Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Skavau

Torture In Hell

Recommended Posts

If God is a tyrant, Skavau, then you must be the insolent child who only seeks to do as he pleases, without any regard for the rules.

 

So belief is not a choice, and nor is it also vindictive by nature. I might be an Atheist, but I am not an Atheist because of a 'hatred of belief' or 'arrogance' or 'denial' or for any other rhetoric that some theists like to pretend I am, but I am an Atheist because I contest the existence of a God.

 

Wrong. You don't "contest the existance of God". You REFUSE to consider the possibility of His existance. Refer back to page one.

 

Belief is not a choice? Why, I suppose belief is like the arrow from Cupid's bow that, when it strikes you, you are automatically changed without a personal choice, right? Rubbish. People make the choice to seek guidance, to believe in Islam, and to reject it. YOU made the choice to remain an atheist.

 

You don't have a right to not be 'offended'.

 

Says who? You? How convincing.

 

The actual questions are or can be: What is the universe? What are the origins of the universe? Is there an origin to the universe? We do not have enough information at all to presume that it was created.

 

Wrong. Those are YOUR questions, which are very irrelevant to other people.

 

This is a inaccurate analogy. To reconcile it with what you're referring it to - I would actually have no knowledge of working for 'Mr A'. No-one ever told me that I was working for him. Also to reconcile your assertion there with that of Allah, Mr A would also have a policy of punishing those who do not work for him. Seeing that Mr A did not tell me or I did not see any evidence that I was working with him and seeing how Mr A knew that I had no knowledge of working for him it would be irrational for Mr A to expect me to work for him. Seeing also that he has a policy of torture for those who do not work for him, I wouldn't actually want to work with him.

 

That is a comparable analogy with Allah. And it does not look good.

 

This is also an inaccurate analogy. In the correct scenario, we would have to assume that "Mr A" created you, created everything around you, and has complete and irrevocable control over your fate. "Mr A" owes you no alliances, no obligations, he has every right to do as he pleases with you.

 

Now can you expect to gain anything if you are not willing to work for it? You can say "Oh, what a tyrant" or "I refuse to abide", does that give you power to change your future circumstances? Think on it.

No. Only if you broke any laws. Ignoring the laws doesn't matter.

 

Uhh, it does. Ignoring the laws of say, seatbelts matter. Ignoring the laws of drunk driving matter. Need I go on?

 

What problems do you speak of precisely? The above paragraph presumes that I actually believe Islam is the case but cannot believe it. This is false. My own belief is that Islam is simply another religion. It has no more significance than Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism in terms of claims to the absolute truth. hat reason do I have to pick Islam first over other beliefs? What reason do I have to study any beliefs at all?

 

As brother ###### has been saying, ignorance is no excuse. Neither is a complete and utter refusal to seek the truth. And you think that you personally don't deserve punishment in Hell for refusing to study Islam to discover for yourself? If you only knew how retarded that sounds.

And I am not saying Allah is cruel, because I do not believe in Allah. I am saying torture for thought crimes is fundamentally morally wrong.

 

Again, says who? "I believe, therefore it is"?

 

Also, you are wrong. People ARE punished for their thoughts. Take the example of a man who plans to kill someone, but is captured before he goes through with it. You should at least understand what you imply.

There is no such thing as Secular Law. Secularism is just a principle.

 

Thank God for that.

 

They can insult and slander Islam all they like.

 

And Allah can punish those who disbelieve all He likes.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
So you atheists do not have enough information at all to presume that the universe was created which means you atheists have limited knowledge about the universe.

We all have limited knowledge about the universe. Some of us just pretend that we do not.

 

Now please tell me what or who caused the BIG Bang to happen.

You mean what initiated the state of affairs leading up to the Big Bang? The universe that existed before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If God is a tyrant, Skavau, then you must be the insolent child who only seeks to do as he pleases, without any regard for the rules.

Perhaps, perhaps not. My position is somewhat irrelevant here. Laws only become worthy of regarding as meaningful if they are just and no law is inherently just in and of itself. I am arguing here that the punishment for disobeying God's laws is infinitely unjust and the laws themselves unenforceable and unrealistic (unless God intends to change the rules of existence).

