Jump to content
Islamic Forum
llogical

About Atheism..

Recommended Posts

That doesn't apply to him, he doesn't believe in Hell! Too bad it still exists...."Oh but can't prove that, there is no logical evidence..." How about, People will go back to primates before 3d can ever manage that!

 

Salamu Alaikum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Circular logic is something I'd recognize as being invalid. Circular relationships such as cycle is valid.

 

You are saying that the universe has been around infinite years long.

I don't think I've said that. Stop assuming things.

 

My point was that self sufficient cycles do exist, the start cycle being one of them. You can't prove a beginning to a cause and effect relationship by saying "I can't offer a rationale to believe it but I believe in it because If I didn't there wouldn't be a reason to say god exists."

 

I mean you can't walk through a closed door.

 

To get through the door you seem to be insisting that I shed of logic and reason and rely on faith. no thanks.

Edited by 3dshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you can not prove or disprove the existence of God – not even a god.

 

This is what I still stand by.

...

U said it...seriously ..if u go back and follow the thread u'll see how we are repeating things ...thanx to u. I'm beginning to doubt ur philosophy ( or should I say foolosophy :D )

So let me ask again..... if u can't prove or disprove, than why assume it doesn't exist?

U asked why I assume he does, I gave my rationale....U didn't buy it.

Now it's only fair that u explain why he doesn't exist.

(remember...U can't plead Ignorance because that works both ways.)

About the stars, in simple words, Your analogy didn't work. Aalim already explained why.

(In case if ur ego is getting in the way of reasoning, I am nuetral, not a thiest or athiest so don't think I'm trying to convert u or something)

Peace

Edited by llogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So let me ask again..... if u can't prove or disprove, than why assume it doesn't exist?

U asked why I assume he does, I gave my rationale....U didn't buy it.

Now it's only fair that u explain why he doesn't exist.

 

Well my friend, it seems you misunderstood me even after quoting me.

 

#1 I always maintain that "I do not believe in gods existence."

 

#2 This is not the same as me saying "God does not exist".

 

For #1 the rationale for believing the negative is that there is no proof by which I can accept it to be true. That is, a few centuries ago If you told me "the moon is made of cheese", I would tell you "I do not believe the moon is made of cheese" --->Why?---> There is no reason to believe the moon is made of cheese (We haven't done any study to verify it).

 

For #2 I would require a reason. Saying "God does not exist" is saying it like a fact. To know that god does not exist is different from believing that god does not exist and that is a very critical distinction that must be made. To say "God does not exist" you must have proof that he doesn't. So far, I've never encountered any valid proofs because so far they are all just proofs invalidating the religious notion of god.

 

In other words I'd argue with both someone who said he can prove god does not exist, and someone who said he can prove god does exist :D So far, neither side has given any valid proofs.

 

Hope I didn lose u here.

 

P.S. This is your theory in a nutshell, as a student of philosophy yourself I think you can figure out whats wrong with it.

 

The Simple Cosmological Argument

 

(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.

(2) The universe exists.

Therefore:

(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.

(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.

Therefore:

(5) God exists.

Edited by 3dshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace,

 

I'm suprised nobody has asked for a definition of God yet. Illogical you seem to be asking atheists to disprove the existance of something you have not defined, which is a question which is flawed as a result.

 

As you say you are not a theist, and you are relying on the first cause argument to claim that 'something' which you call "God", could exist outwith the laws of causality, which is capable of being a first cause.

 

Nobody can disprove that "something" exists which was the first cause. However you have opted to call this "something", "God". You could equally have chosen to call this "something"; Satan, Mother Theresa, Hitler, Zoroaster or 'an unknown force'.

 

You cannot disprove that Satan was the first cause. You cannot disprove that Mother Theresa was the first cause, or that Hitler, Zoroaster or Eoin were the first cause. That is a semantic argument, just as your claiming that we cannot disprove God relies on God being the first cause; is a semantic argument.

 

Let us return to the God of the Gaps. In 2000BC the word electricity was never used to describe lightning as people did not know what electricity was, so people called lightning God. In 2000BC it was by your logic entirely fine to use the word God to describe the cause of lightning because nobody knew any better. Let us now apply semanticism. If I travelled back in time to 2000BC and started claiming that lightning could in fact be caused directly by Adolf Hitler, then I have as much merit for my argument as the argument in favour of God.

