Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Yasnov

Atheist's Psychology

Recommended Posts

atheists cant see GOD thats why they cant think it however think against it . they are mushriks for now because truth is their its clear but they dont want to put their mind in it and study it however they study on its sayings and compromise it with their own thinking which is a built up negative system on themselves which this negative means abnormality

 

no offense but if im a person who live this world like you i will say this to you

 

" maybe they are born to skim "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
no offense but if im a person who live this world like you i will say this to you

 

" maybe they are born to skim "

Having fun talking to yourslef eh.. :sl: ....but say "maybe they are born to skim" then they are doing their job right?......So how fair is getting penalized for doing your job?

If the truth is so evident as u claim..what benefit do "mushrikeen" get from doing mushrik stuff?..what's could be a rationally probable motive?

 

Peace

Edited by llogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mr Atheist, all your ways to try to anticipate fear will not work in the end when you die ,

 

i see that you are using the formula to be fearless to GOD so you can think deeply in the opposite direction all the time .

 

soon i will be re quoting all my quotes to you with an organizing statement so you might wakeup brother .

Edited by alsheeba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr Atheist, all your ways to try to anticipate fear will not work in the end when you die ,

 

i see that you are using the formula to be fearless to GOD so you can think deeply in the opposite direction all the time .

 

soon i will be re quoting all my quotes to you with an organizing statement so you might wakeup brother .

 

Soo 'fear'.... that's your motivation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We can say every choice ties in with opportunity cost etc, but my point is that "under particular circusmstances" the constraints are such that there is only 1 rational/logical choice which takes away from the notion of freewill.

Telling you " eat cookie, or brocoli" is different from telling you to "Eat brocolia nd live or eat cookie and be shot in the head".

I agree as the degree of intellect increases the the logical options are narrowed. But there is no logical person who would feel sad because he is making right choices.

And if the only rational choice is finding answers in the concept of God, then your opposition to that logic is simply based on your dislike of this option? Is that what you are saying? I understand. But still that is your choice. No matter you like it or not you accept the risk of its consequences.

 

Ok then we are back to the humungous metaphorical if?

"If it's the reality"...How do we know it's real if it can't be proven or disproven?

The difference between you and me is that I can accept the whole creation, the whole universe as evidence. Using all inductive arguments I can conclude them in one point- Almighty God. But you won't take those arguments as valid. It is personal bias you are applying. Again your choice.

 

So basically reality doesn't have to be fair, but it's up to us to accept it embrace it love it as is..sounds like a valid proposition except again...how do we know it's real?

Because we are real, our bodies and emotions are real. The reality that we are born and that we will die is real. The beginning of this universe is real. The presumed end suggested even by science sounds real. We constantly struggle against odds, that is real. Our daily life is real. Our tomorrow is real. If everything is real whatever set the origin of this reality is real, too. And that is Almighty God.

 

If i come up to you and say..listen..God is there on his throne right above.You can't see touch feel him, you can't imagine what he's like...but he is there because some one found out 2000 years ago and passed that info on...how is that different from some one saying that "There are 100 Gods who exists, some one told me that 4000 years ago and passed that info on?"

 

If you say that to me I agree may be I won't belive you. But if my prohet tells me that and I see what rightous and good person he is and if I analyse the word of God- the Holy Qur'an and I find it very logical and self-consistent and then combine with my indictive arguments from the intelligent design of eveything in this universe I would definately test that hypothesis and if I can't find any flaws I would belive it. That is how I did. But not everybody had to follow my example. Actually everybody's quest is unique. But the only logical we can meet if the reality of God. If anybody seeks the meaning in life he can only find it in the concept of God.

 

Like again....saying you can have any color but if u don't chose blue I will shoot ya.

No, it is not illogical like that. It is more like if you kill somebody you will pay for that sin in Hell. If despite of that warning that person commits a murder he doesn't have right to whine. Oh, how disturbing that consequence would be to that murderer! I agree. No fun. But am I sorry for him? No.

 

Whatever sin we are mentioned is always related to the essence and harmony of life. Anything disturbing the peace by opression and agression is sin. The principle of Allah is love. Creative, constructive love. Harmonizing love. Not the selfish love.

 

Theology claims that God is a fact that can't be proven or falsified, so the burden of proof falls on theology.

And it must do so regardless of human incompetence , Stan, blindness veils etc.