 

Wrong. You don't "contest the existance of God". You REFUSE to consider the possibility of His existance. Refer back to page one.

This is a presumption on your behalf. You do not know what I consider or do not consider. How do you know that I do not consider the possibility of a God? Even so, if I did not how would it change the fact that my belief is not a choice?

 

Belief is not a choice? Why, I suppose belief is like the arrow from Cupid's bow that, when it strikes you, you are automatically changed without a personal choice, right? Rubbish. People make the choice to seek guidance, to believe in Islam, and to reject it. YOU made the choice to remain an atheist.

You obviously are not understanding what I mean when I say belief is not a choice. Could you now decide to just become a Christian or a Hindu through choice? Would you sincerely believe that Jesus died for the sins of mankind? I would suspect the answer is no. The only time that you could change your belief would be when you were presented with evidence (satisfactory for yourself, of course) that Jesus died for the sins of mankind.

 

Similarly, I cannot just choose to be a Muslim or a Hindu. I need to be convinced of their validity. You were right in one thing though, guidance is an individual choice - but it comes with a motivation. I could choose to actively pursue Islam with the intent of becoming a Muslim. But if I was not convinced of the truth of Islam after searching Islam, I would not be a Muslim. I cannot change that. More often than not, apostates of many religions find it hard to let go of their beliefs. They find that they have no choice but to apostate because their beliefs have changed. To remain a Muslim in circumstances such as that is to be dishonest.

 

Says who? You? How convincing.

Can you point to any evidence in UK Law that says everyone has the right to not be offended?

 

Wrong. Those are YOUR questions, which are very irrelevant to other people.

Possibly. But the questions I asked there are the most reasonable. They do not conclude anything. To ask 'Who created the universe?' already concludes that it was created.

 

This is also an inaccurate analogy. In the correct scenario, we would have to assume that "Mr A" created you, created everything around you, and has complete and irrevocable control over your fate. "Mr A" owes you no alliances, no obligations, he has every right to do as he pleases with you.

Mr. A here has the power to do whatever he wants to me. What he does to me does not equal what is right, unless the definition of morality becomes arbitrary and completely subjective.

 

Now can you expect to gain anything if you are not willing to work for it? You can say "Oh, what a tyrant" or "I refuse to abide", does that give you power to change your future circumstances? Think on it.

No it doesn't. I fail to see how this is defending the apparent 'moral righteousness' of eternal torture in hell? You appear to just be saying 'Deal with it'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continued:

 

Uhh, it does. Ignoring the laws of say, seatbelts matter. Ignoring the laws of drunk driving matter. Need I go on?

Conceded.

 

As brother ###### has been saying, ignorance is no excuse. Neither is a complete and utter refusal to seek the truth.

What is the truth? To you it might be Islam, but to me I see a lot of claims to the truth. On what basis do I have to search Islam over all the other proclamations to the truth?

 

And you think that you personally don't deserve punishment in Hell for refusing to study Islam to discover for yourself? If you only knew how retarded that sounds.

Since when has apathy been reason for eternal torture?

 

Again, says who? "I believe, therefore it is"?

Says me. I said it. Respond to the content of my post, don't focus on me.

 

Also, you are wrong. People ARE punished for their thoughts. Take the example of a man who plans to kill someone, but is captured before he goes through with it. You should at least understand what you imply.

Does the individual in this scenario take action to proceed with his plan? Or is it simply 'thoughts'? Because I would imagine a court would have trouble with punishing someone for malicious thoughts. Moreover, presuming the above to be true - it is the intent of his thoughts that would lead him to that position and it is only the intent that matters here.

 

And Allah can punish those who disbelieve all He likes.

If Allah exists, yes.

 

But it doesn't make it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps, perhaps not. My position is somewhat irrelevant here. Laws only become worthy of regarding as meaningful if they are just and no law is inherently just in and of itself.

 

And my position is that it is easy to make judgements about anyone and anything and to state your beliefs, but that doesn't mean your opinion is universally accepted.