 

Zoom forward 4006 years to the present day. We have another pheonomeonon that is as yet unexplainable. Once again in the usual boring cycle of life, people are referring to it as God because they do not understand what it is. Once again by your logic it is entirely fine to suggest that this unknown could in fact be God. Fine I say, then I put forward the idea that the first cause could indeed be Adolf Hitler, and none of you Nazi haters can disprove it.

 

Does this mean that the whole world is being illogical by denying the existance of Adolf Hitler, the Divine and Holy Creator of the Universe?

 

You ask atheists, how can you disprove 'God' (God in this case being the first cause), well we cannot. That doesn't mean I would be illogical in denying that the first cause could have been God, any more than you denying that Adolf Hitler created life, the universe and everything is illogical.

 

The word God has theistic implications and as such should not be used, just as the word Hitler has political implications and as such should not be used to describe the first cause.

 

Atheists have no reason to believe that God or Hitler created the universe. It is therefore not illogical for an atheist to say that God does not exist, as you might say, "Hitler does not exist."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well my friend, it seems you misunderstood me even after quoting me.

 

#1 I always maintain that "I do not believe in gods existence."

 

#2 This is not the same as me saying "God does not exist".

 

For #1 the rationale for believing the negative is that there is no proof by which I can accept it to be true. That is, a few centuries ago If you told me "the moon is made of cheese", I would tell you "I do not believe the moon is made of cheese" --->Why?---> There is no reason to believe the moon is made of cheese (We haven't done any study to verify it).

So... u claim ignorance as I predicted ( ...take this nostradamus :D )

Observe the Dialogue between angryman and black ninja.

 

:D :..You know this guy 3rd..he's an idiot...now it doesn't mean that it's true but I think so.

 

:D :if U have no data to judge 3rd why u mainatin that he's an idiot?

 

:D :I have no proof that he's mart so he reamains an idiot to me until proven smart?

 

:D :But why can't he remain smart until proven an idiot?

 

:D :Because there is no way to prove either so I believe he's an idiot.

u tell me what's wrong here

 

The Simple Cosmological Argument

 

(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.

(2) The universe exists.

Therefore:

(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.

(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.

Therefore:

(5) God exists.

?

Replace all this with.....If everything is caused by something, than there must be something for whom this rule doesn't apply.

Edited by llogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm suprised nobody has asked for a definition of God yet. Illogical you seem to be asking atheists to disprove the existance of something you have not defined, which is a question which is flawed as a result.

IT is defined.

fot all I care, u can assume that god is a devil monk who looks like adolf hitler with no hair.

( I already pointed out that I mean god as in a first cause, assuming nothing more)

Forget the gaps , there is a big different in the gaps approach and the one presented here.example.. lightening is god ....vs lightenin is caused by god.

Atheists have no reason to believe that God or Hitler created the universe. It is therefore not illogical for an atheist to say that God does not exist, as you might say, "Hitler does not exist

again...having no reason works both ways.. 3rd pointed out the same thing and my reply above ( the dialogue between angryman and black ninja) answer ur concern too. :D

p.s I don't really think hitler exists ( unless u call bones existance) :D

peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The concept of devine or God has always been around from the beginning of history...exploring this concept based on logical premise, where do Athiests Stand? To be an Athiest one must believe that God doesn't exist. This means that from an Athiest standpoint than one must reject the possibility of God's existance. How do athiests define the existance of the world and creation in general?? come on now don't be shy :D

not to single any 1 out but bro 3rdshocker.. I know you atleast must have something 2 say.

peace :D

 

 

:D devout people who lack faith should not read the following as it may challenge and rock your world view :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

some of the usual questions i've been asked in the past:

how could the universe spontaniously appear?

 

the problem with that line of thinking is that assumptions are stretched and broken. the assumption in such a question is this, 'the laws of our universe, the physics, the way things interact can be applied before the universe existed'!!

 

this is what people make the mistake of doing, assuming that our norms, like conservation of energy, cause and effect, all that flies out the window. into the situation of Anything goes, everything happens spontaniously. logic is eternal. our universe has a finite age. its finite age explains its existance.

 

i hope that helps converts you all.

 

if it were to occur that many of you dropped the religion thing, then your conciousness would finally be free to breath. a struggle for sure at first - like a butterfly struggling to pull itself out of its development sack - but worth it. i fully recommend athiesm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

correction:

 

 

this is what people make the mistake of doing, assuming that our norms, like conservation of energy, cause and effect persists before the universe existed: all that flies out the window. into the situation of Anything goes, everything happens spontaniously. logic is eternal. our universe has a finite age. its finite age explains its existance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So... u claim ignorance as I predicted ( ...take this nostradamus w00t.gif )

 

Relax n take notes llogi, Philosophy 101

 

Socrates -

But as I spoke with this 'wise man' I began to see that he and his admirers only assumed that he was wise, whereas he was actually quite unenlightened and ignorant of many things. This man believed that he had knowledge when in fact he did not, whereas I at least was aware that I had no knowledge. After several such encounters, I realized that my wisdom is in not assuming that I know things when I do not.

