Jump to content
Islamic Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cruorem_Deus

  1. The Value Of An Infinite Afterlife...

    Also, I don't appreciate being called a "loser".
  2. The Value Of An Infinite Afterlife...

    Honestly, if the only reason you don't "rob loot plunder rape every two legged thing" is because of Allah, then what does that say about you, as a person? Our morality comes from evolving as a social species, needing to stick together to survive. Certain behaviours would've helped the group to survive, others would've been detrimental. As such, the helping behaviours become good morality and the detrimental ones became bad. Obviously as our society became more complex, so did our morality, but the concept's the same. I do not believe Allah exists, yet do you see me looting, pludering or raping anything?
  3. 1. A Message To Richard Dawkins. (uk Athiest)

    Again, another dodge. I'm going to flat out ask you, and unless you can provide an actual answer, without ducking and diving, I'm left only to assume that you have no answer. Why is your god Allah real, and The Matrix not? The fairy analogy is so widespread because it's such a good analogy. But so is the Matrix analogy, basically the same point. A point that seems lost on you, seeing as how you've yet to actually address it.
  4. Why I Am Not An Atheist

    But you've not actually adressed the first point in either the OP or the subsequent posts, you just dodged the point completely. As for the 2nd quote, your rebuttal to that was simply wrong. I've explained why. You can say "I'm not repeating myself again blah, blah, blah" as much as you like, until you actually address the points being made all you're doing is desperately trying to avoid having to.
  5. The Value Of An Infinite Afterlife...

    I do not believe it's real because I have no reason to. I've never been presented with any evidence that even approaches adequacy. True, no one's non-existence will be any better or worse than the next, but the one who spent his life knowing that he was living the only life he had would enjoy it a lot more than the one who believed this one was just a preparation for an infinate life, and he had to obey a certain set of restricting and limiting rules in order to I can think of an analogy, but it's a bit grim. It's like a kid spending all of their time studying to become an astronaut, after he's been diagnosed with a terminal illness. He could survive, but it's not likely, and instead of enjoying the time he has, he's spending it studying. It's not the non-existence that is worth anything, it's the bit before that.
  6. Why I Am Not An Atheist

    Typical theist. No valid answer or rebuttal, so you dodge and dive around the question without addressing it. The fact that what you believe IS no different from ANY of the things listed.Your Allah is no different from the FSM, or invisible pink unicorns. The idea is to show how utterly ridiculous, childish (nay, infantile) and absurd your beliefs are. Or not. Because Atheism IS the lack of belief in a god, it doesn't matter why you don't believe in a god. Perhaps you'd stop hearing the same arguments over and over from us if you actually took the time to read the rebuttals? You think anything you're saying is new? News flash - everything you're saying is the same old theistic copy-pasta. Atheism A and atheism B are both still atheism. There's also atheism c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, etc. The ONLY thing all atheists have in common is the lack of belief in a god, it's what defines them as atheists. A gnostic atheist would indeed have a burden of proof, but an agnostic one does not. Their position is REJECTION of your statement that a god exists. If your god is unprovable? Well..."The fact that what you believe IS no different from ANY of the things listed.Your Allah is no different from the FSM, or invisible pink unicorns. The idea is to show how utterly ridiculous, childish (nay, infantile) and absurd your beliefs are.". If you cannot prove the existence of something, then it's simply irrational to believe, unwaveringly, 100% that it exists. It's a primitive and illogical mindset, that should've been left behind with the dark ages.
  7. Why I Am Not An Atheist

    The best way I can describe it is this. A gnostic theist would say "I KNOW there is a god." Most theists fall into that category, from my experience. An agnostic theist would say "I believe there is a god, but I don't know for certain." A gnostic atheist, which I rarely come across, would say "I know for certain that there are no god/s." And an agnostic atheist, which again, from my experience, most seem to fall in to, would say "I have no valid reason to believe in a god, so I dismiss the idea based on a lack of evidence." or "What's a god?"
  8. Why I Am Not An Atheist

    Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with knowledge, not belief. An atheist does not believe in a god or gods, it doesn't have to be a conscious choice. You could be born on a remote island into a tribe of people that have never even heared of the concept of a god, and you'd be an atheist. An atheist simply does not believe in any gods, by definition. They don't have to consciously refuse to beleive in a god, or claim that for a fact there are no gods, all they have to do is not believe.
  9. Why I Am Not An Atheist

    Again, to put it simply, rejecting belief in a positive statement on the grounds that it's not proven does not equate to believing positively against it. "I believe there is no god." =/= "I do not believe there is a god."
  10. Why I Am Not An Atheist