 

I am arguing here that the punishment for disobeying God's laws is infinitely unjust and the laws themselves unenforceable and unrealistic (unless God intends to change the rules of existence).

 

And how do you know that the punishment for disobeying God's laws is infinitely unjust? Because you believe it is?

 

If you are God's creation, then you have absolutely no rights. You have no right to demand fair treatment, you have no right to expect a reward. Do you know what would be unjust? If God created us and then simply threw us in Hell. THAT is unjust. You are confusing "just" and "unconditional".

 

This is a presumption on your behalf. You do not know what I consider or do not consider. How do you know that I do not consider the possibility of a God?

 

If you do in fact consider the possibility of God, then I have no right to say otherwise.

 

You obviously are not understanding what I mean when I say belief is not a choice. Could you now decide to just become a Christian or a Hindu through choice? Would you sincerely believe that Jesus died for the sins of mankind? I would suspect the answer is no. The only time that you could change your belief would be when you were presented with evidence (satisfactory for yourself, of course) that Jesus died for the sins of mankind.

 

Not exactly. If I distance myself from God, do not pray, do not fast, and lose contact with anything Islamic, I WILL lose my belief. Slowly, but surely. In the same way that if I do not refresh my mind constantly concerning a subject, I will slowly forget.

 

However, losing belief would be a product of my own choice, which is the above.

 

Similarly, I cannot just choose to be a Muslim or a Hindu.

 

You cannot BE a Muslim unless you wish to be one. God only guides those who seek guidance.

 

To remain a Muslim in circumstances such as that is to be dishonest.

 

Because you wouldn't be a Muslim at that point. Being a Muslim is a state of belief, losing that belief means you are no longer a Muslim.

 

You've already made it clear that you have no intention of pursuing Islam, so I'll leave it at that.

 

Can you point to any evidence in UK Law that says everyone has the right to not be offended?

 

Can you point to any evidence in the Qur'an that any person has the right to offend others? Or that no one has the right to feel offended? Just as the laws in the Qur'an have no relevance to you, using UK as an example isn't going to sway me either.

 

But to say that there is a universal, unwritten rule that offending people is "Okay" is a bit farfetched.

 

Possibly. But the questions I asked there are the most reasonable. They do not conclude anything. To ask 'Who created the universe?' already concludes that it was created.

 

The complexity (and perfection) of this universe takes some of us beyond the question of "Was it created?"

 

Mr. A here has the power to do whatever he wants to me. What he does to me does not equal what is right, unless the definition of morality becomes arbitrary and completely subjective.

 

Heh, I'm pretty sure that the definition of morality has always been subjective. Otherwise we would have a clear cut definition of right and wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it doesn't. I fail to see how this is defending the apparent 'moral righteousness' of eternal torture in hell? You appear to just be saying 'Deal with it'.

 

You are judging God, who gave us our intellect and cognition skills, based on what you define as being "morally right" or "morally wrong". I find this odd.

 

That aside, what exactly IS "moral righteousness"? And who decides what is moral or immoral?

What is the truth? To you it might be Islam, but to me I see a lot of claims to the truth. On what basis do I have to search Islam over all the other proclamations to the truth?

 

And how would you know that it isn't the truth unless you try it yourself?

 

Since when has apathy been reason for eternal torture?

 

I can list dozens of scenarios in which apathy would be punishable by western laws. Nonetheless, if you were created for the sole purpose of worshipping God, what should happen if you don't fulfill your duties?

 

Says me. I said it. Respond to the content of my post, don't focus on me.

 

Exactly. Says you. And who wrote the content of your post, if not you? Should I be speaking to the content of your post? "Dear content of the post, whose opinion is this?" Heh.

 

Does the individual in this scenario take action to proceed with his plan? Or is it simply 'thoughts'? Because I would imagine a court would have trouble with punishing someone for malicious thoughts. Moreover, presuming the above to be true - it is the intent of his thoughts that would lead him to that position and it is only the intent that matters here.

 

I'm pretty sure that if we had the capabilities to know the thoughts of human beings right before they committed crimes, we would be arresting them for it.

 

To reject God and die in such a state is the worst thing a human being can do. And who knows our thoughts better than an omniscient being?