 

I'm trying to prove to you that you dont KNOW that there exists a first cause. So far I've been doing that and you falling into denial, assumptions and petty insults doesn't count as a proof.

 

Food for thought - Soc was an atheist too, and it is by his line of reasoning I became one as well :D

 

mad.gif :..You know this guy 3rd..he's an idiot...now it doesn't mean that it's true but I think so.

As I said, the problem is you can't assume a positive (logically, not in terms of good and bad) when you don't know it to be true. It is just plain ignorance. As was demonstrated by your attempt at proving a first cause. You cannot apply either extreme of an attribute when you don't know it to be true. I say to the mad guy, You don't know he's smart, You don't know he's stupid.

 

The statements your choosing from are "he's smart" or "he's stupid"

- think outside the box llogi, these are both positive (logically) statements with no basis considering you dont know 3rd. I don't know 3rd either as I am 3D :D

 

Saying "I do not believe he is smart" is different from saying "he's an idiot". The latter is equivilant to the statement of "there is no god". Both based on logical fallacies.

 

If everything is caused by something, than there must be something for whom this rule doesn't apply.

We've been over this, the first part has empirical evidence extending it to somewhat of a valid theory. The second part has no logical basis whatsoever. You're so called deductive line of reasoning was nothing more then an assumption attempted to be proven by even more assumptions.

 

How did you even make a leap like that? I mean seriously, for a guy with the name llogical you're pretty ironical.

 

Comon llogi, you can do better then this assuming you are a student of philosophy as well. Start with a clean slate and prove it by rational thinking. Explain to me how you went from

 

"If everything is caused by something " to "than there must be something for whom this rule doesn't apply"

 

Maybe its obvious to you, but it aint to me, do me a favour and break it down will ya? The steps on how you got from the first statement to the second cuz I see no bridge as it is.

Edited by 3dshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalamu alaikum,

 

About atheism ... allow me to interject that this word is shaped to describe a belief system that is "without" theism. While buddhists can fairly be said to be without theism, it is too much to say they are without faith, or a devotion more generally described as religion.

 

As ever, Jesse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm trying to prove to you that you dont KNOW that there exists a first cause. So far I've been doing that and you falling into denial, assumptions and petty insults doesn't count as a proof.

 

Food for thought - Soc was an atheist too, and it is by his line of reasoning I became one as well

U failed to prove your point Or understand mines.

Socratis was NOT an athiest....and I want to strangle your philosophy teacher.

And no..I'm not trying to insult you, but rather serving humor. ( ok. maybe a little :D )

Comon llogi, you can do better then this assuming you are a student of philosophy as well. Start with a clean slate and prove it by rational thinking. Explain to me how you went from

"If everything is caused by something " to "than there must be something for whom this rule doesn't apply"

Maybe its obvious to you, but it aint to me, do me a favour and break it down will ya? The steps on how you got from the first statement to the second cuz I see no bridge as it is.[/b]

No problemo Toby, remember... existentialism..Jean Paul Sartre came up with that not me so perhaps if u read what he says it will make more sense.But to me it makes more sense than the stupid circular thing. EVen if it doesn't make more sense than the circular thing than it makes at least as much sense as the circular thing and that itself gives it the worth.

I can draw you the table (like syllogism or something) containing every possibility but honestly it's too much work.Im not a student anymore...though I still think.

maybe I can do the table later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
correction:

this is what people make the mistake of doing, assuming that our norms, like conservation of energy, cause and effect persists before the universe existed: all that flies out the window. into the situation of Anything goes, everything happens spontaniously. logic is eternal. our universe has a finite age. its finite age explains its existance.

i don't get U.......... laymans terms only...please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assalamu alaikum,

 

About atheism ... allow me to interject that this word is shaped to describe a belief system that is "without" theism. While buddhists can fairly be said to be without theism, it is too much to say they are without faith, or a devotion more generally described as religion.

 

As ever, Jesse

yeah.....I totally overlooked that.

