Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Crunchy Cat

Ask An American Atheist Anything You Like!

Recommended Posts

Why do you consider it a sickness to not accept the assertion 'God exists' as truth without any evidence?

Did you know life's purpose is to persist? Every life form on Earth shares that same purpose. On top of that humans have the ability to choose additional purpose to their lives. Some may want to advance science, others to to help people be all they can be, and some may want to share their creativity.

There is no evidence for the existence of resurrection or a day of judgment. It is immensly easy to anthropomorphize reality and accept dogma as truth. While it provides an easy path for various psychological satisfiers, it limits the ability to adapt, explore, understand, differentiate between what is real and what is not.

 

Your loss, not mine.

good luck living an artificial life of absolute no purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
There are absolutely no benefits of being an Atheist.

Doomed in both worlds.

 

I think you might be confusing atheism as being a philosophy instead of a non-acceptance of an assertion. The thought process that often leads to atheism has quite a bit of value however. It gives you an opportunity to significantly understand, adapt, and appreciate... and most (if not all) atheists I am aware of take full advantage of that opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your loss, not mine.

good luck living an artificial life of absolute no purpose.

 

Its sad when people don't recognize the purpose nature has given them and cannot choose / accept purpose otherwise unless it comes from an imaginary life form. It must be hard for you to value purpose so deeply that you feel compelled to sacrafice so much.

Edited by Crunchy Cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its sad when people don't recognize the purpose nature has given them and cannot choose / accept purpose otherwise unless it comes from an imaginary life form. It must be hard for you to value purpose so deeply that you feel compelled to sacrafice so much.

 

I find peace in Islam.

Good Luck. brother, Life in Islam is a Journey. A spiritual journey.

I hope one day, in the future you can Join Islam. I will leave you in Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find peace in Islam.

 

Do you value that peace more that truth?

 

Good Luck. brother, Life in Islam is a Journey. A spiritual journey.

 

Life in reality is an emergence distinguishing organisms from inorganic objects, i.e. non-life, and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

 

I hope one day, in the future you can Join Islam. I will leave you in Peace.

 

I would consider it, if Islam would remove its incorrect assertions about objective reality (or at the very least advertise them as fantasy for psychological purposes), would get out of government, and would stop indoctrinating children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:no:

 

Ask An American Atheist Anything You Like!

Anything?

 

Ok whats your real name? :j:

You don't have to say if you don't want to. :D

 

Crunchy Cat bet u go meeooow :sl:

 

I would consider it, if Islam would remove its incorrect assertions about objective reality (or at the very least advertise them as fantasy for psychological purposes), would get out of government, and would stop indoctrinating children.

 

What incorrect assertions?Expand on what you said above please?

 

Good to hear you would consider Islam. :D

 

:sl:

Edited by Aaqib Ahmed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:no:

Anything?

 

You bet.

 

Ok whats your real name? :j:

 

Ken

 

You don't have to say if you don't want to. :D

 

I know :D.

 

Crunchy Cat bet u go meeooow :sl:

 

I taste good too!

 

 

What incorrect assertions?Expand on what you said above please?

 

Lets take a simple incorrect assertion. The paranormal exists.

 

 

Good to hear you would consider Islam. :D

 

:sl:

 

Islam is really cool and I am attracted to several parts of the philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found something golden that I thought I would share. The Tawheed Institute hosted a debate between Muslim / Christian theists and atheists. If you want to fast foward to the good stuff it begins about 45% into the video where Dan Barker begins his presentation.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=2j0a4Tkjwps"]Theist Vs Atheist Debate: "Does God Not Exist" (Part 1 of 2) [/url]

Edited by Crunchy Cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I found something golden that I thought I would share. The Tawheed Institute hosted a debate between Muslim / Christian theists and atheists. If you want to fast foward to the good stuff it begins about 45% into the video where Dan Barker begins his presentation.