 

If Allah exists, yes.

 

But it doesn't make it right.

 

Nor does it make it wrong.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And my position is that it is easy to make judgements about anyone and anything and to state your beliefs, but that doesn't mean your opinion is universally accepted.

Yes.

 

And how do you know that the punishment for disobeying God's laws is infinitely unjust? Because you believe it is?

I don't 'know' whether the punishment for disobeying God's laws is infinitely unjust, for I do not know the punishment (if any) for doing so. If it is eternal torture in hell then I would very much assert that it is unjust.

 

If you are God's creation, then you have absolutely no rights.

It is good then that I do not believe I have no rights and neither am I Gods creation. I would very much resent an existence where I am being controlled by a cosmic arbiter.

 

You have no right to demand fair treatment, you have no right to expect a reward.

Where in this argument are you arguing about justice in eternal torture in hell?

 

Do you know what would be unjust? If God created us and then simply threw us in Hell. THAT is unjust. You are confusing "just" and "unconditional".

God would be unjust if he threw us into hell after creation. God would also be unjust if he put people into hell for eternal torture for disbelieving in him.

 

Not exactly. If I distance myself from God, do not pray, do not fast, and lose contact with anything Islamic, I WILL lose my belief. Slowly, but surely. In the same way that if I do not refresh my mind constantly concerning a subject, I will slowly forget.

Changing your actions towards your (or a) religion takes a conscious effort, that is true. But actually believing in a religion (or not), is no more a choice than concluding that you exist.

 

However, losing belief would be a product of my own choice, which is the above.

In that example, your choice to ignore your beliefs demands was a choice. How your beliefs change as a consequence of this is different. If I decided to pursue Islam and started reading up on Islam, whatever my intentions - my conclusion on Islam would not be through choice, but through my interpretation of the knowledge I have gained through it.

 

Could you or could you not decide to become a Christian now, sincerely? If the answer is no then belief is not a choice.

 

You cannot BE a Muslim unless you wish to be one. God only guides those who seek guidance.

Even if you wish to be a Muslim, there is no guarantee you will be one. I might for example be really interested in Scientology - and strive to believe in it. But if I cannot reconcile my desires of being a Scientologist with believing Scientology is true, then I could not be a Scientologist. I could only at best pretend to be one.

 

Because you wouldn't be a Muslim at that point. Being a Muslim is a state of belief, losing that belief means you are no longer a Muslim.

Precisely. And apostates from religion could not control their belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you point to any evidence in the Qur'an that any person has the right to offend others? Or that no one has the right to feel offended? Just as the laws in the Qur'an have no relevance to you, using UK as an example isn't going to sway me either.

What do you want me to say? There is no right not to be offended where I live. ###### said that Muslims have been offended under Secular Law and their rights have been transgressed. I pointed out that that right never existed under Secular Law and then you ask me where it exists in the Quran?

 

Were you following the context?

 

But to say that there is a universal, unwritten rule that offending people is "Okay" is a bit farfetched.

Yes. But I never said that. Nor did I say it was okay.

 

The complexity (and perfection) of this universe takes some of us beyond the question of "Was it created?"

You conclude again that there is perfection in the universe. We really know very little about the universe, so the questions would still remain: What is the universe? What are the origins of the universe? Is there an origin of the universe?

 

You are judging God, who gave us our intellect and cognition skills, based on what you define as being "morally right" or "morally wrong". I find this odd.

Actually, I'm judging the notion of sending someone to hell for eternity for getting their conclusions on existence wrong. This 'God' person to me is just a concept. I am trying to reconcile the supposed omnibenevolence of this concept of God and eternal torture in hell for thought-crimes.

 

That aside, what exactly IS "moral righteousness"? And who decides what is moral or immoral?

No-one does. Moral standards do. According to your belief (and you have demonstrated this), God simply decides what is and what is not. Morality just becomes in control of a cosmic arbiter.

 

And how would you know that it isn't the truth unless you try it yourself?

I won't. But then how would I know the truth of all other religions unless I try them?

 

I can list dozens of scenarios in which apathy would be punishable by western laws.