..but if I remember Buddhist philospohy correctly...isn't aatman same thing as primary cause??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socratis was NOT an athiest....and I want to strangle your philosophy teacher.

 

kk, think you're onto sumthin, I remember he was tried for being an atheist but I think that mita been a religious relative thing. I'll look it up and get back to you on that.

 

This existentialism thing sounds interesting considering the number of syllables it contains. I shall look into it.

 

 

And you still haven't explained your reasoning for going from

"If everything is caused by something " to "than there must be something for whom this rule doesn't apply"

 

I'm not a mind reader, can't you just explain this atleast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah.....I totally overlooked that.

..but if I remember Buddhist philospohy correctly...isn't aatman same thing as primary cause??

Greetings,

 

As a gloss, I would agree.

 

But I'm afraid I'll have to unwind this somewhat away from likely theistic misconceptions. Recall that the buddha-nature is to be free of the wheel of karma, and thus separate from all cause and effect. As such, primary cause cannot truly be said to be the "same thing" as it would in a theistic tradition.

 

Atman in most threads of buddhism is identified as the cause of samsara and itself springs from ignorance. The buddha rejected all forms of atman. This is the essence of anatta, and the path to nirvana.

 

A confusion arises between the mahayana and theravada traditions, however, as their is a dualistic buddhic atman sometimes conceived as the pure buddha self in the state of nirvana. The theravada tradition explicitly rejects this claim, however and the duality really requires reference to the hindu tradition from which the atman originates.

 

Forgive me if my attempt to shed light has instead merely muddied the water. But the divergence between eastern and western religious traditions is often like this.

 

As ever, Jesse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greetings,

 

As a gloss, I would agree.

 

But I'm afraid I'll have to unwind this somewhat away from likely theistic misconceptions. Recall that the buddha-nature is to be free of the wheel of karma, and thus separate from all cause and effect. As such, primary cause cannot truly be said to be the "same thing" as it would in a theistic tradition.

 

Atman in most threads of buddhism is identified as the cause of samsara and itself springs from ignorance. The buddha rejected all forms of atman. This is the essence of anatta, and the path to nirvana.

 

A confusion arises between the mahayana and theravada traditions, however, as their is a dualistic buddhic atman sometimes conceived as the pure buddha self in the state of nirvana. The theravada tradition explicitly rejects this claim, however and the duality really requires reference to the hindu tradition from which the atman originates.

 

Forgive me if my attempt to shed light has instead merely muddied the water. But the divergence between eastern and western religious traditions is often like this.

 

As ever, Jesse

Do shed light...

I think I totally undermined the buddhist stance on this...to refresh my memory where exactly does buddhists stand on the subject of primary cause? my understanding is that to live is to suffer and the 8 fold path leading to the succession of suffering or nirvana.But Isn't the aatman the ultimate reality ? and isn't aatman (unknown) in essance... the primary cause?

Edited by llogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do shed light...

 

I think I totally undermined the buddhist stance on this...to refresh my memory where exactly does buddhists stand on the subject of primary cause? my understanding is that to live is to suffer and the 8 fold path leading to the succession of suffering or nirvana.But Isn't the aatman the ultimate reality ? and isn't aatman (unknown) in essance... the primary cause?

Normally, I would be concerned that my remarks may tend to derail, but as this is your thread ...

 

Perhaps I speak when I should not, as I am not buddhist, though it has been said that when buddhism first arrived in China, it was considered a form of taoism. More properly, though, it is an outgrowth of the hindu tradition.

 

Atman itself is originally a hindu term. There are separate wikis on the the meaning of atman in the two traditions you may wish to consider reading.

 

(www.)"http://en.wikipedia/wiki/Atman_%28Hinduism%29"]Atman (Hinduism)[/url]

(www.)"http://en.wikipedia/wiki/Atman_%28Buddhism%29"] Atman (Buddhism)[/url]

 

I'll try to return to this discussion tomorrow, but it's late, and I am afraid if I continue at present, my meaning will become unclear. And perhaps by then you'll have had a chance to digest the information at the wiki links, and be better able to follow my comments on buddhism, taoism and ultimate causes.

 

As ever, Jesse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

kk, think you're onto sumthin, I remember he was tried for being an atheist but I think that mita been a religious relative thing. I'll look it up and get back to you on that.

Socratis was tried and ultimately executed for crimes against Piety :D (@#$^!!^@& Athenians)

He was accused for misguiding the youth and making the right appear wrong.I think he was given the option of either stop questioning people or die.

But he did believe on the Apollo God etc.