 

Theist Vs Atheist Debate: "Does God Not Exist" (Part 1 of 2)

 

Dan Barker's best arguments have been borrowed from Dawkins. (Not that there's anything wrong with that)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dan Barker's best arguments have been borrowed from Dawkins. (Not that there's anything wrong with that)

 

Heh, what better form of agreement than using the same arguments :sl:. There were a couple of assertions by the atheists that I don't necessarily agree with (ex. objective 'random' exists); however, for the vast majority of what was stated was right on track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh, what better form of agreement than using the same arguments :). There were a couple of assertions by the atheists that I don't necessarily agree with (ex. objective 'random' exists); however, for the vast majority of what was stated was right on track.

 

I must agree; Richard Carrier gets carried away with purely theoretical ideas (such as baby universes).

Objective random events however, do exist (it's fundamental to Quantum Theory).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must agree; Richard Carrier gets carried away with purely theoretical ideas (such as baby universes).

Objective random events however, do exist (it's fundamental to Quantum Theory).

 

That he does, but you have to love his desire to explore it :sl:. Are you sure about objective random existing? That would mean prediction would not be possible even if all variables were known and I am not sure that applies to any known phenomena. I would agree that there are many events humans subjectively consider random and often label various distributions (ex. chance distributions) as random.

 

The reason I am so picky about that word is often theists will try to use objective random against logic... and in those cases I have seen it is a matter of not knowing all the varaibles and relatonships involved in a very logical process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objective random does exist, yes. You've no doubt heard the famous quote by Einstein, "God does not play dice".

Well, he said this during the early stages of Quantum Theory (which he himself made numerous contributions to); as QT suggested that random events do exist. He had such difficulty grasping this idea of things not being deterministic (as does everyone), that he was convinced it was a mistake.

 

However, after several years of further research and experimentation, he became convinced, and retracted that statement (although, it wasn't publisized).

 

In fact, it's an interesting story...

 

Einstein, eager to disprove this idea (and some other fundamentals of QM), showed that if these seemingly-absurd theories were true, then it would be possible to entangle two (or more) particles (look up Quantum Entanglement).

He thought "Ah ha! Quantum Entanglement is absurd! I've got them now!".

However, after a load of experimentation, Quantum Entanglement was demonstrated in the lab!

 

 

The reason I am so picky about that word is often theists will try to use objective random against logic... and in those cases I have seen it is a matter of not knowing all the varaibles and relatonships involved in a very logical process

 

Ironically, the idea of Quantum Randomness practically prevents the intervention of God (Stephen Hawking explains this in his book "A Theory of Everything").

 

You should read a book on Quantum Theory ("The New Quantum Universe" by Hey and Walters is a classic; it's very interesting, covers numerous topics in QT, and is aimed mainly at laymen). In fact, I insist that you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Rationalist,

 

It is actually news to me that an objective phenomena of pure random does in fact exist. BTW, I am not new to quantum mechanics (superpositions, entaglement, wave function, Bosons, etc.). Would you mind showing me where in QT/QM objective random rears its head (whether they be experimental results or theory -I don't know if this site supports LaTex though so if it does not then skip the math-).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for my incorrect assumption.

 

What you want to look up is Bell's Theorem. It states that:

 

"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a beginning and there will be an End.

No one can deny that.

 

Just ask yourself, what happens to you when you die?

(hint: The life of this world comes to a close)

If you can make matter cease to exist I will worship you as a god. where does fire go when it goes out? how does fire manifest? when the correct phenomena are available fire manifests.

 

how does life manifest? when the correct number of phenomena exist. it is impossible to create or destroy energy, if this is true of every other force in the known unicerse then why wouldnt it be true of life?

 

I cant take credit for what i just said, this was a wonderful explanation given by the venerable Bikkhu Bodhi originally by the Buddha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry for my incorrect assumption.

 

No worries.

