Is Atheism wrong?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Intellectual discussions
Forum Discription: Discuss political and philosophical theories, religious beliefs and other academic subjects
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16858
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 13:04
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Is Atheism wrong?
Posted By: pekau
Subject: Is Atheism wrong?
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 18:35
Oh God, I can just feel all other members ready to stone me...  Oh well, too late now.
Ok, I was just wondering about this fault regarding atheism belief: If one is to declare that there is no God with 100% accuracy, then that person must have the infinite knowledge. (That is, the person must know everything in the universe) But wait a tick, does that not mean that the person who declared that there's no God is... God? ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Replies:
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 18:50
|
Well, it depends on one's definition of atheism (since my beliefs fit the definition of agnostic, and the broader definition of atheist), but, if you mean atheist clearly by the definition that there cannot be a creator, then, yes, by that definition of atheism, I can see it as wrong.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 19:38
|
Yes. Do you mean wrong as in not true, or wrong as in a sin? The latter can only be answered by the former. Since if the former is true then you subscribe to the moral code that makes the latter true, however if you don't accept the former then you don't accept the moral code that outlaws the latter either. Unless of course you find me a religion that encourages you not to believe in it. ------------- |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 20:08
| I would say that athiesm is both not true, and a sin, to all religions, Christianity, Islam, Pagan religions, Hinduism, etc... |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 20:16
|
I believe, in the context of this thread, that pekau meant that is atheism correct (right) or incorrect (wrong).
-------------
|
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 20:18
Indeed, I was. Just to point out, I am not saying that any belief is right or wrong. I am just pointing out the fact that the principle was slightly odd... but I am open to any POV... I don't hate people...  ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 22:04
Really? And why is that? ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 22:11
Well, if the person does not know for sure... then you are saying that God could exist, which goes against the atheism completely. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 22:14
A good question deserves a good response. If one is an atheist as a religion than you are correct. By atheist as a religion I mean someone who just believes in disbelief because thats their belief. That is just as dumb as blind belief.
How I see it is I am technically an agnostic ( I dismiss nothing out of hand that I cannot verify with certainty in the absolute) but I do not call myself as such because agnostic (to quote Steven Colbert) "is just an atheist without balls". In the modern world agnostic has come to mean 50/50 wishy washy fence sitter, wheras I am only technically agnostic because I alow a 1-2% chance for supernatural powers or whatever to exist.
Now why would I be so quick to apply such a low percentage to religious belief? (and this is what goes back into your question) Because if we wasted our time proving negatives we would never get anywhere. For example I can say with 100% assertiveness that the Smurfs are not real, but according to your argument I have to have all the knowledge in the universe to effectively dismiss the Smurfs as living entities. Sure its possible somehwere in our massive universe theres an exact facsimile of the Smurfs somewhere, and thus I should say 99.999% that its not likely rather than 100, but it still remains that there is no evidence for the real life existence of the smurfs regardless of what the prophecies (the cartoon) tell us. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 22:28
|
I guess you have a point...
Oh by the way, 0.99999... is technically 1. One of the simple mathimatic theorem is that 0.3333 = 1/3. So if we multiply both of them by 3.... 0.9999... = 1!! For further info: http://www.purplemath.com/modules/howcan1.htm Sorry for getting off-topic. Ok, but then you are saying that agnostic (Never heard this term before...) is a religion. For religion requires for a believer to have faith and devotion to something (Usually a God) despite the fact that they could not prove it 100%. That's the definition of faith. So, in reality... Agnostic is similar thing as ristianity, Muslim, etc. (Actually more like Buddism.) Sorry if I offended anyone. I am just trying to reason things out here. Let me know if I am going off too far.  ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 22:37
|
Im saying many people DO believe in un-belief as a faith, I am not one of them but there are many.
and yes point999 is actually one, bad way of putting it on my part, hey not all Asians are good at math (then again Im only half!)  ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 22:43
|
Why is it that religious people cast atheism in their own image?
