different thing 500 years later. I value science but I don't consider it to be perfect.

By the way, big bang theory is mentioned in the Quran:

"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?" (Quran 21:30).

Please tell me how can this knowledge arrive during period of Muhammed (PBUH)? Arabs were not advanced in science at that time.

 

[troodon]

How do you know that science got it right? Science keeps on changing. Science may say one thing today and completely different thing 500 years later. I value science but I don't consider it to be perfect.

By the way, big bang theory is mentioned in the Quran:

"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?" (Quran 21:30).

Please tell me how can this knowledge arrive during period of Muhammed (PBUH)? Arabs were not advanced in science at that time.

Science keeps improving.

But we know for sure that Sun does not set anywhere and it does not need permission from Allah to rise again. Its due to the rotation of the planets that causes this illusion. Science has proven this long time ago.

 

[sweep_shot]

Science keeps improving.

But we know for sure that Sun does not set anywhere and it does not need permission from Allah to rise again. Its due to the rotation of the planets that causes this illusion. Science has proven this long time ago.

Have you considered it could be a metaphor and not literal? I don't think you can find many Muslims who deny how our solar system works.

 

[troodon]

Also, continuing my post, you said God separated Earth and Heavens?

Listen man, Earth and heavens are not separated. We are part of the heavens. We are still floating around in Suns Atmosphere.

FYI, Earth was formed nearly 8 Billion Years after Universe was created. So God did not separate Earth from Heavens. Heavens AKA Outer space is not a thing to separate. So there is nothing extra ordinary in that claim you highlighted. It was wrong and if you think that is some kind of Scientific wonder, then I don't know what to say.

 

[troodon]

Have you considered it could be a metaphor and not literal? I don't think you can find many Muslims who deny how our solar system works.

Now it is a Metaphor eh? Have you read that Verse?

Allah clearly tells that Dhulqarnain traveled to the farthest West and saw that Sun sets in a muddy spring. This is Allah telling us in Quran.

 

[sweep_shot]

Science keeps improving.

But we know for sure that Sun does not set anywhere and it does not need permission from Allah to rise again. Its due to the rotation of the planets that causes this illusion. Science has proven this long time ago.

“It is He Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon: All (celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course (orbit).” (Surah 21, Ayah 33)

“It is not permitted to the sun to catch up the moon, nor the night outstrips the day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law).” (Surah 36, Ayah 40)

Some more verses for you.

Quran doesn't say that Earth is flat or anything like that. It doesn't contradict so called modern science when it comes to astronomy.

 

[sweep_shot]

Now it is a Metaphor eh? Have you read that Verse?

Allah clearly tells that Dhulqarnain traveled to the farthest West and saw that Sun sets in a muddy spring. This is Allah telling us in Quran.

Please mention the verse. I want to see what you are referring to.

I personally think that you made up your mind. No amount of evidence can change your viewpoint.

 

[sweep_shot]

Now it is a Metaphor eh? Have you read that Verse?

Allah clearly tells that Dhulqarnain traveled to the farthest West and saw that Sun sets in a muddy spring. This is Allah telling us in Quran.

Also, don't think that you know more about Islam than actual Muslims and actual Islamic scholars. I do not pretend to be an expert in Christianity because I am not a Christian.

Leave interpretations to those who actually practice it.

 

[miandadrules]

Ok, just wanted to clarify.

For those replying to my posts or quoting me, please bear miandadrules advice in mind.

It’s wasn’t advice, it was a statement.

Big difference.

 

[miandadrules]

That's the authentic Islamic belief, if I am not wrong.

You either believe or you don't. I obviously can't prove it; it is a matter of faith.



I urge critics to read the whole book. It is not just about those scientific statements; read the whole thing. See how you feel and see if the book answers your questions.

And how did you attain such faith that it left you convinced?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

It’s wasn’t advice, it was a statement.

Big difference.

It was a statement about your opinion on posters you quoted if we want to be precise. So noted and acknowledged.

 

[miandadrules]

Also, don't think that you know more about Islam than actual Muslims and actual Islamic scholars. I do not pretend to be an expert in Christianity because I am not a Christian.

Leave interpretations to those who actually practice it.

What nonsense!

 

[miandadrules]

Also, don't think that you know more about Islam than actual Muslims and actual Islamic scholars. I do not pretend to be an expert in Christianity because I am not a Christian.

Leave interpretations to those who actually practice it.

I’ve heard it all now. Let those who practice interpret!

 

[sweep_shot]

I’ve heard it all now. Let those who practice interpret!

I was obviously referring to Islamic scholars. You are here just to argue like a girl.

 

[miandadrules]

I was obviously referring to Islamic scholars. You are here just to argue like a girl.

Well that’s convinced me that Islam is the truth.

I was also referring to Islamic “scholars”. It’s obviously best to seek knowledge from someone who has a vested interest in recruiting you. And your radical idea is that you shouldn’t ask anyone else.

Here’s, a novel idea! Why don’t you analyse all the available information?

When you do, it becomes very apparent that this whole thing is all smokes and mirrors conjured up to serve the needs of the centralised elites.