 

What you want to look up is Bell's Theorem. It states that:

 

"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics"

 

Ahhh, good ol' Bell's Theorem. When I used the phrase knowing all variables I wasn't referring to the non-existent local hidden variables. I was refering to any and all information present even if its simply a wave of probability. Anyhow, I do understand the singificance of Bell's Theorem with regards to QM remaining incomplete; however, it still isn't quite clear how it shows the existence of an objective random. I am probably missing a connection or test result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its sad when people don't recognize the purpose nature has given them and cannot choose / accept purpose otherwise unless it comes from an imaginary life form. It must be hard for you to value purpose so deeply that you feel compelled to sacrafice so much.

 

 

You know I think that there is a misunderstanding here with you and Zinc15. A misunderstanding as to the nature of what we may call 'God'. You say that God is 'an imaginary life form', but I think that this is a very naive and simplistic viewpoint, childlike even. Nevertheless this view (i.e. God as a 'life form') is widely held. I believe that God is actually closer to us than we generally might realise and that we are closer to God than we often can ever know. "He is closer than your jugular vein" is a quote that comes to mind. Also the processes of gradually removing of veils so that one comes closer and closer to 'The Truth' is a well established part of religious/mystical tradition not only in the world of Islam.

 

Hope this helps

 

kb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know I think that there is a misunderstanding here with you and Zinc15. A misunderstanding as to the nature of what we may call 'God'. You say that God is 'an imaginary life form', but I think that this is a very naive and simplistic viewpoint, childlike even.

 

I was intentionally trying to be a little more provocative with that statement; however, the words chosen don't change the meaning that external to the human mind, the claims people make of 'God' are false.

 

Nevertheless this view (i.e. God as a 'life form') is widely held. I believe that God is actually closer to us than we generally might realise and that we are closer to God than we often can ever know. "He is closer than your jugular vein" is a quote that comes to mind. Also the processes of gradually removing of veils so that one comes closer and closer to 'The Truth' is a well established part of religious/mystical tradition not only in the world of Islam.

 

Hope this helps

 

kb

 

Feeling that a veil is lefted vs. an objective veil being lifted are two very different things and we're dealing with the former. 'God' isn't a mystery to me however. It is an anthropomorphization of reality; hence, the reason why it ends up as a universal concept amongst humans (anthropomorphism is a very natural human trait).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feeling that a veil is lefted vs. an objective veil being lifted are two very different things and we're dealing with the former. 'God' isn't a mystery to me however. It is an anthropomorphization of reality; hence, the reason why it ends up as a universal concept amongst humans (anthropomorphism is a very natural human trait).

 

On the contrary, these 'veils' are quite objective. They stand between us and the truth and take the form of,what can later be seen as fantasies, lies, egotistic phenomenon of one sort or another etc. I'm sure you are familiar with psychological phenomenon 'mental blocks or blocking'. You do seem to be quite convinced that God isn't a mystery to you, in other words, as you say, 'He' is an anthropomorphism of reality. However anthropomorphism is only one of the concepts appertaining to human being's perception of 'God'. I think you will find that Islam is very strict about this and that Mohammed, like Moses, expressly forbids the worship of any idols or indeed the making of any 'graven images' intended to represent God. It may well be a natural human trait (anthropomorphism) but this doesn't make it right.

 

kb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually I know that anything that interacts with reality has a observable / measurable cause or effect. If there is another world overlapping with Earth then maintaining that overlap is going to require interaction. Where is the evidence for that interaction?

 

"Require"? Why do they need to require interaction?

 

I agree. When I am referring to entry and exit points I am talking about the effects of a Jinn entering and leaving this world. Expending energy (i.e. work) always leaves affects the environment. For example, consider an entry exit point of a gopher hole.

 

Why do you assume that they leave energy? If God creates a world that is entirely undetectable by human beings, would He make a simple mistake as making a creation that would leave traces of itself in our world?

 

Well, if Jinn die then they no longer have the ability to perform the work necessary to return to their world.