    Got as far as "Disbelief in X = belief in Y" bit. Not true. You're getting atheism confused, here. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. To repeat myself from another post, all babies are born atheistic. Babies have no knowledge of God or gods and therefore do not hold any belief in them. Atheism means "Without Gods.", it doesn't matter under what circumstances you're "without gods", just that you are. "Which is funny in a way because I wasn’t even aware that unprovable issues had burdens of proof." Every positive statement you make has the burden of proof, if it's unprovable then you can't prove it. I can't prove it wrong, but I don't have to, my position is a rejection of your statement. "There is a god." "I don't believe you. Prove it." I could just as easily state that (I'm sure you've heared this before, but I'm not reading the whole thing when there's things so wrong in it this early.) there's an invisible teapot floating in Space between Saturn and Jupiter's orbits. Of course, I can't prove it. As such, you have every reasonable doubt to reject my statement about the teapot, because there's absolutely no logical or rational reason to believe it exists. It doesn't matter if you can't prove it doesn't exist. Ultimately, what can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If we start blindly believing things without any evidence for them, then why not believe in every possible thing that anyone could ever possibly imagine... ever? They're all just as likely to exist as eachother. Here's a list of things that can neither be proven nor disproven, tell me which ones you would consider it even remotely rational to believe in, and why: The Tooth Fairy. Father Christmas. The Easter Bunny. The Boogeyman. Giant invisible dragons on Neptune. Ethereal space pirates. Cthulu. Ra. Odin. Brahman. God. Quetzalcoatl. Kukulcan. The Matrix. That's just a few of the infinate list of possible things that are "Unprovable". When these problems are adequately addressed, I'll contnue reading.
  11. The Value Of An Infinite Afterlife...

    Which claim do you think requires backing up? That there's no evidence for an afterlife? That you can't know there's an afterlife until you die? That all you can do is believe and have "faith" in an afterlife? What am I supposed to say? These things are pretty obvious... I guess a good way of putting it is "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.". The life you KNOW you have is worth more than a life you can't possibly KNOW you have. If someone's told they have a week to live, do they not try to make the most out of that week? Doesn't that week become worth more to them than that week would be if they were going to live for 80 years? Doesn't that week mean more to them than if they were going to live forever?
  12. The Value Of An Infinite Afterlife...

    What is most likely to be true, is that when you die all consciousness and thought processes stop, you lose all motory function and you begin to decompose. After that, there's no evidence to suggest there is anything, so not only is one, single, mortal life the most likely situation, it's also the only likely situation. Every major religion and the vast majority of minor religions all have myths and fables about an afterlife, but to this day, without any evidence supporting any of them, they're all just as likely as eachother. But what I'm getting at, is that in order to get the most out of this life, it makes the most sense to not believe in an infinite afterlife. He'd've been more accurate in saying "Aim at Heaven and Earth seems small and insignificant.". Ultimately, all you can do is believe in an afterlife, you can't know it exists until you die. There's no evidence to support an afterlife whatsoever, so belief in an infinite afterlife devalues this life completely. Why should this life matter to anyone if they're gonna live forever?
  13. The Value Of An Infinite Afterlife...

    Either way, what if you're wrong? If you believe you're going to live forever, then doesn't that completely devalue this life? Like I said, we get 70-90 odd years here, in this life, if we're lucky. Doesn't it make more sense to make the most of this life, rather than hoping for something that you can't possibly know is true or not until after this life? If you life forever, what's 80 odd years in comparison? It's nothing. Going back to my analogy with the hobo and the millionare, that £10 means absolutely nothing to the millionare, whereas that £10 would hold much greater value to the homeless person with nothing. The same can be said of life, to the person with an infinate supply of life 80 years means absolutely nothing, but to someone who dies and that's it, knowing that his life is limited, he makes much more out of it because he doesn't want to waste it. The person who ceases to exist when they die will always have this life mean more to them. It is after all, all they'll ever have.
  14. The Value Of An Infinite Afterlife...

    It's hard for me to not go off on a tangent here, about how the crime should fit the punishment, and how an infinate reward would result in infinate obedience, but I'll leave those for aother thread, another time.
  15. The Value Of An Infinite Afterlife...