Can we have some?

 

Nonetheless, if you were created for the sole purpose of worshipping God, what should happen if you don't fulfill your duties?

I don't know. That depends on who God is. If I was created for that sole purpose though, I would very much resent the purpose of my existence. I would feel like a sockpuppet.

 

I'm pretty sure that if we had the capabilities to know the thoughts of human beings right before they committed crimes, we would be arresting them for it.

I fear that would happen, yes.

 

To reject God and die in such a state is the worst thing a human being can do. And who knows our thoughts better than an omniscient being?

Why is it the worst thing to happen to a human being? Why is eternal torture a proportionate response to that? Your only reason for that question appears to be 'Might equals right'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R: Uhh, it does. Ignoring the laws of say, seatbelts matter. Ignoring the laws of drunk driving matter. Need I go on?

 

S: Conceded.

 

Don't know why you conceded that. This is a quibble, but your point was that ignoring a law is not a problem unless you break it. If that distinction is worth making then it doesn't necessarily follow that ignoring the seatbelt laws mean that you don't wear a seatbelt. You might wear one because you know it makes you safer, not because the law tells you to. My behaviour conforms with the law not (wholly) because I choose to obey the law, but because my choice of good behaviour and the laws' coincides.

Edited by fallow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We all have limited knowledge about the universe. Some of us just pretend that we do not.

 

How come you claim that God does not exist when you admit that you all have limited knowledge about the universe etc? If you lived in ancient time, would you believe me if I said that atoms,electrons, protons,neutrons, photon, germs, viruses etc exist?

 

You mean what initiated the state of affairs leading up to the Big Bang? The universe that existed before.

 

Can you tell me about the universe that existed before and how it initiated the state of affairs leading up to the Big Bang?

Edited by wiseguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How come you claim that God does not exist when you admit that you all have limited knowledge about the universe etc?

I say that there is no evidence to suppose God and therefore no reason to presume God. I do not know if God exists, after all - I don't know everything about the universe.

 

If you lived in ancient time, would you believe that atoms, germs, viruses etc exist?

Probably not.

 

Can you tell me about the universe that existed before and how it initiated the state of affairs leading up to the Big Bang?

Nobody knows. There is no understanding of events preceeding the Big-Bang. There is only speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I say that there is no evidence to suppose God and therefore no reason to presume God. I do not know if God exists, after all - I don't know everything about the universe.

 

Do you agree if I say that you do not exist because I have no evidence to suppose that you exist? I don't know if you exist, after all - I don't know everything nor everybody in the universe.

 

Probably not.

 

In ancient times, we did not know that germs, viruses, photons, atoms, neutrons, electrons, neutron exist because we could not detect them through our senses and our knowledge was very limited. In the modern times, we know they exist because we have enough knowledge and scientific facilities to detect their presence but our knowledge is still limited because we don't know nor understand so many things including some of our own diseases. Therefore it is wrong for you to deny the existence of God when your knowledge is very limited.

 

Nobody knows. There is no understanding of events preceeding the Big-Bang. There is only speculation.

 

So you admit that you have very limited knowledge. How can you deny the existence of God if you have very limited knowlege? Do you think that the universe exist spontaneously? Do you think that a piece of cake exist spontaneously? Do you think that your car exist spontaneously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you agree if I say that you do not exist because I have no evidence to suppose that you exist?

I don't agree with you, because there is evidence I do exist: Me. There is also evidence that shows I exist on this forum. I am currently typing to you right now.

 

Even if there was no evidence that I did exist, what would that show regarding God? There would still remain no evidence of God.

 

I don't know if you exist, after all - I don't know everything nor everybody in the universe.

But I am verifiable. I could give you information seeking me down and you could meet me, verifying my existence.

 

The same simply cannot be done with God.

 

In ancient times, we did not know that germs, viruses, photons, atoms, neutrons, electrons, neutron exist because we could not detect them through our senses and our knowledge was very limited. In the modern times, we know they exist because we have enough knowledge and scientific facilities to detect their presence but our knowledge is still limited because we don't know nor understand so many things including some of our own diseases. Therefore it is wrong for you to deny the existence of God when your knowledge is very limited.