Personally as an athiest. not only do I not believe god does not exist. I've never ever even thought about god in my entire life and see no good reason ever to do so.
|
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 22:50
Well, I think that's slightly too harsh. God, whether if He is real or not, brought many good things to humanity. Many people, in the edge of destruction (Drug abuse, self-guilt, etc.), were able to get out of the trouble and live a better life because of their faith. Mankind likes to question if their life could be something more meaningful, something better, something that could help them to become great, etc. I know many people who changed for the better because they believed in a religion. Of course, I am not saying that religions are always a good thing. Religion also brought so much death and destruction. We are witnessing it right now in Israel and Arabic borders. But I do not think that honest people who have religion is the problem. The extremist, or other people who cannot accept others is the problem, not the religion. I, as a Christian, have many friends who have different religion... or none at all. We debate about it sometimes, but we are quite tolerant about it. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 22:52
|
And Paul, I am sure that you could become a moderator soon. I said this because you seem to be quite angry about it... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 22:52
Oh, and you are really from North Korea... are you??  ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 23:19
|
For me, I used to believe in god or a god anyways. Later it didn't make sense to me and I guess I went in stages of going fully athiest. I mean, I used to constantly question it and second guess myself, now it just doesn't even seem conceivable to me. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 23:19
|
Although I do consider myself a nihilist which in a sense is related to atheism simply being atheistic is not good. Atheists and the religous alike are both just as fearful of God, the latter spending their whole lives praying to Him while the previous spending their lives convicing themselves that he isn't there. Nihilism instead says: "I don't care if God is there or not, I want to take matters in my own hand" which is a much braver way to confront reality. ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 23:23
I often wonder why god brought drug abuse to humanity. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 23:25
When the forum has Immoderators, I'll be sure to be first to apply. As you say yourself. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 01:00
|
Drugs are good, when used for proper medication. Millions of lives are saved because of drugs... in wartime, in the time of deadly plague... or just simply everyday lives. It's the human beings that make the drugs bad because some use it in improper way.
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 03:18
So let me get this straight, you think that if God is not real, he still brought many good things to humanity
Taking a guess, as a punishment and a test. God is responsible for all the good in the world, and all the bad, and all the inbetween, and anything else you can think of, including the act of thinking. ------------- |
Posted By: Kalevipoeg
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 05:07
|
Omar al Hashim: "So let me get this straight, you think that if God is not real, he still brought many good things to humanity
So let me get this straight, you think that if God is not real, he still brought many good things to humanity" I guess he meant the strength mans imagination gets from his imaginary friend in the sky. The concept itself helps, like telling a child Santa Clause brought you your candy cane this year, reality is secondary. I myself can't see anything wrong with atheism, i've been raised in this manner. My parents are agnostics i guess, and only one of my grand parents has a religious background, after his death, the 1926. issue Bible has been collecting a lair of dust ever since at my grandmothers house. In the end if you are a crying atheist, worrying an hour in bed every night if there is a fellow in a gown and no trousers waiting to send you to his ex co-worker under the Earths crust if you don't subdue to him you can always think this: 99% of all religious people whose faith has a Heaven-Hell system in their scriptures will go to hell too as their teachings have long been altered by man himself and are hardly serving God/s true purpose anymore and are all just letting go the few years they have been given for decadence and fun on this futile plane. And as all the holy scriptures we today have to read for ourselves are still ENIGMA machines that are undecipherable we can never truly practice the true faith in a way we can be certain we won't see a fiery pit after our death. But all in all, religion has always meant to keep the dillusion of ultimate meaning alive, man just doesn't like relativity and options, he is a weak animal, needing certainty, or he'll panic. So there are good sides to religion, if you are that kind of a person. You can choose God instead of Crack anyday, the poison you use is your choice. Both make the world prettier than it is. Only keep your mormons and Jehovas witnesses off my streets and we're cool. And by the way, does anyone know a good way to get rid of a Jehovas witness or a Mormon trying to hassle you on the streets. Is there a special line for that? ------------- There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge... |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 05:07
|
Exactly. God created smoking Ganja. What right have goverments to second guess god and says it's wrong? ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 06:00
Humanity brought Drug Abuse upon themselves through sin, it's our nature. God did not bring it upon us, and does not approve of it, but because we have chosen to go our way - he has chosen to let us. ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 06:06
|
To answer the original question posed; I believe Atheism is wrong. The soul basis of Atheism destroys itself - the concept of believing in unbelief. I am not slamming Atheists, it is just what I 'believe'. Without a God, nothing is absolute and morality is non-existant. This is because there has to be a line drawn between what is right and what is wrong. If two people are doing opposite things - one trying to shoot a bird, the other trying to prevent it from happening - one has to be the 'right' thing. If morality is non-existant because nothing is absolute, neither of the people can be right or wrong. The logic in that is invisible.