 

The fact of our own existence is a proof of God. I didn't create myself. It was not even my parents. The way of reporduction was not created by any living organism neither by the misterious lab of Mother nature. The whole universe by itself is created from singularity. The whole universe will collide and go back into the singularity.

None of us designed the laws by which universe runs. All of the laws and time end at the point of singularity. That is what science says. What is left to me is combining all of those points with my intellect and listening to my heart for the meaning of love. The product - the concept of Almighty, Loving, Merciful and Just God. The source of all.

 

I think we are getting repetative now, the point is to see if God's love exceeds ' a mothers"

We are not comparing God's love with a mother love to find siimilarities, rather to see how god's love exceeds a mother's love, given the condition sof the world. If you can conceive 1 less miserable child in the world, then that's like 1 unit more of a compassionate mother than God. Looking at the big picture again...God knew what Stan will do, he knew what Adam will do , he knows what humans will do, he knows we will go to hell, "He knew and he let it be"...that's not love..love is not subjecting the objectt of love to pain when there are other options available.

 

My point was similar. We can't compare the love a mother and the love of the Almighty. A mothers' love is the highest level of love humans can feel toward each other. It was planted by God to secure the protection of life. Even by that God's love is a way superior. Also mothers love doesn't necesserily require it to be combined with justice. A loving mother may still choose to hide his son from justice even if he did the worst crime in the world. She may be has only one or a few numbered kids. She is not responsible for any other kids. her love in this respect is very subjective and selfish. However there are mothers who would let their sons be punished for whatever crime they commited and still may love them forever.

 

Think about the position of Almighty God. He has created the whole universe with all of the creatures on it. Billions and billions of them. He is the only protector of them. God can't choose to be subjective to some and be unjust to others. He needs to be just to all of his creatures. Those who respond to his love will get more love in return. There is only one source and that source is open to everybody in equal terms. The love of Allah is all embracing but also fair to those who care to respond to his love. For those who choose to turn their backs on him and walk away from him he still give them opportunity to correct themselves. That is so because of his love. He gives them countless opportunities in their life to reconsider their choices. But the death is end of it.

 

The free will automatically brings the two options i the picture - the good and the bad. As people mature they start choosing much more the good than bad. It is a maturation process. Those who can't mature are simply not worthy to enter Paradise. What is so hard to understand.

Paradise is a place of love and harmony. Only those who are mature enough will enter it.

 

PEACE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing that can't be scientifically explained is why existence exists.

 

I don't need a religion to explain anything else.

 

When you look at the big picture, like the history of humanity, it's really hard to be religious.

 

Think about this: Millions of people have had thousands of different religions over thousands of year.

 

Each religion claims to be right, each religion has thier own stories, etc.

 

In 2,000 years there won't be christianity and even christianity since Jesuses time is a TOTALLY different thing. A different religion, I'd say.

 

Will Islam exist in 10,000 years? Will it be worshipped in the same way? Things change, customs change.

 

What happened to the woman judges?

This was spoken by someone who has not EXPERIENCED God. Speaking about religions like they are some sort of club of like minded people is the telling sign.

 

Have you ever really attempted to find out if God is REAL or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know that atheists deny the existence of God for lack of a reasonable proof.

and i also know that in this case they don't have to believe that God exists cuz they haven't seen Him yet...so they can't believe something they don't see.

 

but...how do u think this World has come to exist??

whatever commbination, wouldn't make this world Perfect...

(not perfect in the first meaning of the world)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalam alaikum

 

And btw, most atheists are not scientific

 

Exactly

 

Twenty evidence of the fact that atheism is the doctrine of the dumbest on earth .. !![using large font size is not allowed]

1 - Atheism violates the first law of Newton.

The first law of Newton says that "an object at rest will stay at rest and an object in steady motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force (static or dynamic)." So there must be an external force that made the Big Bang to happen at that very moment and forced the universe to begin at that very moment.

 

2 - Atheism violates the first law of thermodynamics.

Law of Conservation of energy or what is known as the first law of thermodynamics says ((matter/energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.)) If we contemplate in this law, we come to conclusion that the universe cannot exist. According to this law, the universe does not exist or it's present in the presence of the Creator.

 

3 - Atheism violates the second law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamic says that the universe is now heading towards thermal death when the temperature of all organisms and particles becomes equal. So the universe as scientists say is heading toward disintegration, towards demolition, towards cooling and towards thermal death “thermal death of universe”, while atheism says that the universe is moving towards complexity and towards building a struggle to develop. So scholars consider the second law of thermodynamic to carry the end of Darwinism and selective evolution. And these are laws, not theories.. so the science on the side while atheism and Darwinism are completely on the other side.