Are you saying I should presume God exists because I lack knowledge or don't understand? When you relate it to things that we have discovered that we did not previously believe in, you assume that God will be discovered. I do not assume that.

 

So you admit that you have very limited knowledge. How can you deny the existence of God if you have very limited knowlege?

I do not deny the existence of God. I do not see any evidence of a God and therefore there is no reason to presume a God.

 

Do you think that the universe exist spontaneously?

No.

 

Do you think that a piece of cake exist spontaneously?

No.

 

Do you think that your car exist spontaneously?

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Skavau)

 

I don't agree with you, because there is evidence I do exist: Me. There is also evidence that shows I exist on this forum. I am currently typing to you right now.

 

Even if there was no evidence that I did exist, what would that show regarding God? There would still remain no evidence of God.

 

QUOTE (Skavau)

 

But I am verifiable. I could give you information seeking me down and you could meet me, verifying my existence.

 

The same simply cannot be done with God.

 

How do I know that you exist? I never meet you, I haven't seen you and there is no evidence that you exist! What is your evidence that shows you do exist? To me, you do not exist!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sl:

 

Please keep on topic. Feel free to start a new, separate topic to discuss whatever you feel like discussing, but not here please. Going off-topic is a violation of IF rules, and is not fair to the topic starter.

Thank you for helping us better organize IF. :sl:

 

 

Edit: Dear valued members. Please refer to the first post, and if you want another topic to discuss whether God exist or not, then please open a new thread for it. Members will be warned for going off topic after this reminder. So please stay ON TOPIC.

 

Thank you for your understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a place to start. You can attend lectures, you can take Islamic courses, you can read the Qur'an and study its meaning. You can do all of this with the intention of being guided to the righteous path.

 

Why Islam first? Why not all beliefs? That is the only sincere way. Your method is not a search for the truth but simply a search for Islam. Someone sincere looking for a 'righteous path' would not decide beforehand that Islam was that path, nor would he or she exclusively search for Islam. He or she would inquire to all beliefs.

 

agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do I know that you exist? I never meet you, I haven't seen you and there is no evidence that you exist! What is your evidence that shows you do exist? To me, you do not exist!

My user profile on here is my evidence. We could verify my existence by arranging you to meet with me.

 

Moreover, what does this have to do with anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My user profile on here is my evidence. We could verify my existence by arranging you to meet with me.

 

Moreover, what does this have to do with anything?

 

Can you tell me how your user profile is your evidence? So far all of my senses fail to detect your existence because you are invisible to me so I believe that you do not exist. I am afraid that it would be too late for me to meet you to verify your existence after believing that you do not exist for years. Can you tell me how can I know that you exist without meeting you personally?

Edited by wiseguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you tell me how your user profile is your evidence?

My user profile and my posts are evidence that someone exists behind it. Someone made it.

 

So far all of my senses fail to detect your existence because you are invisible to me so I believe that you do not exist.

Your senses pick up that you are typing to someone. You can infer from there.

 

I am afraid that it would be too late for me to meet you to verify your existence after believing that you do not exist for years. Can you tell me how can I know that you exist without meeting you personally?

I could point you to pictures of me, or initiate a webcam chat on Msn, or a voice chat on Msn.

 

You cannot conclude however for certain - this is all only evidence for my existence and at the moment - it is all down to trusting that I am who I say I am. Do you have reason to doubt?

 

What does this have to do with anything, by the way - most all of, to do with the existence of God?

Edited by Skavau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't 'know' whether the punishment for disobeying God's laws is infinitely unjust, for I do not know the punishment (if any) for doing so. If it is eternal torture in hell then I would very much assert that it is unjust.

 

And I will argue that it is not unjust.

 

Where in this argument are you arguing about justice in eternal torture in hell?

 

Uhh, did I not already make it clear that your definition of "justice" is not agreed upon by us? Who are you to argue that refusing to fulfill the duties that you were created for is nothing remarkable? You have absolutely no idea the severity of any act, and the punishment it deserves, let alone disbelief. You are calculating things based upon your own scale of "just" and "unjust", not the scale of God.