------------- |
Posted By: Balaam
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 06:10
White outlines of a person and blood drops surrounded by a copy of there book/magazine or whatever they give you out the front of your place of residence. ------------- |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 06:11
|
Is it just my idea or did humans enjoyed drugs, drinks and promiscuous sex before the arrival of Jewish-based religions, like Christianity and Islam? Ok, we still do, but are expected to feel guilty/sinners afterwards :-)
I say: "bring back the good old days", I'll take Zeus over Christ any day of the week!  ------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 06:14
Neat typo. 
With a God, nothing is absolute because the choice of God is subjective. In choosing your God you choose your morality. ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 06:19
|
Excuse my typo sorry. Also, God is not subjective, God is absolute. He does not have a 'choice' he has a covenant, which he fulfils his promises through.
------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 06:54
|
god is subject to interpretation and there's few things more subjective than human interpretaion.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 07:50
Of course you can say you are already a Jehova's witness. But then again you run the risk that they ask you to take over today's converting tour. ------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 08:47
Where precisely did god actually say that? ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 09:02
At first define what is sin? ------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 09:40
Yes, the problem with the word atheist is its ambiguity. In the broad definition (one whom is simply not theist), it includes agnostics, while in the more dogmatic definition of atheism (there cannot be a creator at all because I believe that), it includes the worser form of atheism. I am agnostic by definition, but also atheist by not being theist. It is hard to call oneself atheist on one respect, because the term is more associated with the dogmatic definition, while agnostic give a more accurate perception of a person beliefs. I believe in 50/50 only because of no true seeing of how the world was created, but I also hold that a creator would be more like, let's say, the deist deity than any theistic deity. And, let us not forget, there could be multiple creators also (let us say that there are two deities, one good, one evil, that cancel out each other). But, that is pure speculation. Other than that, I am not too hung up on a creator(s) existing. Sure, creator(s) could exist, but the only possibility is that the diety either did not, or could not reveal itself. Also, I hold that even dogmatic atheism could be correct, but it definitely cannot be proven correct.
If you are talking of the Christian God, then how does he not have a choice? He is all-loving, all-good, and let us not forget, all-powerful. He could do whatever he wants to do for the good of humanity, but instead, he lets all sorts of evil things happen to them (Which, in a sense, would show the impossibility of the Christian diety). -------------
|
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 15:07
Ask them how they plan to spend eternity on their personal Jesus planet? Or just shout hail satan.
I believe people still enjoy these things even after the arrival of Jewish based religions.
Nice quote Paul, 
Sin is to be understood in Christianity as anything that separates you from God.
I believe that evil is indirectly created by God's actions. God realized that in order for humanity to exist in the world they would be unable to prevent themselves from falling into sin, because like children he knew we wouldn't have sufficient knowledge to prevent these sins, and thus even though he knew evil would enter the world, he loves us so much that he is willing to tolerate it for the time being, so that we can exist. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Now onto the topic, personally to me atheism is incorrect, however that is a subjective statement and obviously biased. Objectively atheism is no more incorrect than theism, pantheism, etc. We just simply don't have enough information to make a fully informed belief. Granted I think that if Jesus Christ himself came down from the heavens tommorow in a blinding flash of light and forced all television stations to play his return for the entire world, there would still be those that would deny him, and I think it would be stupid (No, it's not a "Jesus" alien either!  ).Which brings me to another point. Atheism is the only belief system I can think of that can be disproven. All other beliefs rely on at least the eventual revelation of their God/gods. So even if they don't exist you still can't disprove them. To disprove atheism all God has to do is show himself (which surprisingly wouldn't necessarily disprove the existence of other deities). ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 15:12
Not really. If I would say 'I believe in a god who is a square circle', that god can easily be disproven by simple logic. If you can prove a god's traits to be impossible, incompattible or contradictory you can disprove its existence. ------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 15:37
Oh right thanks, I guess that was what I was trying to say, for example God's existence would be incompatible with atheistic belief.