    If "man in this world is not the same man in the next world", then will I still be me? Will the man in this world still be the same man in the next, or will that man be someone else? I mean, the unhappiness gives value to the happiness, I'd rather be happy, knowing I could potentially be unhappy than knowing I could never be unhappy. The possiblity of not being happy gives the happiness I do feel value. In a real of infinite happiness, and absolutely no unhappiness, how could one ever truely be happy? That happiness would seem so... artificial. You have to remember that this "pleasure will always grow.", forever. And ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever... ad infinitum. How could I possibly appreciate that pleasure without the pain and suffering to compare it to? After, maybe, 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 billion years, I might just have to turn emo and start cutting myself, just to feel the pain, just to make me appreciate the pleasure. But with the natire of infinity, I could cut billions and billions of arms, I could feel each and every cut and each and every cut would remind me how good the pleasure of heaven is. But that wouldn't matter. Because eventually I'd grow numb to that pain. I argue that a mortal life that ends permanently is far more worthwhile than a life of infinate happiness. I'd rather feel happy for 70~80 years, than feel happy forever. This life, with its pain and suffering, makes the pleasure and happiness I feel in this life far more valueable than it would if I had just the pleasure and happiness for all eternity. We need the suffering, and we need the happiness to be finite. A small amount of a resource is worth more than an infinate amount of a resource.
  16. Sponges. Flavobacterium. Cohanoflagellates. Basically, everything that reproduced through meiosis, rather than mitois, and even then a lot of species that reprodivce through sexual reproduction reproduce without the need for ovaries. Any cell that reproduces and either doesn't need another cell's... Hang on... I can say this easier. Any life form that branched off of the tree of life before ovaries evolved.
  17. Atheism Owes God For Its Exeistence

    Sorry, prefix* Why is there no "edit" option? :s
  18. Atheism Owes God For Its Exeistence

    Wrong, atheism is the default position. Everyone is born an atheist - from the Greek "Atheos. A (Suffix - "Without") Theos (God(s)) - Without God(s). It's only through indoctrination that the young become brainwashed into Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. No baby is born knowing about God, or Jesus or Allah or Vishnu, they have to be taught and indoctrinated into their religion, so yes, atheism would exist without theism, infact, atheism would thrive if no one believed in any gods because everyone would be an atheist. A common misconception among the fanatical, uneducated, religious, is that morals come from a higher power, or a holy book. The fact is, that our morals come from evolving as a social species. IOur ancestors had to stick together to survive - Australopithicines wouldn't survive long on their own. In order to maintain a peaceful co-existence, for security and survival, we HAD to develop morals, and these morals became more and more evolved as both our species and society did. Phirana can strip a corpse in seconds, yet they rarely, if ever, attack eachother. Does religion provide phirana with their morals? Or did they come to arise through having to live together in numbers to survive? And no, I have Darwin on my £10 note. Having "In God We Trust" on US dollars is also unconstitutional and should, by your own laws, be removed. What are you even saying here? Being an atheist doesn't mean you reject God, it means that you DO NOT BELIEVE in God. Or gods. A - without Theos - God/s. When a child is born... ugh, repeating myself, but when a child is born, do you think it believes in Allah or God or Zeus or Ra or Odin? Of course it doesn't, it has to be raised and taught about them in order to be indoctrinated. All babies are atheists. By your own fairy tale's standards, Satan was not an atheist, he would've known God existed, albeit in the same way that Frodo knew Sauron existed, but nevertheless. No, as explained earlier, morals do not come from deities, or higher powers, they come from society and our need to live in social groups. If religion didn't exist, if no one believed in any gods, then EVERYONE WOULD BE AN ATHEIST. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's the lack of belief in a god. Whether you reject the existence of a god, or are just on the fence, so long as you don't believe any gods exist, for whatever reason, you are an atheist. At least try to learn what something is before you try talking about it, ok? Please?
  19. Concept Of Hell

    Also, about not sharing genetic structure with apes or reptiles? Haha. Epic fail. Epic, epic fail. Our genomes (s and ape's) are almost identical. Not only that, but certain things about them can ONLY[/] be the result of common ancestry. Take the chromosomal fusion in human chromosome #2, for example. Or the shared ERV markers in both human and chimp genomes. Or shared mitochondrial DNA markers. To say that we don't share any genetic structure with them only highlights how little you understand of either genetics or the process of evolution.
  20. Concept Of Hell