 

God would be unjust if he threw us into hell after creation. God would also be unjust if he put people into hell for eternal torture for disbelieving in him.

 

God would be unjust if He threw us in hell, and left it at that. God is just by giving us a choice between belief and disbelief, especially when our sole purpose in life is to believe.

 

Changing your actions towards your (or a) religion takes a conscious effort, that is true. But actually believing in a religion (or not), is no more a choice than concluding that you exist.

 

Belief and disbelief are a result of conscious efforts (or lack thereof). Belief is contingent upon effort, which we control. Belief is not something that you gain or lose without your own influence. Therefore, belief is a choice.

 

Could you or could you not decide to become a Christian now, sincerely? If the answer is no then belief is not a choice.

 

Uhh, what? How is belief not a choice if I choose NOT to become a Christian? I have no desire or motivation to seek belief in Christianity. Therefore, my belief in Islam is my choice.

 

Even if you wish to be a Muslim, there is no guarantee you will be one. I might for example be really interested in Scientology - and strive to believe in it. But if I cannot reconcile my desires of being a Scientologist with believing Scientology is true, then I could not be a Scientologist. I could only at best pretend to be one.

 

There is absolute guarantee that you will become a Muslim if your sole ambition is to be guided on the path of righteousness. No if's, or's, and but's about it.

 

Precisely. And apostates from religion could not control their belief.

 

Oh, but they can. Their disbelief is a result of something that they themselves either did, or neglected to do.

 

You conclude again that there is perfection in the universe. We really know very little about the universe, so the questions would still remain: What is the universe? What are the origins of the universe? Is there an origin of the universe?

 

The universe IS perfect from all that we know of it. Otherwise, even the smallest error (and I mean a billionth of an error) in the Big Bang, in the distance of our Earth from the sun, in the size and shape of the Earth, would have potential to result in our nonexistance.

 

Actually, I'm judging the notion of sending someone to hell for eternity for getting their conclusions on existence wrong.

 

Based on what? A universal scale of right and wrong? Or your perceptions of it?

 

No-one does. Moral standards do. According to your belief (and you have demonstrated this), God simply decides what is and what is not. Morality just becomes in control of a cosmic arbiter.

 

Moral standards created by who? Society? Whose society?

 

And of course God decides what is or is not. No questions about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I won't. But then how would I know the truth of all other religions unless I try them?

 

Then by all means, go and try them. Do anything besides speaking of what-if scenarios that you yourself have never experienced.

 

Can we have some?

 

A mother who has complete and utter apathy concerning her child, to the point where she neglects even the basic duties. A bystander who has no care whatsoever that someone is being murdered right in front of him.

 

I fear that would happen, yes.

 

There is also the issue that it would save countless lives. Who knows.

 

Why is it the worst thing to happen to a human being?

 

I didn't say the worst thing to happen to a human being. I said the worst thing a human can do.

 

Your only reason for that question appears to be 'Might equals right'.

 

Nope. My only response so far is that it IS fair.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't know why you conceded that. This is a quibble, but your point was that ignoring a law is not a problem unless you break it. If that distinction is worth making then it doesn't necessarily follow that ignoring the seatbelt laws mean that you don't wear a seatbelt. You might wear one because you know it makes you safer, not because the law tells you to. My behaviour conforms with the law not (wholly) because I choose to obey the law, but because my choice of good behaviour and the laws' coincides.

 

Incorrect. You are speaking of certain situations in which a person might ignore the seatbelt law but still wear a seatbelt for safety (which sounds ridiculous in its own right), but you are not considering all of the other situations in which a person neither cares for their safety, nor for the law itself. Ergo, ignoring a law can result in breaking it.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I will argue that it is not unjust.

Okay.

 

Uhh, did I not already make it clear that your definition of "justice" is not agreed upon by us?

Yes. But your argument appears to just an assertion of might equals right.

 

Who are you to argue that refusing to fulfill the duties that you were created for is nothing remarkable?

Someone with the ability to do so. That is all that matters. Moreover, my argument is that these 'duties' I have been created for (under the Islamic world view) are duties in which the creator would be irrational in expecting everyone to commit themselves to them with present case existence.

 

You have absolutely no idea the severity of any act, and the punishment it deserves, let alone disbelief. You are calculating things based upon your own scale of "just" and "unjust", not the scale of God.

This can be summed up as basically saying 'God is exempt from criticism'.

 

God would be unjust if He threw us in hell, and left it at that. God is just by giving us a choice between belief and disbelief, especially when our sole purpose in life is to believe.

God under an Islamic world view has always known that the majority of people would not believe in him for many reasons (mostly around the lack oevidence for God's existence). God is also aware that belief is not a choice that an individual can make, only motives are a choice and yet you are saying that God punishes specific beliefs in and of themselves rather than an individuals motives leading up to those beliefs.

 

Belief and disbelief are a result of conscious efforts (or lack thereof). Belief is contingent upon effort, which we control. Belief is not something that you gain or lose without your own influence. Therefore, belief is a choice.

Belief is gained through your own choices, to an extent. If I choose to study Hinduism but conclude that it is incorrect - I cannot change that belief. That is just what my mind concluded.

 

Uhh, what? How is belief not a choice if I choose NOT to become a Christian? I have no desire or motivation to seek belief in Christianity. Therefore, my belief in Islam is my choice.

The point is that you could not just suddenly decide sincerely to believe in Christianity, purely on the basis you do not believe in its claims. You do not believe that Christianity is the truth and you cannot just arbitrarily believe the claims of Christianity. The same is with me - I cannot just decide to believe in Islam or Hinduism or any religion out there. I need to be convinced.

 

There is absolute guarantee that you will become a Muslim if your sole ambition is to be guided on the path of righteousness. No if's, or's, and but's about it.

Do you mean that:

 

1. Whoever strives towards Islam (even if they don't believe in it) will be considered a Muslim.

2. Whoever strives towards Islam will conclude Islam.

 

Oh, but they can. Their disbelief is a result of something that they themselves either did, or neglected to do.

This is pure arrogance. You have no idea what apostates go through. They often go through incredibly difficult times coming to terms with the reality of their disbelief in a religion they have previously held through their life or fighting the reality of said scenario that they can no longer sincerely believe in their religion.

 

They cannot control what they have concluded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The universe IS perfect from all that we know of it.

This is false. The simple destruction on earth through natural disasters is enough to conclude imperfection. The destruction that meteorites cause on planets is not what I would call perfect. A list of impact craters on the moon would literally take up pages. For a perfect universe, things seem to crash into each other a lot.

 

Otherwise, even the smallest error (and I mean a billionth of an error) in the Big Bang, in the distance of our Earth from the sun, in the size and shape of the Earth, would have potential to result in our nonexistance.

Possibly. There has been an infinite amount of time or an infinite amount of wisdom behind it though, so rather than being a rather large improbability - more accurately it would be a complete certainty.

 

Based on what? A universal scale of right and wrong? Or your perceptions of it?

It is first based on the notion that a specific conclusion on reality does not in any way form a good reason for any kind of punishment. A conclusion on reality is something that is reached sincerely and it is a conclusion which is ultimately harmless. Actions, not thoughts form the basis of punishment.

 

Secondly, it is based on the assertion that eternal punishment for a conclusion reached in a life-time is completely disproportionate to the 'crime' committed. Also considering not just eternal punishment but the uncivilised manner of punishment (torture).

 

Thirdly, it is based on the assertion that the actual judge, jury and executioner (God) is ultimately at fault. I can elaborate on this if you so wish me to.

 

A mother who has complete and utter apathy concerning her child, to the point where she neglects even the basic duties. A bystander who has no care whatsoever that someone is being murdered right in front of him.

The first example you cite is a neglection of duty. When you bear a child you take it upon you to bring up that child.

 

The second example is not against the law.

 

I didn't say the worst thing to happen to a human being. I said the worst thing a human can do.

Why is it the worst thing a human being can do?

 

Nope. My only response so far is that it IS fair.

And your reasoning for that is 'God says it is fair therefore it is fair'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×