Aren't there buddhist mantras that go something like that?  ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 15:56
I said I was a Muslim, you should have seen the guy backoff ------------- |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 15:59
|
You have the right to believe whatever you want,or to nothing.By asking if atheism is wrong,is like asking if Christianity,Paganism,Islam,Buddhism etc are wrong.Atheism is itself a form of religion.Nothing wrong with that.The problem lies when the atheist tries to impose his/hers beliefs to non-atheists.
------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 16:05
Precisely my argument against theism. As covered, a Deity that is "All-Good, All-Powerful, and All-Loving" cannot exist in a world that is evil under his control. -------------
|
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 16:12
But the world is not evil, only human interactions with each other and within themselves are evil. Evil is a by-product of humanity, not of God. That is why I think evil is indirectly attributed to God, since he knew that we would cause evil in the world. He is All-Good and All-Loving because he allowed us to exist even if we cause evil. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 16:20
|
Then why flood entire world as shown by the Great Flood? How can God be mad at people for disobeying his wishes when he already knew they would disobey him? Also, how can an All-Good and All-Powerful God allow humans to do evil to other humans. That contradicts the very premise of the God being good and being able to stop evil.
-------------
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 16:23
|
Guys,nobody can really proove if God exists or not.Both parties have right and wrong at the same time.
------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 17:08
God was more angry in the old testament. He flooded the world because it was full of sinners, but afterword promised Noah he would never do it again. Now, he lets people choose for themselves their destiny, be it good or evil. |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 17:12
| Not if you ask St. Augustine of Hippo he doesn't let people choose their destiny for themselves. He is the source of the "Puritan Dilema" or Prelasarian Predestination. |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 17:14
| Predestination...well, I don't know if I believe in that. Is predestination officially embraced by the church, catholic and protestant? |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 17:58
| I'm pretty sure it's embraced by certain Catholic sects as well as Protestant sects. This was really big in the 16th C. it was preached heavily by John Calvin a major influence on the Puritans. |
Posted By: Dan Carkner
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 18:12
|
I suppose you could say that being an agnostic is the least presumptuous. I can't see how being an atheist is any "worse" than being religious somehow. Both "presume to know".. (I am an atheist, I always have been..) |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 18:24
| They are the same thing. They both presume to have the answer to a question that nobody can honestly know. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 18:36
If you look him in the eye and tell him your a muslim you are never bothered. ------------- |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 19:33
Your observation about God being able and good is true accordingly to the Bible.
However - he didnt promise anyone a life without evil. On the contrary.
If you read the Bible thoroughly and believe what it says, then in fact - all the way back from Adam and Eve, you will understand that human life is partly controlled by the Devil. God let this happen because humans (Adam and Eve) disobeyed him in the first place as you probably know. Thus, human life is to test us for the forthcoming doomsday /return of the Messiah/ Harmageddon/ Fullfillment or whatever its been called during milleniums.
So yes - on the premises you want to be saved, you could say that...
Atheism is wrong - Agnostics hope for a free ride - and believers constantly worry if they are good enough.
I refuse to believe this life is as a test for the next.
I believe this life is a gift to us all, - that this is the only paradise we will see.
We should treasure it and do our outmost to make it a good experience for every fellow human instead of constantly fighting each other for something that eternally remains a dream.
I find the values expressed by Christ to be a good guidance in doing this.
Thats my religion.
~ Northman
------------- |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 00:16
Nope, my original point that no one seems to have heeded is disbeleif is always morally superior to beleif if theres nothing to back either side up, otherwise we have to waste time proving the Smurfs arent real and worrying about Lord Xenu's omnipotence. We shouldnt waste our time with things that even if somehow if they did kind of exist (in a way undeniably distorted by people anyway) has no bearing on our lives since it just tells us are problems are our fault anyway.
Beacuase Atheism CAN be proven wrong it is the superior mode of thought, on the whole. It, like the field of science, can be modified to changing relaities and constantly changed. Science can be proven wrong and thus it can change, fix and better itself to fit the times. Things that cannot be proven wrong are not relaistic challenges for actual factual inquiry and thus do nothing to move humanity forward.