This existentialism thing sounds interesting considering the number of syllables it contains. I shall look into it.

And you still haven't explained your reasoning for going from

"If everything is caused by something " to "than there must be something for whom this rule doesn't apply"

I'm not a mind reader, can't you just explain this atleast?

The inference is It's based on the first principle of Existentialism as I recall it.

I can't seem to find the source yet :D but I will and than maybe I can either explain it or be like ..duh...I screwd up and hang my head in shame :D

But meanwhile ... from another angle...I can go from "If everything is caused by something " to "than there must be something for whom this rule doesn't apply" inference using the chicken and the egg theory. :D

.We know tha the egg came first..and the since eggs in general come from chickens, we also know that this rule didn;t apply to that first egg which started the chain.

Edited by llogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to what you point out ..how did I draw the inference?

I might have mixed up Sartre with some one else :D But in a 1945 lecture that was published in " L'Existentialisme est un Humanisme"(which i can't seem to find in english) he pointed out the following.

"Athiestic existentialism, which I represent,is more coherent.It sates if God does not exist, there is atleast one being in whom existance persists essance,a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept"

I took the quote from an essay of his posted in 1945-46 (which ionly have hard copy of) but it explicitly explains the concept of "existance persists essance" which is related to the first cause argument I posed (and u should checkout). I will try to back track and figure out about the other guy I might have confused him with as time allows. But even using this, and understanding what he means by essance.... the inference I made makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just replying to this for the sheer fun of it.

 

1- Give reasons please, why you are Atheist? ( My question is not about God, what you saw in Atheism? What principles laws, philosophy or any good thing or ideas or manifesto of atheism ?)
I am an atheist because I don't believe in any deity. That's all atheism is -- a lack of belief. There are no laws, rules, manifestos, or principles. Atheists just don't believe in any god. That's it. That's why it is not a religion.

 

2- How you practice atheism in your life?
There is nothing to practice.

 

3- Did you consider Islam before accepting Atheism as your religion? Or

First you accepted Atheism and then concluded that Islam is not right religion for you?

Atheism is not a religion, it is a philosophy. To answer the rest of your question, however, I did not consider Islam because I do not believe in a deity, and Islam requires that belief in order to convert.

 

Atheists, do you want to believe in god? Are you open to the "GOD" possibility?

 

Salamu Alaikum

I neither want to believe nor not want to believe. I am, however, very open to the possibility. Do you have valid evidence of a deity that you can share with other people? As in, physical evidence?

 

i don't get U.......... laymans terms only...please...
llogical, perhaps you should use a dictionary if you do not understand a word.

 

Now, as for the beginnings of the Universe, no one knows what caused it or even if there was a cause. It is just as likely to have existed eternally as not. Because there is no knowledge either way, and I am not a cosmologist or astrophysicist, I don't bother to speculate. It could very well have been a god who created the Universe. It could also have been sneezed into existence by a mighty green wombat. Or it could have always been. We don't know. And I do not pretend to know. So, there's your answer to the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because there is no knowledge either way, and I am not a cosmologist or astrophysicist, I don't bother to speculate. It could very well have been a god who created the Universe. It could also have been sneezed into existence by a mighty green wombat.

not a green wombat you fool! Our creator is the Flying Spaghetti Monster!! All hail the flying one!! :D

 

P.S. This is very hilarious and worth googling! :D

 

anywho, yea, I agree with nex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
llogical, perhaps you should use a dictionary if you do not understand a word.

 

Now, as for the beginnings of the Universe, no one knows what caused it or even if there was a cause. It is just as likely to have existed eternally as not. Because there is no knowledge either way, and I am not a cosmologist or astrophysicist, I don't bother to speculate. It could very well have been a god who created the Universe. It could also have been sneezed into existence by a mighty green wombat. Or it could have always been. We don't know. And I do not pretend to know. So, there's your answer to the OP.

How about using the dictionary to lookup below two words.

1.Athiest

2.Agnostic.

You brought no new knowledge to the table.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about using the dictionary to lookup below two words.

1.Athiest

2.Agnostic.

You brought no new knowledge to the table.

:D

llogical, I know very well what the words atheist and agnostic mean. I am, after all, an agnostic atheist. :D

 

No, I brought no new knowledge. I brought my judgment and opinion. I did not claim otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not a green wombat you fool! Our creator is the Flying Spaghetti Monster!! All hail the flying one!! :D

Verily, we are touched by His Noodly Appendage. May the Sauce be with you.

 

RAmen.

 

:D

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


×