 

4 - Atheism is contrary to the Code of Ethics.

The original definition of morality: - Morals are those that come against self-interest .. against matter .. against reason

Moral obligation is a restriction of the human being and as Nietzsche said long ago: - The lack of power in human being is because of his ethical commitment.

So morals are not profitable practically .. there must be a value for ethics and this value is not of this world .. a value that is not measured by abstract materialistic standards and not subject to natural laws .. ethical behavior, sacrifice, supreme ideals, asceticism and altruism are the inherent morality either are meaningless or has a meaning in the presence of God...

 

5 - Atheism does not find an explanation to the law of pairs.

Sheikh Nadeem Aljssr said in his book Almate'a (the story of faith): - “Before that, I did not know the secret of the wisdom of the repeated mentioning of the two sexes, male and female in the Qur'an (And of everything We have created pairs that you may be mindful) ADH-DHARIYAT-49 .. (And that He created pairs, the male and the female) AN-NAJM 45. Until I read from the contemporary philosopher Henri Bergson and realized that the repeated mentioning of the pairs is not intended for gratitude, but also meant something greater which is to alert that pairing is in plants, animals and even particles and which is a great evidence of the purpose and the denial of the chance, Darwinism, randomness and senseless.

 

6 - Material atheism is in contradiction with the immaterial self.

If a human being committed a crime and insisted that he did it unconsciously, each lawyer seeks to prove there was no intent, but from the material perspective, the crime took place and ended up on the reality and the offender is also admitting that he’s the perpetrator, but the law interferes to know the purpose, intent and self-condition during the commission of the crime and whether the crime took place unconsciously or not .. Here, we put self in position higher then facts and higher then abstract materialistic reality.. In reality, we do not really judge what happened in the world, but to judge what has occurred within the self .. This reflects the contradiction in principles between man and the world.

 

7 – Atheism is contrary to the laws of human rights.

Human rights is metaphysical pure issue and your saying that human beings are equal this is possible only if the human is a creature of God, so equality between human beings is exclusively ethical, not a natural, materialistic or mental fact, since people from the materialistic, natural or mental perspective are undoubtedly unequal and based only on religion, the weak can claim equality.

Those who are weak and poor in money, health and mind and excluded from the tables of the celebrations in the world, those who do not have anything to show or to prove about except through religion only, by which they demonstrate that they are equal or even better to God than the healthy, and this is where lies the frequent proof of the value of religion in equality.

 

8 - Atheism violates the privacy of all, since it does not recognize the sanctity and holiness.

No value to bunch of virtues that have been established by religions in the last tens of thousands of years. As Dr. Missiri says: - the atheist sees the ground as an exploited matter and his purpose is to achieve maximum satisfaction of it or as the thinker John Locke says: - If all hopes of human is limited to this world and if we enjoy life here in this world, it is not surprising nor illogical to look for happiness, even at the expense of parents and children.

So the ideas of impurity, holiness, chastity and purity are ideas derived from another world have nothing to do with the materialistic, Darwinian, imperative, cold world... If we were really the sons of this world, it will not seem to us as it has something dirty or sacred...

 

9 – Atheism is contrary to the law of cause and effect.

Of nothing comes nothing... there is no effect without a cause .. this common sense is erected in the mind because it is higher than the law and on it stands the modern science and goals’ purpose. Descartes says: “I exist so who made me exist and who created me? I have not created myself. It has to be my Creator." This Creator must exist and does not lack a creator and He should be named with all the attributes of perfection (Or were they created without there being anything, or are they the creators?) Tour 35 .. and it does not occur to us to deny this common sense because of the pretext that the mental delusion of the sequence of reasons to no end and it is mentally false or because of the pretext of our ignorance but it is the cause and the law of causality that is not based on observation as atheists claims since our senses just shows the pictures of the disjointed and sequenced phenomena and does not show us the relationship with the causality, so how can we know this relationship only if the mind has innate organized laws - the talk of Descartes – which with it, the human being can realize the sense of and then make new constructed judgments that does not depend on the senses

 

10 - Atheism contradicts the law of intent and care.