 

Or maybe they revert back to their former state on death. Or maybe they are so animal-like that it would be impossible to know the difference. Or maybe, or maybe, or maybe. There are many answers that could explain this.

 

Maybe not on the surface but to be a morphing life form their internals (all the way to to DNA) would be WAAAAAAY different. Thats just a biological truth.

 

We're talking about God, the creator of DNA and all living organs. Jinn were not created by a seperate being, one who is unfamiliar with the makeup of the human or animal body. Do you think God would be at loss to turn me, a human being, into an insect?

 

I see it as the Quran (indirectly people) making things up about reality.

 

It seems like you're making things up about reality also.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that everything paranormal always ends up in that category?

 

In what category?

That was done at the bottom of post #106.

 

You mean you have tangible, indisputable evidence that God doesn't exist? Or was that the post where you were saying "humans do this and that, therefore God does not exist"? I wouldn't call that proof.

 

Why would I make a flawed argument? I would however argue that in order to study something, there has to be something to study in the first place (i.e. a 'what' before the 'how' can be explored).

 

Why do you think we need to be able to study God, Satan, or Jinn? And if we can't study them, they don't exist?

 

Awesome. You just correctly asserted that 'good' and 'evil' don't objectively exist.

 

Seems like you jumped to a conclusion. Let me quote myself:

Can you expand on what you mean by objective features of reality? It sounds to me like you are asking if "good" and "bad" are independant aspects of reality that can be studied and formed opinions on. Which would be a no.

 

You cannot form your own opinions of what evil is and what good is. Both exist, and both are defined by God. Murder is evil. Murder exists. Can we have the opinion that murder is okay? No. Because God disagrees.

 

You are partially correct. What the Quran says about objective reality doesn't matter to me because I know it is vastly incorrect on that subject; however, that incorrectness is valuable to show others. The non-objective reality assertions of the Quran are very interesting to me.

 

Oh? The Qur'an is wrong about what you refer to as "objective reality"? Why do you make assumptions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't know that 'atheists' have some sort of special school?

 

But they do generally think alike, don't they?

A lack of objective evidence for a human claim of truth over a large sample size of claimants is strong evidence that the claim is false. There is no refuting that any way you look at it.

 

Sooo, that would still mean that lack of objective evidence to refute a human claim is strong evidence that the claim is true, right? We can't have double standards.

 

And who decides what is or isn't evidence? In my knowledge, lack of evidence is, as I've said before, nothing more than lack of evidence. The Muslim world agrees with me.

 

So what are you basing your theories on?

 

'Satan', 'God', 'Ghosts', 'Sprits', 'Angels', 'Jinn', 'Demons', 'Zombies', 'Magic', 'Psychic Powers', 'Vampires', 'Werewolves', etc. are all in the same category of non-existent. Basically the 'paranormal' isn't real.

 

Where is your proof that they don't exist? Opinions really aren't proof.

Truth is the conformity of a concept or notion in the mind to actual reality. Evidence, on the other hand, is a demonstration that a given reality is valid. The objective assertions in the Quran don't pan out in reality.

 

Truth is not dependent on objectivity or personal interpretation. It is entirely independent. Having no evidence to prove or disprove a thing does not mean that it does or doesn't exist.

 

I understand that. The goal of my thread was to enable you to explore my mind. Alot of people on this board interpreted that as a challenge rather than an opportunity for inquiry, but if thats how people want to perform their exploration then I am also ok with that.

 

I saw a topic such as this one that you had created a while back. It was definitely a lot less of a debate, and more of getting to know one another. But I saw a discussion going and couldn't resist.

 

I'm not trying to attack you, far from it. I'm just trying to show you that not everyone has the same opinions that you do.

 

I think that if a book of truth is written by an omnipotent life form, every single word should be true, but that is simply not the case.

 

Which words aren't true? The ones that you cannot prove are untrue?

 

Not in the least. Given the choice between a book and reality, I am going to go with reality.

 

You mean, your view of reality. Even if I were an atheist, I have a feeling that I would disagree with you about what reality really means.

 

I've had ant hills in my yards before. They utterly ignore people and invariable will attack (very inneffective against humans) if they are stomped on. There are other species of ants which are a little more proactive in their aggression. I've heard fire ants can be pretty mean.

 

Well then, there you have it. You've seen one type of ant, and I've seen an entirely different one. You have to also realize that ants are social creatures that interact with one another. If one of them were to sense danger, it wouldn't stand there stupidly or mindlessly attack. It would communicate with its comrades.

 

I don't need to study Islam to know thats what you believe. Of course if that were true then you could demonstrate it. Are there any prophets alive at present? If so, test to see if mammals, insects, etc. recognize them. If there aren't any prophets alive at present then are there remains of prophets at present? Repeat the test against the remains.

 

So you are saying that we dig up dead prophets to do a procedure? You do realize that Islam is against excavating of human remains? People are buried for a reason. Suggesting that we attempt to dig up the prophets of God is as horrific as suggesting killing people for their body parts.

 

Also, I said they recognize prophets of God. Don't be quick to assume I said "bone fragments or remains of prophets of God". Why do you assume that an animal would see a leg bone and think "yup, that's a prophet"? Maybe there is an attribute, a physical (I mean the walking, talking kind of physical, not a pile of bones) or spiritual aspect to prophets, that makes them recognizable? You're grasping at straws by assuming this and that should happen, when you don't even want to learn about Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I answered the correct question. I'll try paraphrasing.

 

* I can demonstrate that humans and ants cannot communicate with each other.

* I can demonstrate that ants cannot recognize human individual / group identity.

* Nobody can demonstrate the Quran documenting Solomon being given insect communication ability.

* Nobody can demonstrate the Quran documenting insects being given prophet identification ability.

 

The results of the above serve as a proof that Solomon did not communicate with ants.

 

*God created human beings and gave them all of their abilities.

*God created ants and gave them their abilities also.

*God created prophet Sulaiman and gave him abilities to communicate with animals that were never given to regular human beings.

 

The results of the above serve as proof that prophet Sulaiman communicated with ants.

I do deny that of course because its not my position. I know that anything that is claimed to exist must at the very least have a measurable effect.

 

Of course it's your position. That's all you've been arguing for all this time.

 

Well that wasn't an answer to my question but I'll certainly answer yours. During the times that my perception of reality is incorrect, it doesn't bother me because reality will correct it. Like I said, reality is THE authority on everything. For example, if I believed sticking my hand on a hot stove would not burn me then reality would quickly correct that incorrect perception.

 

To answer yours, I am human. God is my creator. God created reality. Who am I question Him?

For a generic concept of 'God' of course not. For all man-made claims of 'God' you bet. Those were all disproven in one fell swoop at the bottom of post #106.

 

There is no such thing as a man-made God. There is only God. Can you disprove Him without using theories and personal conclusions? Can you disprove Him without your opinions, but with concrete evidence? Because all I remember reading are your opinions.

 

Solomon hearing the conversation of the ants. It's a very simple contradiction with reality. There are many many more objective contradictions and flat out incorrect assertions. There are also philosophical contradictions as well; however, all that is needed is one... and the ants do just fine.

 

If God were to create a planet that is square and made of cotton candy, wouldn't that contradict with what you know is reality? Would that make it any less true? If God created a human being that can hear small ants, does that make it any less true because you have never seen such a phenomena yourself?

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Crunchy, could you confirm what you mean by "objective random"? I can't help but feel we're talking about two different things here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you disprove Him without using theories and personal conclusions? Can you disprove Him without your opinions, but with concrete evidence? Because all I remember reading are your opinions.

 

The onus is on the believer to prove what they believe, not the disbeliever to disprove it.

 

This was most famously demonstrated by Bertrand Russell (famous Mathematician/Logician/Philosopher/..); to quote him:

 

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

 

(Named "Russell's Teapot").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×