So basically if you say we shouldnt err on the side of skepticism than your saying the truth lies immediately between a complete skeptic and a fung shui beleiving scientologist cult leader. Somehow I thinnk thats a dangerous position to draw (as most "moderate" positions tend to be). ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Dawn
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 01:07
Many years ago I answered the door naked and told them that nudists probably didn't fit in with them. They left me alone for over a year.  ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 02:32
|
Mein Gott in himmel, I simply asked whether my reasoning (Located in the first posted forum) was logical that questions the principle of atheism. How did we get so off-topic?
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 04:54
|
Ok, in a thread in which is being debated the existance of God (even if
it is off topic), allow me, as I do occasionally, to cut the crap. Don't you think its prudent to see what God had to say on the issue?
The whole principle of atheism relies on God not providing proof, and as has been pointed out can be disproven with proof of the existance of God. Thus atheism is disproven! God has written a book. What more proof can you possibly want? No-one doubts the existance of Anna Komenos, all she did was write a book, no-one doubts the existance of Karl Marx, all he did was write a book. What sort of proof do you want? Do you want God's personal messenger to come to you and explain everything to you in person?
Or will you claim "Muhammed made it up" as no doubt most will. An argument which relies on the lack of knowledge more than any other evidence. We have Muhammed's (pbuh) sayings in the Hadies, which if anyone realises, are a world apart from the Quran in what they say, how they say it, and with the accuracy that they do. No genuine scientific study is about to claim that the Quran and the Hadies are from the same source, but nevertheless, people are willing to claim it to provide false justification to their status quo. Not to mention that while the bible rarely ventures into science, and recieves alot of critisim when it does, the Quran often ventures into science, in areas that Muhammed could not have possibly know about, and never makes a mistake. I've even looked up anti-muslim websites to see what they've got, and its still nothing that takes more mental effort than reading in context to expose its riduclousness. If our worse enemies cannot find a mistake, then surely there is not one.
If anyone rejects Christianity on the basis of logic and deduction, then surely they must accept Islam on the same principles. If on the other hand, anyone rejects Christianity on the basis on "because", then that is an argument that cannot be disproven. ------------- |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 05:55
|
Omar..... probably off topic - but please let me get it straight by example: ******************
The Holy Book of Vikism
(by Northman, the Messenger) Page 1 ******************** I should probably write a little more to sound more convincing, but where is the proof that I'm speaking the truth in my book? ~ Northman ------------- |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 08:21
Which areas are you talking about here? Ive never read the Quran and would like to know... Also you can't really say that God has written a book where every religion out there with a holy scripture guide specifically states that what's written is the "word of God". Of course that hasn't been written by God and has been edited by whoever wrote it. ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 08:36
But you were overrun with ex-Jehovah's Witnesses, right? ------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 09:19
|
there's a place for everyone in jesus's plan of things.
http://www.naturist-christians.org/index.php ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Siege Tower
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 11:00
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 14:09
|
You all should read Anne Rice's Memnoch the Devil, not only is it a decent book. It gives a fairly interesting insite into another person's view of existance and the human experience. It is part of her Vampire Chronicles but still interesting to read and it is a quick read as well
|
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 15:42
|
Is Atheism wrong ?
Only God knows...... ------------- 
http://imageshack.us"> 
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 22:19
Haven't I seen this thread before? 
Oh well, I picked a single quote that popped out at me:
Evil is a result of the seperation that stems from the fall, which affects the whole of the created order. In essence, it is our seperation from God--the damage done to the image of God in man as a result of disobedience--that allows for evil to manifest itself.
We are the agents of our own choices, many of which are results or causes of evil. The Devil and his minions are everywhere present attempting to lead us astray. God provides the way out! It is through our acceptance of and participation in His Grace that the image is restored--a process that will be fully consummated when Christ comes again.
I realize this is unlikely to satisfy you, as it requires the acceptance of several presuppositions and involves things that we cannot possibly hope to understand. I do believe it illustrates that trying to define and critique God within our own rational constructs is impossible.