All assets on the ground fits to the human existence and operates accordingly to him, so it is not surprising to say that everything around us is subjected to our requirements of day and night, four seasons, space, surrounding air molecules and how all that situated to the human nature and his needs, and it is not unrealistic to the fact that we say that this harmony in the universe is designed specifically for the production of the human race and as our brother Majdi says: "By washing your hands, thousands of bacteria die, since Man is the fixed component in the world history , his spirit value and moral values will remain unchanged, so the human being was and will remain as human being from thousand years ago born by the past to thousand years later born by the future, neither his nature nor his intent will change."

 

11 – Atheism is contrary to teleology.

Science is in constant progress ... all scientists’ researches based on the existence of laws governing the world and controlling the matter .. the purpose of science in every search is to find the law governing this case since the science is teleological and therefore it is in constant progress .. and without the science adoption already of a law that governs all things for this progress, the science would not progress one step .. and here lies the contradiction in principle between messy atheism and teleological science.. and it is not imaginable that everything around us is governed by the law of teleology and the human is the only being responsible in this case.

 

12 - Atheism contradicts the law of consistency previous to consolidation.

Says Leibniz “the atoms are moving with God's will and work ability that shows how they relate to each other, However, they are not really related, but the power of God to make each atom goes in motion that harmonizes the motion of other atoms, so what seems to us of this harmony is the impact of the law of “consistency previous consolidation” since the matter does not discern the laws applied on it. And there is no rational must to oblige the water to boil at one hundred degrees Celsius or its molecules to diverge with boiling, and as Hume says: - a science that explains that with former interpretations is very immature science since it does not do more than adopting the situation but without giving any reasons. And it’s unavoidable but to admit of the law of “consistency previous consolidation”

 

13 – Atheism violates the principle of the famous Barclay.

Says Hume: - no evidence obliges us to believe that there is something If our senses missed it and no evidence compels us to believe that the thing we saw today and then we left and we go back to see it in the second day is the same thing we saw on the first day, since we do not know about the outside world except of we what have in our mind from sensory perceptions, and the mind obliges that there must be a holistic mind that absorbs all things and be a witness by it, and as God says (Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things? ) FUSSILAT - 53

 

14 - Atheism is the founder of most criminal doctrines on the Earth.

Se Gore says: - The Darwinism doctrine is one of the despicable doctrines that are not supported except by the worst tendencies and contemptible feelings, since its father is infidelity and its mother is dirtiness.

Nazism was formed only on the discrimination of races and ethnicitie.

Mao Zedong the atheist thug said: - All the lower animals will be executed and all who stood against the revolution is an evolutionary error, and said in a December 9, 1958 «mass graves provide a good fertilizer for the land». As a result, 50 million people was killed in China.

Atheist Guevara said: - "To send men to the firing squad, the juridical validation is not necessary. We must learn how to kill queues of people in a shorter time!!!"

The criminal atheist Lenin said: - No mercy for the enemies of the nation, but kill, hang and confiscate.

Marx said: - "We have no pity for you, and we do not ask for your sympathy, when the day will come, we are in practice: conscientious savages."

and Marx justify this criminal terrible approach, saying: - "When people accuse us of cruelty, we wonder how they forgotten the basics of Marxism?"

As a result, 250 million people was killed in one century by horrible Darwinian atheism and this is probably more dead people, more than all the wars from Adam to this day.

 

15 - Atheism is against art and life.

The existence of another world along with the natural world is the primary source of every religion and art .. and If there was only one world, the art would be impossible

Atheism will never understand the essence of art and nature .. If there is no spirit of man so why we are keen to have the spirit of art?

When the science deals with the man, it looks at it as what is dead and what is not personal, while when an art deals with man, it looks at what is humane and teleological, since art is on a natural collision with the world and with all its sciences, that the silent rebellion and if there is absolutely no support to man with no room for his spirit and his self, then the art is not an area for him and the poets and tragedy writers deludes us and write nonsense that does not make sense

Art in nature and its recognizing of the existence of another world is carrieing revolutionary meanings of blasphemy of materialistic world... and that was understood by the famous French painter de Buffet when he said: - (the essence of art is uncomfortable and useless, it’s against society and the threat of it). Therefore, the essence of works of art are fully and vaguely obscure, it’s a continuous rebellion on the reality. It is repeated confession of the existence of another world that we do not belong to and we will go to it one day .. confession of human suffering on the ground and its inability to achieve the paradise that lies within his dreams and to search for it .. Art is simply is the fruit of the relationship between the spirit and the truth.

So when you contemplate on deep painting.. When you read a great novel .. the human being feels a strange sense that is mysterious with transcendence and holiness and entering the world of eternity .. Art is exactly as religion, both are recognizing the existence of another world, but art is not a religion but an expression of religion. Art is the illegitimate son of the truth... while religion is the legitimate son of the truth ..

 

16 - Atheism represents abnormality in the history of civilization.

Atheism is nothing more than an intellectual abnormalities and mental pollution in the history of nations and civilizations, Will Durant says in his book (The Story of Civilization): - There may be cities without walls without armies, without plants but there is no city without a temple

And The author of the book (why we say that God exists) says : - (and there one who said that man is guided to God with revelation or without revelation, but with the revelation, it was better and thorough, and some argued that all the worships are revelation from God, but it might be an old revelation that was stained with myths from magicians and fortune-tellers, so the primitive nations sidetracked in their ignorance and God was sending Messengers to purify these beliefs from sidetracking). And Schmidt and Lang -two of the researchers of the assets of religions- say that the origin of all religions in purpose is the Oneness and the diversity came in the later stages, and it have been discovered that inheritance of Indian American and Indigenous residents of the North America are similar in many decrees to monotheistic religions particularly in terms of punishment and reward and here where lies the argument on people, where they are equal in reason and requesting guidance .. and humans differ in religion, but they agree in what God wants them to do.

Sheikh Nadeem Aljssr said in his masterpiece, the story of Faith, p. 35: - It’s more likely that many philosophy of the ancients in Egypt, China and India are the remnants of forgotten history, so the owners of these philosophies were stacked among the philosophers and they might be prophets or prophets’ subordinates.

That’s why atheism is abnormal approach that appears in temporary image and quickly disappears and if it‘s beneficial to people, it would’ve stayed on the earth.

 

17 - Big Bang and the fall of the myth of the stable static universe.

In 1989, NASA had lunched the satellite (Cuba) for the detection of cosmic radiation resulted from the Big Bang and compiling information on the radiation and this satellite was able in only 8 minutes just to give a complete picture of the radiation and it is proven that the universe is made and this is what knocked off the atheists in critical embarrassment.

A. S. EDDINGTON says: "Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me"

And DENNIS SCIAMA said that he did not defended the steady-state theory, not because he deemed it valid, but because he wished that it were valid. SCIAMA goes on to say that as evidences began to pile up, he had to admit that the game was over and that the steady-state theory had to be dismissed.. And that he must leave aside the theory of the stable universe

and his colleague GEORGE ABEL said that he has no choice but to accept the Big Bang theory.

This prompted the atheist philosopher of the twenty century ANTHONY FLEW to say his famous aphorism: - "Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by confessing that the atheist has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus." .. because the science has proven the idea that were defended by religious books.

 

18 - What is the mystery behind the bias of modern science towards the Qur'an?

Gustave Le Bon says "Islam is religion of the most appropriate for scientific discovery", and that’s the reason of the frequent convert to Islam in the scientific community of doctors, researchers and professors.

The wonderful Alija Izetbegovic Say: - Aristotle has wrote three scientific books (in physics in the heavens .. .. in the earth) These three books do not exist today with one sentence that is scientifically valid .. three books from a scientific perspective is equal to zero to ten, while the Quran as Maurice Bucaille says in his famous book (the Quran, Bible and the Torah in the perspective of modern science): - The truth is I did not find any verse from the Quran that is contrary to one scientific fact but the Quran already passed the modern science and corrected many of the scientific theories that were prevalent in his day, for example the idea that groundwater was formed through a deep gorge at the bottom of the continents moved underground water from the oceans to the depths of the earth did the Quran ratify this scientific myth which was prevalent in that times or said (Do you not see that Allah sends down water from the cloud, then makes it go along in the earth in springs - Zumar 21) ... .. The source of groundwater is made up of springs, rain and not from Aristotle gap in the depth of the continent ........ And so on

 

19 - Atheism does not give an explanation for anything.

Atheism is not a solution but a confession of a failure in finding a solution and this is the beginning of atheism and the end of it ..

The famous atheist Richard Dawkins says in his book delusion: - (Atheists are like bunch of cats, every cat in different direction..) Every atheist is an independent church and as a Sheikh Moqbel Bin Hadi says (If ten people of falsehood meet, they separate in eleven ideas) so you do not find two atheist with the same idea combined and this is the misfortune of atheism and its ravages, it is the undisciplined doctrine that does not have a clear explanation of any issue, does not have a value of just a fun game mentality, as said by Dr. Ahmed Okasha .. Atheism in itself is merely a superficial naive idea that is very lazy on a very deep and serious issue ... Atheism is messy, nihilistic and skeptical. As one of the old brothers says: - (since the science is in continuous progress and since there are laws and fixed facts, the function of science is to look for those laws and facts, therefore, there no existence of Atheism or the messy Agnosticism.)

 

20 – The return of scientific world to God

The physicist (Frederick Bermham) author of History of Science (Science historian) Says: (at present, the scientific community deems the idea of God's creation of the universe a more respectable idea than ever before for hundreds of years).

Michael Behe says: I am compelled to accept the existence of God since the result of all these cumulative efforts to examine the cell. ie: to examine life at the molecular level is a loud shout to the clear sharp design ...

And I evidenced that by the return of hundreds of scientists and thinkers in the past few years to God and acknowledged that the cause of atheism is psychological rather than mental

 

 

the famous astronomer (Fred Hoyle) says in his book (mathematics of evolution) page 130: - (in fact, how the very clear scientific theory says that life is collected by a clever mind, however, the person marvels and wonders, why it’s not accepted widely as an intuitive ... but most likely it’s psychological reasons rather than scientific.)

and as Imam Hussein may Allah be pleased with him when he said (God, an eye has blinded that doesn’t see you)

 

 

To sum up, Sheikh Ghazali was right when he said: - We are imagining a mule building the pyramids, but we do not imagine what is assumed by atheists when they deny the divinity .. and as has been said in the Islamic history: - "The ox knows its master, the donkey knows its owner, but this one does not know ..." or, as the Bible in the Psalms of David the Prophet says : ”The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. 14-1 .. or as our Lord said in the Quran (And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men; they have hearts with which they do not understand, and they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear; they are as cattle, nay, they are in worse errors; these are the heedless ones) AL-ARAF 179[using large font size is not allowed]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1-2 are not proof of God. Having a question that someone doesn't know the answer too doesn't mean it has to be God. Also your points don't acknowledge the existence of an infinitely expanding and collapsing universe.

3. That's not what the second law of thermodynamics means. "The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. From the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature." -wiki Also recently someone may have proved this law wrong.

4.Not even a little. Actually everyone working together for the common good means everyone will be happy and safe and thus benefit the individuals as well as everyone. Also one does not have to be religious to be empathetic. In fact empathy could be explained by evolution.

5. That's not a scientific law. That's a theory.

6. I have no idea what you are talking about. How does one commit a crime unconsciously? Atheist do not deny abstract reality such as the mind.

7. "Human rights is metaphysical pure issue and your saying that human beings are equal this is possible only if the human is a creature of God" this is entirely your opinion. Again empathy and working together for a common good makes sense on a societal and evolutionary level.

8. Opinion.

9. See #1

10. Or through the luck of the draw and evolution we came up on top and are currently the dominant species of the planet. With your logic are all rich and powerful people chosen by God because they are better off?

11. As many times as I try to re-read this I can't understand what you're trying to say.

12. Opinion plus #1

13. Opinion + philosophy =/= science

14. Darwinism has nothing to do with Nazi eugenics. First off Darwin wasn't creating some sort of societal doctrine, rather observing a possible theory for how physical attributes form an pass on. This has nothing to do with how a society should be run. Second all forms of eugenics have been based off racism, if they really were trying to achieve a stronger healthier human through evolutionary means they would mix races as this has been scientifically proven to create stronger healthier offspring in all animals. Third this whole point HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE. Your also trying to put all of atheism under the actions of a few. That would be like me saying Islam is a violent religion because Islamic followers attacked the World Trade Center. I'm sure no one on this board would agree that is a fair accusation to make. (I'd also love to see where you got that Karl Marx quote s I have a hard time believing it's true or not taken completely out of context.

15. Again you are confusing atheist as people who are completely left brained people who have no understanding or appreciation for abstract things such as philosophy, and the arts. This is completely not true, entirey your opinion and has nothing to do with "evidence."

16.Opinion opinion opinion. Also Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy.

17. See #1

18. As I said in another post, there are many things ancient cultures did or figured out that seem unlikely or implausible or even impossible based on their technology at the time. That doesn't validate their religion.

19. So what? #1 again.

20. Appeal to Authority.

 

There you have it.

 

At the end of the day religious people have to understand one thing.

 

YOU WILL NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, be able to LOGICALLY prove to someone that God exists. God is a feeling. An experience. You know God through experience not through logic.

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


×