    Ok, let me rephrase. I fail to see intelligent design in anything natural. When a volcano erupts, and the molten rock flows, it forms into igneous rock. We don't say that the igneous rock was intelligently designed, do we? No, we say it's a natural process. If it's unintelligent to study physics and say there's no aparent intelligent design to it, then you're saying to study and understand physic you have to say that there is intelligent deign. Really? Show me ONE single published, peer-review paper that concludes that the laws (no moral laws, don't get that confused.) of physics were intelligently designed. Oh, and from a reputable source, not some creationist journal - that is obviously trying to push its creationsit agenda. I mean, if what you're claiming is even remotely accurate, then physics journals would be stock full of papers confirming the evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer. You're once again not getting what I'm saying. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE MATTER CAME FROM. To say that it was an intelligent designer is stupid, there's absolutely no empirical evidence to support that. You can't say "Everything is evidence, herp derp.", because how could you possibly falsify something like that? The entuire universe could be made out of jelly and ice cream and you could always use the exact same arguments. It's irrational. If we knew, do you think we'd be building massive particle accelerators spanning multiple countries? Just don't be so arrogant as to assume you know - you don't. You don't know that there was a creator, you don't know that the universe is a creation and you don't know that it's Allah. There's absolutely no evidence to support that. Real evidence. There's also no possible way to falsify it. You're assuming that everythign was created. Just saying it as if it's blatently obvious, yet there's clearly no evidence to support this, otherwise it'd've been published in a journal, and the person who published it would be up there with the likes of Darwin, Newton, Galileo, Pasteur or Einstein. Two words - NATURAL PROCESS. The bird is "not of design", as in, it wasn't consciously designed. The wright brothers flew in 1903. We've been flying for little over 100 years. Nature's had ~3.8 billion years. The bird had a bit of a headstart. It found a way to survive, and genetic mutation and natural selection expanded on those ways to survive. The more useful adaptations survived. Absolutely no need or requirement for a god of the gapes. Here's those two words, again, just incase you forgot them: NATURAL PROCESS. And yes, we HAVE EVIDENCE in the form of Microraptor, and Archeopteryx, off the top of my head. There's more, though.
  21. Concept Of Hell

    At which stage does Allah come into play? Did he cause the Big Bang? How do you know this? Because NO ONE knows what caused the big bang. All you have is a book written by bronze age desert nomads and goat herders, and faith. Faith is gullibility masquerading as a virtue - blind belief in that which is either unsupported by, or contradicted by, evidence.
  22. Concept Of Hell

    You're missing the point entirely. My position is "I do not know how the universe was formed.". I know what happened after the big bang, the universe began to cool and expand. Before the big bang? No idea. Is the questio "What happened before the big bang" even the right thing to ask? No idea. I don't need a God of the Gaps for answers, I'd rather say "I don't know." than say I do know and be wrong. The point is, I fail to see any intelligent design behind anything. We can explain how stars form, how galaxies and planets form we can explain a lot NATURALLY, without the need of a deity of any description. The things we don't know, we say we don't know and we try to find out, we don't need to make up gods and myths and fables to explain it, because they're just stories, they explain nothing to any degree of accuracy. It's YOU making 2 assertions. You're both asserting that there was intelligence behind and AND that previously mentioned intelligence was Allah. I'm rejecting both statements. If I were to assert that the universe always existed, you'd reject that. If I were to assert that there was intelligence behind it, and that intelligence was Homer Simpson, you'd also reject that, and in both instances you'd be right to unless I can provide evidence to back those statements up. You're essentially saying "The universe exists, so it must've been made by Allah." You have to provide evidence to your assertions, otherwise they're worthless. I follow my lineage back, past my mother and father, past my grand parents, my great great great grandparents, and eventually I get to Homo Erectus. I go back further and I get to Homo Habilis. Further still and eventually I arrive at Homo Heidelbergensis. Then Australopithicus, then Ardipithicus, then through Great Apes, then Old World Moneys, then Euarchonta, then these mammals get smaller and more reptillian as time goes back until we arrive at mammal-like reptiles, or synapsids. Keep going back and we have reptiles, then amphibians, then fish, then Cnidarians, then sponges, then the cohanoflagellates, single celled organisms that can become multicellular, then the first simle eukaryotes (Cells with a cell wall), then beyond that lipids containing primitive genetic molecules, then just chemicals floating around an ocean. I could go on right up until the big bang, and the difference between us? I can provide evidence for any one of those transitions. You say "Science proves it's an intelligent force" and to refer to your earlier post, but I see no science, no reasoning, just blind assertions that you accept an automatic. Pseudoscientific at best.
  23. Camel Urine As Medicine

    Drinking camel urine to cure... well... anything is nonsense. It's no different from homeopathy, only more harmful. Just another "alternate medicine" with no basis in actual science.
  24. Concept Of Hell

    Why would anyone disbelieve? How about ridiculous assertions with absolutely no evidence to back it up? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I refuse to believe Allah even exists until such evidence can be provided that proves the existence of Allah beyond reasonable doubt. He created me? Prove it. Also, I'd expect my children to serve themselves, and make their lives happy and worth living. Children aren't servants. It's a sick person that enjoys the screaming and suffering of others. That would make you a sadist. Except you have no evidence to support that claim.
  25. Darwinism Refuted

    1) How can you show that there was "nothing" to begin with? 2/3) Atoms are not alive in themselves, but they can combine to form chemical structures that are alive. Case in point - You're entirely made up of atoms. 4) Can you show that you can never get life from inanimate objects? Can you show, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it's completely impossible for life to arise from non-life? Because evidence shows that it would be possible, given the right circumstances.