I'm guessing I won't be back on this thread, but if someone posts something interesting--or dangerously incorrect--and I notice, I may see you all soon. Until then, cheers and God bless.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2007 at 02:37
I am not that naive. The point of those quotes was not to
convince anyone, and was not intended to be any sort of proof. It was
to point out that this is an old question, and that the all-knowing God
does know people ask it, and has provided ample "Clear
Signs" for anyone who wishes to do any research into the topic.There is so much proof available, both damning and circumstantial, to suit many personalities, that I cannot possibly go through it all. I cannot possible know it all. No human can. To refuse to believe in God by claiming "there is no proof" without investigation the book which is said to bring proof, is akin to refusing to believe in Physics and denouncing Newton as a story teller.
Its not just specific areas, there are verses dispersed thoughout the whole book. Some obvious, and others not so. Here are two essays from the University of Southern Calfornia's Muslim Student Association about it: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/scislam.html http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/dyktb.html The best book on the subject is Dr. Maurice Bucaille's The Bible, the Qur'an and Science An exerpt (also in the second essay):
I can certainly claim that God has written a book. Firstly, its part of my religion, secondly, which religion other than Islam has a credible claim to have "the literal word of God". As far as I know, all others are claimed for the prophet, as "inspired", or are not credible. PS. In addition we know that the Quran is unaltered since the prophets time. 2 copies of the Quran in existance written by the prophets scribe (Zaid bin thabit), is evidence enough to prove that. ------------- |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2007 at 17:36
Of course you're not, I know you too well to think that.
However, I see you got my point and since we have discussed this earlier where you have provided more links to sources which I have read with great interest, I still remain a firm believer of that "the truth" lies in the eyes of the reader and how he prefers to read and comprehend it.
Just an example from one of the links....
One of the scientific "proofs" was, that the Quran describes the earth as an egg (read globe) - the bible does not.
But with the knowledge that this fact was established several centuries before the Quran was written, I'm a bit reluctant to call that a proof - or even an indication of "Gods writings".
Or - maybe I'm just too old and critical
(we are still off topic
)~ Northman ------------- |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2007 at 19:01
Ok I can't really dispute that the word of God is what's in the book but i can refute His word. But wait a minute here a book or the book is what you mean to say? Anyways I must say I was very surprised by some of the Quran verses and how they are interpreted to fit to the current scientific knowledge that we have. One thing about its description of the various natural phenomena however. Some of these have been observed before by philosophers and wise men alike. For example a Greek philosopher(what's his name now?) thought that men descended from fish, which has some credibility considering evolution though not sure if humans branched out from marine animals. Another example is the Book of Ecclestiastes that some believe was written by King Soloman son of David. Reading the book and some of Solomons proverbs you get the idea that he really does have an idea of evolution at work. "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun" "Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us." "There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after." Are just but a few proverbs that may be interpreted as precursors to the theory of evolution, besides how do we know that some wise mind didn't say the things the Quran says before the Quran was written? ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 04:12
Aye, I do believe your correct in this. Religious discussion is quite different from other forms of intellectual discussion, in a different matter people are persuaded by proof or good arguments, people decide what to believe based on evidence so to say. Although in religion, regardless of their background, their current religion or lack there of, proof - or lack there of - is pretty much irrelevent to a persons opinion. In religious fields, people must be inclined towards a particular religion before they accept "proof" relating to that religion. If they are not already heading towards that religion, then any amount of logical reasoning will not change their opinion. I know many converts to many faiths - all my grandparents children converted to a different religion (one anglican, one catholic, and one muslim) - I don't know of any that have converted based on proof. This does not mean that there is no proof, indeed I am sure that you two can see that in those essays is quite a lot of proof for those inclined toward Islam, what it means is proof is irrelevent. If you try to justify your beliefs on lack of proof, then you don't understand why you believe something. Proof is bountiful, if your willing to accept it, if not then no amount of proof will make a difference. I notice that niether of you tried to justify your beliefs by "proof" or lack of it, which is commendable in my mind, it's also odd that the only people who responded to my posts were the people who it was not aimed at.
Yeah I agree with you in that case. I think the people who write these things get a bit carried away sometimes. I particularly don't like the missionary writing style of the second link either.
There is only so many ways you can skin a cat.
At least you can attempt to refute it. The use of the definite article in my sentence doesn't alter the meaning.
You mean some wise men said all of that? Without making a mistake? Even the wisest man gets things wrong occasionally. Even embryology? I'm not sure how you could get that right without an ultrasound... ------------- |
Posted By: Denis
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 12:09
|
no one can accurately prove there is no supernatural being.
