Jump to content
Islamic Forum
dot

Atheists: What Does It Take For You To Believe?

Recommended Posts

Again, you're evading the true topic at hand. And again, you have refused to enlighten us on your four marvelous sources of knowledge about the life of Muhammad (peace be upon him).

 

Theres nothing in particular to enlighten you about. I know enough to know that the paranormal is bunk and that invalidates any claims of it being true. I know enough to extract any value surrounding such claims and discard the rest.

 

 

Can the fish in the ocean demonstrate what is beyond or above the ocean?

 

You bet:

 

(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=m30U8TQXriQ"]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=m30U8TQXriQ[/url]

 

Now we're not asking you to produce "three billion" pages of the information required. You can start by reading Martin Lings' famous seerah Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources. You would also do better examining some of the works of Karen Armstrong and her studies on the Messenger of God (pbuh).

 

It won't kill you, nor take you a lifetime to learn.

 

010.039. But they repudiate what they cannot fully comprehend...

 

Does the book demonstrate the existence of the paranormal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
Theres nothing in particular to enlighten you about. I know enough to know that the paranormal is bunk and that invalidates any claims of it being true. I know enough to extract any value surrounding such claims and discard the rest.

 

Well, this is the final time I will ask you to produce your proof.

 

Can you demonstrate to us how much you know about the miraculous life of Muhammad (pbuh), from your compendium of "knowledge"?

 

You bet: (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=m30U8TQXriQ"]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=m30U8TQXriQ[/url]

 

You have given me a link showing a bunch of guys fishing, fishing in a river somewhere in Illinois. Well I'll be! I asked you if the little fishies at the very bottom of the ocean could observe or demonstrate the world of life above the ocean. The answer is obviously no.

 

Does the book demonstrate the existence of the paranormal?

 

Sure. The book will show and explain why Muhammad (pbuh) is actually a Messenger from God. Anyone who studies his marvelous life with an open mind is likely to embrace Islam with a passion. If you are bullheaded then nothing can convince you, and for that you have only yourself to blame.

 

So leave them in their error till a time. {23:54}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh, I use that tactic to draw people into a conversation sometimes. Attempt to assign guilt, pity, and a challenge of judgment. At least your honest in your desire to manipulate.

Popper's territory was philosophy not science. His claim to fame was the assertion that if it's not falsifiable then its not science... which is good. What I don't think he realized is that if something is not falsifiable then it's also not real :j:. He criticized inductionism alot but when you look at his examples, his criticism is really about incompleteness. For example, if I assert the sun rises in the west then that assertion is true unless for example the Earth is destroyed by a black hole. It's a foofy philosophical argument and asserters of science knew about incompleteness long before Popper issued his criticisms. Now, back to my assertion of reality being consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory while at the same time my knowledge of reality being incomplete. A Popper inductionism criticism would really mean that my assertion does not take into account the incompleteness and therefore might be falsified by that incompleteness despite the observation that reality violations don't occur. This is where philosophy hits a limit because it is a product of a human being... a biological difference detection machine that collects energy to persist... completely subject to the laws of reality. Jumping into science, if reality was violated and contructs such as difference, interaction, quantity, quality, symmetry / non-symmetry, distribution, etc. ceased to function then there could be no truth, there could be no information, there wouldn't be anything. In other words a reality violation would be equivelant to non-existence; however, there is no evidence that an objective 'nothing' exists; hence, the implication (and it's a very strong one) is that something always exists and for that something to be there it has to be consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory. This is why philosophy isn't very valuable to the world of science consequently... it has limits in its touch points with reality (and it often ends up as an exploration of the subjective world rather than the objective one).

 

Come on it’s not fair, all this acute psychological insight that you possess, is this some kind of experiment? You keep on erring intentionally just to give me a sense of importance; you want me to become arrogant, ey? Or maybe it’s just that you are having fun manipulating us, still hiding your real knowledge, this inner pool of strength, waiting for the right time to blow us away. Am I being witty? No! I bet you will come up with the right analytical theory.

 

So you like popper falsification, it’s good, good as like not bad, are you sure? Any progress on circular logic? So what if he said that Darwinism did not meet his criteria and then changed his mind, it’s irrelative I see, but you are certainly smarter than him , you managed to see what he didn’t , what is not falsifiable is not real , and real is (circular logic)? Hmmm, he criticized inductionism, and? In fact he was trying to solve the problem of induction put forward by Hume (he’s bad), by abstracting theories as something deductive which he failed to do. But I guess the problem of induction means nothing to a highly sublime intellectual being like you, it’s goofy, so why don’t you kindly enlighten us, we the mere humans.

 

Goofy you say, so philosophy isn’t valuable to the world of science; yet you have no problem using it when it suits you, I sense a defense mechanism, you are the expert, so probably you will agree that it’s Distortion, you have no understanding of what is science or what is reality or what Is objectivity (circular logic),you failed to answer anything thrown at you , and finally you have no problem in philosophizing superficially by making all truths necessary forgetting that there are Contingent and necessary truth, you are on a Self-fulfilling prophecy to which I will leave you with what was said .

 

Peace and love

:sl: :sl: :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, this is the final time I will ask you to produce your proof.

 

Of what claim specifically?

 

Can you demonstrate to us how much you know about the miraculous life of Muhammad (pbuh), from your compendium of "knowledge"?

 

I cannot demonstrate anything miraculuous nor will I demonstrate the upper bound of my knowledge on any topic as I don't have the stamina or desire to write a book simply to appease you. I can demonstrate that I know about Muhammad's life he is documented as having; however, I would question what value there is in doing so.

 

You have given me a link showing a bunch of guys fishing, fishing in a river somewhere in Illinois. Well I'll be! I asked you if the little fishies at the very bottom of the ocean could observe or demonstrate the world of life above the ocean. The answer is obviously no.

 

Correction, I gave you a video of many fish jumping out of a large body of water and observing what is outside of it. Maybe it was too much sensory input and because it was a lake it somehow prevented you from seeing the fish. Lets focus in a little. Here is a single fish jumping out of the ocean; thus, observing what is outside of it:

 

(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=jw3b-yRfbCI"]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=jw3b-yRfbCI[/url]

 

 

Sure. The book will show and explain why Muhammad (pbuh) is actually a Messenger from God. Anyone who studies his marvelous life with an open mind is likely to embrace Islam with a passion. If you are bullheaded then nothing can convince you, and for that you have only yourself to blame.

 

So leave them in their error till a time. {23:54}

 

Wait, are you saying the book demonstrates that 'God' objectively exists? Regarding open mindedness:

 

(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 yetweirdsciencecolumn(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/site_weirdsciencecolumn/weirdscience-openmind112504.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetweirdsciencecolumn(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/site_wei...nmind112504.htm[/url]

Edited by Crunchy Cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Notice how no muslims are disagreeing with your assertions and no atheists are disagreeing with mine in that little commentary.

There are other possibilities...like:

1. They did not read the post.

2. They chose not to answer.

Why do you, as a logician of sorts, not point out these other possibilities when it suits your convenience?

 

The issue between atheism and theism is a value conflict and an inability to use our respective values to influence or be influenced by the others. Thats what it is.

Yes...except that I don't mind learning about logic modelling or theory...but you feel because of your presumed knowledge in these areas, that you really don't need to bother learning about Islam...because like all religions it's false...so why even bother. There is a difference in approach...and there is a difference in values. One is humble, the other is arrogant.

 

Claim: A camp fire will burn your hand badly if you leave your hand in it for 10 minutes.

Demonstrate: Put your hand in a camp fire for 10 minutes.

Observe: Does the demonstration correspond to the claim's validity?

 

Looks quite valid.

Yeah, I'm going to agree with you, by your definition of an objective reality test, but I still do not agree that it can detect all forms of possible realities...which is your claim.

 

 

There is nothing to indicate that other realities would be real or even possible. In fact what is known about reality (not our Universe as that is often confused with reality) suggests there is only one.

I know exactly why you and others are Muslim. It's human psychology. I know why you see 'God' in everything. I know why you feel 'God'. I know why people 'believe'. I know what psychological needs are met by Theism. I know all these things from an objective standpoint as well as from a subjective experiential standpoint.

"I know exactly...I know why...I know what...I know all.." Sounds like you're God to me. Oh wait, can't be, you don't believe in God. You really should check out the word 'arrogant' in the dictionary.

 

Part of my interest in Islam is that there are a few philisophical gems within it that have caught my attention; however, I don't know if they are practical and exerciseable in day to day life.

Curious, what might those gems be?

 

Alot of my interaction with people on this form takes the form of a larger experiment to see if those philosophies translate into coherent human behavior. The ones that do are the ones that have value to them. I do the same thing for other religions as well. What I am trying to do is extract the constructive and effective gems and formulate a model of how they work. In addition I am modeling various human psychological / emotional needs and observing how the interact with any extracted gem.

 

We're like subjects in your science lab? You're trying to start your own religion aren't you? Sort of like Rev. Moon or L. Ron. Hubbard? Are you doing a ph. D and this is your thesis, or is this more of your profession, or worse yet, your hobby?

 

I still think it comes down to your refusal to do what I already said:

 

So, getting at the heart of the matter, and the topic at hand, namely, "Replying to atheists: What does it take for you to believe (in Islam)." And the answer is, gather the appropriate type of data, and look for the appropriate kind of evidence, in the right place. Study the life of the prophet Muhammad, pbuh, and study the Qur'an with an open mind. If you are not willing to do this, then you can't really expect to truly understand our faith because you don't have right data. All other approaches, as has been demonstrated, will proove to be pointless.

 

Only then can you determine one of 3 possibilities:

 

1. He was deliberately lying; he wasn't really the prophet of God and he made it all or part of it up.

2. He really believed he was telling the truth but was actually delusional; he wasn't really the prophet of God and he made it all or part of it up.

3. He was telling the truth; God and the story of the prophets is the Truth.

If you refuse to do this, which you are, you cannot answer the following questions with any kind of credibility:

 

With regards to the Qur'an:

 

1. There's a decided agreement among Arabic language scholars the Qur'an is inimitable. No human, to this day, can come up verses that sound anything like it. Muhammad, unlike Shakespeare who was a writer by profession, was not known to have any ability to speak this way, was not a writer and there is a general agreement that he wasn't even literate (though some challenge the latter). So how could he have authored the Qur'an?

2. The Qur'an is written, in such a way, that it is readily evident the author is God. In Arabic, the implication of the language used is that the origin of the Qur'an is from above and that Muhammad is merely the recipient. Without exception, it is implicit in the language the prophet is always addressed by God - a mistake or slip never occurs. Muhammad's ego never kicks in and says, "I (instead of God) command you to..."

3. I don't know about you, but I can't write a paragraph without having to do at least some minor editing. How about a page? How about a chapter? How about an entire 300 page book? How about an entire 300 page book, not written, but recited, revealed only in a trance, after numerous trances over 23 years, with no editing? Oh, and it's considered the best Arabic writing of all time. Yeah, I guess he faked it.

4. God has censured the Prophet at least three times in the Qur'an for improper conduct. If the prophet wrote it, why would he do that to himself? Some kind of ingenious ploy I suppose.

 

You cannot understand the beauty of Mozart by an Objective Reality Test, nor will not be able to capture the beauty of an Arabic Qur'an either. I mean, you don't need to be a logician to figure this out.

 

By the way, you never addressed the 4 points above.

 

And with regards to the Prophet Muhammad:

 

• What is the probability of one man converting and uniting the entire pagan warring tribes of Arabia into belief of one God in only 23 years?

• Why would he put his life at risk to do this if it was for personal gain considering that he was already well off?

• Why would he begin this mission at the age of 40?

• What is the probability that he could be a military genius and author the Qur’an with no training in either?

• What is the likelihood he was lying or was delusional and still managed to accomplish all this?

• What is the probability he was telling the truth?

You actually gave answers to these without bothering to read even one credible book on the life of the Prophet Muhammad. And you really do believe you don't need to. I mean, you really do. Now that's arrogance.

 

I'm going to have quote the Qur'an itself:

 

6:125

 

"When God wishes to guide someone, He opens their breast to Islam; when He wishes to lead them astray; He closes and constricts their breasts as if they were climbing up to the skies."

 

and 6:157-158

 

"...'If only the Scripture had been sent down to us, we would have been better guided than them'. Now clear evidence, guidance, and mercy has come to you from your Lord. Who could be more wrong than someone who rejects God's revelations and turns away from them? We shall repay those who turn away from them with a painful punishment. Are they waiting for the very angels to come down to them, or your Lord Himself, or maybe some of His signs? But on the Day some of your Lord's signs come, no soul will profit from faith if had not done before, or has not already earned some good through its faith. Say, 'Wait if you wish, we too are waiting'."

 

I know this will fall on deaf ears Crunchie Cat, but really, if nothing else but as a friend, having an off the record discussion - and this will not make a difference to me one way or the other - read the life of the Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, and the Qur'an, and then make a judgement call. Is that so much to ask?

 

I fear the Day you will actually believe in the paranormal, the Day when you realize "Oh shoot, my objective reality test" really didn't cover off all possible realities", will be the Day you see angels and your Lord as 'Objective Reality". And then it will be too late.

 

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on it’s not fair, all this acute psychological insight that you possess, is this some kind of experiment? You keep on erring intentionally just to give me a sense of importance; you want me to become arrogant, ey? Or maybe it’s just that you are having fun manipulating us, still hiding your real knowledge, this inner pool of strength, waiting for the right time to blow us away. Am I being witty? No! I bet you will come up with the right analytical theory.

 

Of course it's not fair :j:, we're not on equal ground; however, like you implied I get to expose your reactions and observe.

 

So you like popper falsification, it’s good, good as like not bad, are you sure? Any progress on circular logic? So what if he said that Darwinism did not meet his criteria and then changed his mind, it’s irrelative I see, but you are certainly smarter than him , you managed to see what he didn’t , what is not falsifiable is not real , and real is (circular logic)? Hmmm, he criticized inductionism, and? In fact he was trying to solve the problem of induction put forward by Hume (he’s bad), by abstracting theories as something deductive which he failed to do. But I guess the problem of induction means nothing to a highly sublime intellectual being like you, it’s goofy, so why don’t you kindly enlighten us, we the mere humans.

 

Like I said, philosophy has limits. Also, circular assertions are those that don't define, differentiate, and connect to the objective. None of the original definitions I provided have that issue.

 

Goofy you say, so philosophy isn’t valuable to the world of science; yet you have no problem using it when it suits you, I sense a defense mechanism, you are the expert, so probably you will agree that it’s Distortion, you have no understanding of what is science or what is reality or what Is objectivity (circular logic),you failed to answer anything thrown at you , and finally you have no problem in philosophizing superficially by making all truths necessary forgetting that there are Contingent and necessary truth, you are on a Self-fulfilling prophecy to which I will leave you with what was said .

 

Peace and love

:sl: :sl: :no:

 

The issue is that you're attacking the wrong issue :D. I claim that if you put your hand in camp fire for 10 minutes, your hand will be burned. The demonstration and the result are self evident. It is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory. It is falsifiable. Anyone can perform it. Try to do the same for the paranormal. You're essentially debating against reality and that is a debate that you can never win. No matter what, you have no objective evidence to influence an atheist with and you are not influencable by the objective evidence that an atheist would have. To demonstrate, ask yourself the question: What would convince you that Islam is false? The answer of course is nothing. Deep down inside you know that all other religion's assertions are false so they pose no threat as an alternative 'God' is never going to say "oh you got it wrong and now you are going to undergo torture for an eternity in my hell". What remains of course is truth... and that poses a real threat; however, it can be dismissed simply by valuing your psychological / emotional needs above it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we have a man who takes Islam for a joke and refuses to study it because he says he "doesn't need to". Not only does this disgrace the face of atheism but it reinforces the theists' despised though often true argument that most atheists are bullheaded and arrogant. This petty debate was a waste of my time.

 

Case closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joseph, you didn't engage in the thread, which exists to provide the evidence requested by atheists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here we have a man who takes Islam for a joke and refuses to study it because he says he "doesn't need to". Not only does this disgrace the face of atheism but it reinforces the theists' despised though often true argument that most atheists are bullheaded and arrogant. This petty debate was a waste of my time.

 

Case closed.

 

As repeater correctly pointed out the purpose of this thread was to theists an opportunity to provide evidence on atheists terms. It's bullheaded and arrogant to assume otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the saying goes, you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. If the horse does not know that he is thirsty, or will become thirsty before the next water container, he will not drink. The man has wisdom, the horse just has sense.

 

Existence of God, and other articles of Faith are not things that can be proved. Unfortunately, atheists do not understand that Faith means "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". Once they understand, they will not keep harping on the same tune.

 

My simple question to an atheist is:

 

If there is no God, we have spent time in this world trying to make a non-existent entity happy, so what have we lost? But, if there is a God, what will happen to those who denied His existence despite the invitation to believe?

Edited by Aburafay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are other possibilities...like:

1. They did not read the post.

2. They chose not to answer.

Why do you, as a logician of sorts, not point out these other possibilities when it suits your convenience?

 

I agree and just because there might be possibilities doesn't make them probabilities. Take a look at the number of views on the thread and other popular threads where atheists and / or theists disagree with each other. You will note that assertions are usually read repeatedly.

 

Yes...except that I don't mind learning about logic modelling or theory...but you feel because of your presumed knowledge in these areas, that you really don't need to bother learning about Islam...because like all religions it's false...so why even bother. There is a difference in approach...and there is a difference in values. One is humble, the other is arrogant.

 

Islam's value exists in any philosophical gems that result in practical constructive behavior or emotional / psychological need fulfillment. That's one reason I choose to learn about many religions included; however, it provides no other value beyond because it neither establishes objective truth or furthers objective knowledge.

 

Yeah, I'm going to agree with you, by your definition of an objective reality test, but I still do not agree that it can detect all forms of possible realities...which is your claim.

 

You're issuing a claim that other realities are possible; however, not only is there no evidence of this, all observations and theories strongly suggest a single reality (not universe). Now there might be other universes out there... ours might be a part of a multiverse of some kind; however, they would all be connected by a single raw reality. While other universes may have vastly different properties they would still be consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory.

 

"I know exactly...I know why...I know what...I know all.." Sounds like you're God to me. Oh wait, can't be, you don't believe in God. You really should check out the word 'arrogant' in the dictionary.

 

Regardless of whether or not it sounds arrogant, what matters is if its true. Because I posess knowledge of human behavior doesn't make me an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient life form.

 

Curious, what might those gems be?

 

An excellent question! Some of the gems are leadership principles, learning principles, judgment priciples, dietary principles, working pricniples, and relationship principles.

 

We're like subjects in your science lab?

 

Often times yes.

 

You're trying to start your own religion aren't you? Sort of like Rev. Moon or L. Ron. Hubbard?

 

That would be neat if I could; however, I think I need to simply contribute to some ground work concerning identification of human needs, outlets for them, behavioral relations, etc.

 

...

...

...

 

<CONTINUED>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you doing a ph. D and this is your thesis, or is this more of your profession, or worse yet, your hobby?

 

It would be closest to a hobby given the choices listed.

 

I still think it comes down to your refusal to do what I already said:

Only then can you determine one of 3 possibilities:

If you refuse to do this, which you are, you cannot answer the following questions with any kind of credibility:

 

I disagree those are the only three possibilities because they can come in different combinations that do make them distinct; however, because the objective reality test fails, it rules out the option of telling the truth.

 

With regards to the Qur'an:

You cannot understand the beauty of Mozart by an Objective Reality Test, nor will not be able to capture the beauty of an Arabic Qur'an either. I mean, you don't need to be a logician to figure this out.

 

Beauty can be understood objectively. It is any kind of cognitive activity that stimulates the pleasure center. Of course it can also be understood subjectively by experiencing it.

 

By the way, you never addressed the 4 points above.

 

I did, just not in the way you wanted. I'll address them individually if it helps the message to be understood better.

 

1. There's a decided agreement among Arabic language scholars the Qur'an is inimitable. No human, to this day, can come up verses that sound anything like it. Muhammad, unlike Shakespeare who was a writer by profession, was not known to have any ability to speak this way, was not a writer and there is a general agreement that he wasn't even literate (though some challenge the latter). So how could he have authored the Qur'an?

 

There's a decided agreement among American enthusiasts that Harry Perry musical work is inimitateable. No human, to this day, can come up with verses that sound anything like it:

 

(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=mCohY_CtQlM"]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=mCohY_CtQlM[/url]

 

...

...

...

 

<CONTINUED>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. The Qur'an is written, in such a way, that it is readily evident the author is God. In Arabic, the implication of the language used is that the origin of the Qur'an is from above and that Muhammad is merely the recipient. Without exception, it is implicit in the language the prophet is always addressed by God - a mistake or slip never occurs. Muhammad's ego never kicks in and says, "I (instead of God) command you to..."

 

The Quran of course makes incorrect assertions about objective reality; hence, it is not perfect nor is there objective evidence it was dictated by an omnipotent life form.

 

3. I don't know about you, but I can't write a paragraph without having to do at least some minor editing. How about a page? How about a chapter? How about an entire 300 page book? How about an entire 300 page book, not written, but recited, revealed only in a trance, after numerous trances over 23 years, with no editing? Oh, and it's considered the best Arabic writing of all time. Yeah, I guess he faked it.

 

Stage performers often give flawless performances with practive. David Copperfield for example has never made an error. I'll speculate that Muhammad's potential epilepsy was used in combination with an equivelant of practiced stage performance.

 

...

...

...

 

<CONTINUED>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4. God has censured the Prophet at least three times in the Qur'an for improper conduct. If the prophet wrote it, why would he do that to himself? Some kind of ingenious ploy I suppose.

 

To make it sounds more believable.

 

And with regards to the Prophet Muhammad:

You actually gave answers to these without bothering to read even one credible book on the life of the Prophet Muhammad. And you really do believe you don't need to. I mean, you really do. Now that's arrogance.

 

An example credible publication I have read is:

 

Watt, W. Montgomery (1961). Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press, 19. ISBN 0-19-881078-4.

 

But yes, you are correct in that the moment the objective reality test fails is the moment the whole house of cards falls apart as being true. Sorry, arrogance or not... truth is truth.

 

I'm going to have quote the Qur'an itself:

 

6:125

 

"When God wishes to guide someone, He opens their breast to Islam; when He wishes to lead them astray; He closes and constricts their breasts as if they were climbing up to the skies."

 

and 6:157-158

 

"...'If only the Scripture had been sent down to us, we would have been better guided than them'. Now clear evidence, guidance, and mercy has come to you from your Lord. Who could be more wrong than someone who rejects God's revelations and turns away from them? We shall repay those who turn away from them with a painful punishment. Are they waiting for the very angels to come down to them, or your Lord Himself, or maybe some of His signs? But on the Day some of your Lord's signs come, no soul will profit from faith if had not done before, or has not already earned some good through its faith. Say, 'Wait if you wish, we too are waiting'."

 

I know this will fall on deaf ears Crunchie Cat, but really, if nothing else but as a friend, having an off the record discussion - and this will not make a difference to me one way or the other - read the life of the Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, and the Qur'an, and then make a judgement call. Is that so much to ask?

 

You're assuming I haven't; however, to an atheist it is too much to ask if there is no demonstrable value to it. Remember, we already know the paranormal is bunk and that is the foundation that most forms of theism rest on.

 

I fear the Day you will actually believe in the paranormal, the Day when you realize "Oh shoot, my objective reality test" really didn't cover off all possible realities", will be the Day you see angels and your Lord as 'Objective Reality". And then it will be too late.

 

Peace.

 

The probability of such a day existing is equal to the probability of an invisible pink unicorn drinking coffee on the event horizon of a worm hole in the zaboombafoo dimension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As the saying goes, you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. If the horse does not know that he is thirsty, or will become thirsty before the next water container, he will not drink. The man has wisdom, the horse just has sense.

 

Of course if the water doesn't exist then the horse couldn't drink regardless. If the person leading the horse cannot distinguish between water and non-water then the horse is screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no question on the existence of the water. That was just a saying. The water uesd in the current context is belief, and belief is something that you cannot feel with your senses as I have copy/pasted from an online dictionary. Are you aware of the definition, and do you disagree with it? I can try to make you understand, but I cannot make you accept. That is the relevance of water here. Its the horse that is not understanding the existence of water, so he is screwed by his own choice. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The anology is so bad it's like hammering a large square peg into a small circular slot. Belief is a survial mechanism allowing you to (for example) make quick decisions in the presence of incomplete information. It is not an accurate determiner of truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamz

Existence of God, and other articles of Faith are not things that can be proved. Unfortunately, atheists do not understand that Faith means "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".

The evidence doesn't need to be material/empirical..it can also be rational, but if evidence exists there has to be a way to prove it.

Otherwise there will be no way to differentiate between true faith and a false/blind faith, since none can be proven.

In other words, simply stating what's true is not enough, there must be a way to separate it from falsehood.

Subjectively speaking:

A devout muslim can give up the most precious gift of life for sake of Allah....that's a firm conviction..true faith.

A devout Christian can endure watching her precious child burnt alive for sake of Jesus...that's a firm conviction ..true faith.

If there is no way to prove God or other articles of faith then there is no way to tell them apart and considering all the other true faiths..a needle in the haystack.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evaluation of the analogy is a matter of opinion. I believe it to be precisely accurate, you don't.

 

As regarsd belief being

a survial mechanism allowing you to (for example) make quick decisions in the presence of incomplete information
, your statement is as far from the truth as possible. Belief is a very well thought out and planned way of understanding something that cannot be felt by the senses. I believe disbelief to be based on a quick decision in the presence of failure to understand.

 

The definition is still pending your acceptance or rejection. Do you believe that Belief "does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"? IF you don't, you are contradicting an adage and a pure definition that has been accepted for several centuries. If you do, you are contradicting yourself by asking for evidence. Both ways you are in a situation that only you can heop yourself come out of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry double post see post 421 :sl:

Edited by llogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evaluation of the analogy is a matter of opinion. I believe ...

 

Opinion would be "I don't like it". Lack of conformity would objectify it a little bit.

 

As regarsd belief being , your statement is as far from the truth as possible. Belief is a very well thought out and planned way of understanding something that cannot be felt by the senses. I believe disbelief to be based on a quick decision in the presence of failure to understand.

 

My statement is that its a survival mechanism. If it weren't it wouldn't be present. As a child if you believe what your parents said about swimming in a crocodile infested lake then you are going to survive. If you believe what a group believes then they are more likely to share their resources with you. If you hear something strange and believe you are going to be attacked and run like hell then if you're right then you survived. There is nothing that contradicts this.

 

The definition is still pending your acceptance or rejection. Do you believe that Belief "does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"? IF you don't, you are contradicting an adage and a pure definition that has been accepted for several centuries. If you do, you are contradicting yourself by asking for evidence. Both ways you are in a situation that only you can heop yourself come out of.

 

Belief rests on human evaluation of information. It can be logical, illogical, etc. It's mechanism is rooted in its ability to promote human survial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that Mohammed could not have written the Koran, if true, calls for other explanations - ANY of which, no matter how far-fetched, are almost infinitely less far-fetched than a supernatural being existing.

 

The stuff about 'no editing' is plain wrong (aren't the abrogated verses editing?), and anyway, given that it wasn't written down until X years later, no-one knows how closely the final product related to what Mohammed actually said - nor is it guaranteed that the Koran we have now is exactly the same as the one first written down.

 

Sure, there's tradition that it was written exactly as Mohammed said it, but that tradition comes from people with a very strong incentive - polititcal, social, financial - to make Islam appear in the best light possible. The bias of Muslim historians in other matters has been noted from Gibbon down, so why not assume that the same sort of bias is at work in the history of the Koran's copmposition?

 

I personally think that it's likely that Mohammed was a genius who composed the Koran himself. The Koran is not a long work. He had a whole 23 years to do it (the comparison with Shakespeare is not a good one - his volume of work is vastly larger than Mohammed's, and was written vastly faster - Proust would be a better comparison, although even he wrote far more than Mohammed) and plenty of people to try out his ideas on, even if they were not aware of it (or don't admit it).

 

Just because there's a work which is 'the best work of literature in Arabic' doesn't mean it was written by a god. SOMEthing had to be the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why do you cover the truth my friend :sl:

 

see the world

 

44,000 every year reverting from USA

 

26,000 in Europe reverting everyyear

 

i can keep going.

 

Its not your reply message that makes me not reply to your made up writing

 

you dont understand you didnt sparkle this thread yet , because your not more then 44,000 that i can consider a reply , when you can sparkle of an 8 peoples knowledge for a post i would clarify .

 

My brother remove ego :sl:

number 2 its not your world

#3 just see the signs and remember negative = satan's job , so if you think negative i pity and yet pity , hope you try to remove negative thoughts in any situation :no:

 

dont paraphrase yourself to a case when you think postive that christianity is correct, if so then before you sleep just pray without saying jesus but pray like Sheikh Yusuf estes an Ex Preacher who reverted he said Oh GOD , without a name you pray for GOD! not Jesus

 

pray correctly and have your heart wanting the truth but not a mock because your not mocking bythe way you mock yourself because GOD mock is greater then a creation like you brother , pray oh god GUIDE me and tell me if my religion is right if not then show me the truth .

 

let me conclude i dont know if you will do what i say but many i know did and now they are muslims , if you dont then its satan making you disagree hey sometimes you love satan because he gives you coupons of happinesss have fun in life and fire in afterlife thats the deal , take Islam for granted and have happiness both life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally think that it's likely that Mohammed was a genius who composed the Koran himself. The Koran is not a long work. He had a whole 23 years to do it (the comparison with Shakespeare is not a good one - his volume of work is vastly larger than Mohammed's, and was written vastly faster - Proust would be a better comparison, although even he wrote far more than Mohammed) and plenty of people to try out his ideas on, even if they were not aware of it (or don't admit it).

 

Just because there's a work which is 'the best work of literature in Arabic' doesn't mean it was written by a god. SOMEthing had to be the best.

 

The fact that it is the ONLY work the prophet has produced and known to produce makes that much more unlikely that he could have produced it, don't you think? And you didn't address that he wasn't a writer, by profession, like Shakespeare which is pretty much all he did. The prophet had to create an entire new religion, including military battles, facing persecution, forming a new community, establishing rituals, being a judge, advisor and strategist. He didn't just specialize in just one thing. Oh, and he just suddenly developed this proclivity at the age of 40?

 

What is the probability of that?

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


×