------------- "Death belongs to God alone. By what right do men touch that unknown thing" Victor Hugo |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 12:42
The point here is also to say that no one can prove there is a supernatural being too. ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 17:17
|
Only death will prove it right or wrong but it is a free will choice to believe in no God. The only time I do not like athiest is, like in Communist countries, they try to stomp out the free will choice to believe in and serve God or whatever. The Chinese still persecute people for their religious views -www.persecution.org
I think it is fine to debate over religon if the other person is willing to debate but either way no one has the right to force their views on anyone. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Dawn
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 17:30
|
after reading this thread I looked up the dictionary meaning of "proof" There are 2 definitions that apply here: 1.any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it 2. validation: the act of validating; finding or testing the truth of something
Omar: is it possible that the proof you find in the Quran falls under definition #2 while the proof that I fail to find in any religious writtings I have read.(i'm first to admit that I have not read the Quran cover to cover)
falls under definition#1. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 04:11
I understand that, from now there is only two questions, and faith is the deciding factor to which a person will believe. Either they accept the evidence presented in the essay as proof of the divine authorship of the quran, or they consider it a coincidence of interpretation and unknown infallable wise men. Only faith and probablity analysis remain . Is the existance of God or freaky
coincidences more likely? Only a persons own personal faith can answer
that question.
Very important contribution Dawn. Although given the way the verses are used in the text I'd say that the ones presented in the essay fall into catagory #1, but the act of investigating them falls into #2. For example this is how [22:5] which contains information of embrology is in context:
So it is used in exactly the "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it" method. "If you have doubt about Resurrection, " here is your proof. It is presented as "factual evidence that helps establish the proof of -"Resurrection. (the Day of Resurrection is Judgement Day). Which is clearly definition #1. Definition #2 in this case goes to the embryologist Dr Moore who performed "the act of validating; finding or testing the truth of -" verse [22:5]. We cannot apply definition #2 to verse [22:2], as we do not have the ability to observe events on Armageddon. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 08:07
I think that's a circular reasoning. In order to accept the Quran as divine and infallible, one should already has to be muslim. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 18:47
|
No. It means if you are not a muslim you become one. You have the proof, now what do you do about it, either you accept the divine authorship of the Quran, meaning you become a muslim (or close enough), or you look for another explaination such as unknown infalliable magical wise men. You don't have to accept the Quran as divine and infalliable to observe the evidence that it is a remarkable book, infact as far as testing the validity of the verses it is probably counter productive. The best work in that field has been done by people who converted during their research such as Dr Bucaille and Dr Moore ------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 18:53
| This is similar to some Medieval Church teachings, specifically the notion of the scintilla - that is a divine spark. This is located in all of god's children but is only realised when one turns toward and accepts god. |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 19:52
I suspect this was directed to me somehow since I first suggested the "magical wise men" . Now let me make myself more clear about this uncommon issue. Omar no one is arguing that the Quran is a remarkable book and it contains much to explain the mysteries of life. The real purpose of this discussion is that we are trying to question its necesseity to us. If we the people have managed to observe these revelations ourselves through the observations of wise men(mathematicians, biologists, physicists etc.) what's the point of having a book describe to us what we already know or knew? We know the universe is expanding, we know the embryo develops in stages, we also knew prior to the Quran describing it that the earth was round and Darwin came up with the theory of evolution without ever reading the Quran(at least as far as I know). So does our belief in these ideas as true automatically makes us all Muslims because they are written in the Quran? Of course not I might believe all the things the Quran contains but I don't necessarily have to go through its religious requirements at all. Plus if this book would have been lost or destroyed its prior existence would probably make it irrelevaent to the knowledge that we have attained so far. I think the gist of this all is wether we accept it as truly "the word of God" or reject it as the sum of arbitrary observations. ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 19:55
|
Good one, vulkan. I would have posted about this, if no one else did. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2007 at 04:34
Ah, ok. I wasn't answering that question. Its the whole heaven and hell thing basically.
If you believe all the things in the Quran especially the oneness of God and Judgement Day you'd be muslim. The testable verses like in the essays are provided as encouragement for you to believe in the untestable verses that form the basis of the religion. ------------- |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2007 at 12:30
Right what I meant was the testable verses. ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |