Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Proud Muslima

Wake Up Atheists !

Recommended Posts

I have been thinking.

 

The idea of "why we know that we are the product of evolution and not built by intelegence".

 

If we met an alien for the first time and it walked and talked, was intelegent and social we would be unable to say if it was born or built. Obviously it would be different from a rock because it could reson and make decisions.

 

The reason we know that we are the product of natural selection is that we have the fossil record of that process.

 

The theory of evolution make predicions. It said that humans and apes had common ancesters. This is proven by the fossil record. It said that there is a mechanisim for the charicteristics of the parent to be transmitted to the offspring. DNA is most of that mechanisim. These predictions were made before the physical evidence was availible.

 

If I predict that a horse will win a race next week, that is not impressive. If I predict that a specific horse will win a race next week that starts to get good.

The theory of evolution is the most confirmed by new discoveries theory ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
The question is still posed and not answered by a monotheistic God.

 

 

You are thinking of the second dillema in the conversation, ie "What is the holy? Does God love the holy, or is the holy just that which God loves?". Socrates, curious fellow that he was, kind of a monotheist, considered himself on a divine mission from Apollo.

 

As for second dillema, the answer is the holy what God loves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It said that there is a mechanisim for the charicteristics of the parent to be transmitted to the offspring. DNA is most of that mechanisim. These predictions were made before the physical evidence was availible.

 

this is incorrect, both in regards to genetics and to the structure of DNA. That knowledge that children resemble their parents is ancient; that the resemblence is discrete is due to Mendel, and the structure of DNA was predicted entirely on thermodynamic concerns. This is simple history. Conflating evolution with genetics and heritablity might give it a specious certainity, but are you really doing anyone a service by doing so?

 

 

 

As for the soul- Free will is directly observable, both in myself and other people. You might say its a mirage or an illusion- but until you are able to show that it is an illusion, one must trust their senses. If the mind were a "chemical computer", the only sort of non-determinate will would be simply random. Free will is observable, free will is impossible in a strictly naturalistic universe... the rational conclusion is the universe is not strictly naturalistic. That is a rather inconvienant conclusion, so I'm wagering you will just assume free will is an illusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are thinking of the second dillema in the conversation, ie "What is the holy? Does God love the holy, or is the holy just that which God loves?". Socrates, curious fellow that he was, kind of a monotheist, considered himself on a divine mission from Apollo.

 

As for second dillema, the answer is the holy what God loves.

 

That doesn't answer the question though, you simply rephrased the question making it a tautology. You and I know it hasn't ever been answered. The closest that people have gotten to it is that it is good because it is reflective in God's nature, which still doesn't answer the question. When it came to objective morality Socrates claimed to have had a daemon in him that told him right and wrong or to feel guilty when being dishonest. He certainly wasn't a monotheist in the way that monotheists claim today.

Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That doesn't answer the question though, you simply rephrased the question making it a tautology. You and I know it hasn't ever been answered. The closest that people have gotten to it is that it is good because it is reflective in God's nature, which still doesn't answer the question. When it came to objective morality Socrates claimed to have had a daemon in him that told him right and wrong or to feel guilty when being dishonest. He certainly wasn't a monotheist in the way that monotheists claim today.

 

 

actually no, I am taking one of the sides of the dillemma; that the holy is the whim of God. I think you should consider reading the full Apology cycle rather then the crib notes. Some translations are in the public domain, it would take you less than four hours, and you would only benefit. At any rate, you were asking why the God of Abraham made more sense than polytheism; I explained because polytheism is inherently inconsistant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is incorrect, both in regards to genetics and to the structure of DNA. That knowledge that children resemble their parents is ancient; that the resemblence is discrete is due to Mendel, and the structure of DNA was predicted entirely on thermodynamic concerns. This is simple history. Conflating evolution with genetics and heritablity might give it a specious certainity, but are you really doing anyone a service by doing so?

Sorry I have no idea what that means.

 

Free will:

 

We have free will. Computers like the one I am using do not they are too simple. The most advanced computers do have the capacity to make decisions and make different decisions given the same inputs. Do ants have free will? There is obviously a degree to which the concept of free will applies.

 

Why would the notion of me having free will mean that I have a supernatural component?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
actually no, I am taking one of the sides of the dillemma; that the holy is the whim of God. I think you should consider reading the full Apology cycle rather then the crib notes. Some translations are in the public domain, it would take you less than four hours, and you would only benefit. At any rate, you were asking why the God of Abraham made more sense than polytheism; I explained because polytheism is inherently inconsistant.

Thank you for your incorrect concern for my erudition. If your assumption is that a god is necessary to give objective morality then you are correct, but doesn't resolve the dilemma. If you don't believe that a God Is wholly necessary for morality then a monothiestic or a polytheistic mythology is fine. As long as you hold your assumption, I would agree with you even if it ultimately isn't conclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
effortless nirvana. Atheism is without a doubt the most convienant of beliefs ever invented.

How is it so?

 

It means that I am responsable for my life. There is no-one else to blame or expect to come to my rescue. I have to solve my problems.

 

I was on holiday in Peru. They are Catholic Christians with the occaisonal remnant of Inca religious festival. Whilst I was there they were carrying 3 huge metal/concrete crucifixes around the city of Cuzco. This was I think to protect them from earthquakes. Earthquakes happen a lot in the Andies.

 

Because they believe in the power of God to save them they do not build their buildings to stand up to earthquakes or even take basic precautions such as having a set of old cloathes and a basic tent in the loft so that when the house falls down they will not have to sleep in the open. Their faith saves them from this inconvienient work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
effortless nirvana. Atheism is without a doubt the most convienant of beliefs ever invented.

I beg to differ, Atheists are not expecting anything but Christians are expecting to just believe that some god in human form killed himself and paid for everything to enable all Christians to dwell forever in paradise..very convenient I would say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,†but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.â€

 

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

 

20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,â€[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

James 2: 16-24

 

 

faith is neccesary but not sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James 2: 16-24

faith is neccesary but not sufficient.

Interesting, this is not what Paul's brand of Christianity (which seems to be the majority) teaches though..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is the position of the RCC. In response to the reformation it was unequivocally stated in the council of trent:

 

 

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

 

....

 

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

 

so on, so forth. A section of the council was set aside for denying the reformation innovations in justification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It worked this time.

 

1 I do not see any evidence for the existance of a supernatural intelegence designing any part of the world or being involved in any way with the world.

 

2 If you show me such evidence can you then show me how your Koran is in any way more credible than the idiotic non-sence of the Hindu's religion?

 

3 Please also explain why any being which has lived for 13.6 Billion years so far and has awairness of all of the hundreds of millions of stars and plannets in this galaxy as well as an equal awairness of all the billions of other galaxies would care what I had for dinner?

 

The video worked in that it played. It did not address the fundimental idea of weather God exists. Thanks for the interest though.

 

This is not an argument against your points, it is more to emphasise and add minor corrections:

 

According to multiple big bang theory we have found evidence the universe has contracted and exploded many times, so in fact the universe is much older than 13.6 Billion years... this was just the latest explosion.

 

Also keep in mind that according to the creation story in Genesis god spent 1 day creating the earth then spent 1 day creating the quadrillions upon quadrillions of other worlds, galaxies, suns, starts.....

 

Because they are nothing but little dots in the sky, am I right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Precisely,,the fact that these objects move in precise computable paths, rotate in precise computable time etc, all of these require intelligence. The movement of the moon for example can be predicted or rather computed, and from there we can relate or compute phenomenas such as the sea tides etc.

And this is precisely the kind of mentality I'm talking about..the moon maybe just a huge ball of rock, but if earth were to lose it, that would probably mean the end of earth and its entire creatures..

There's a wonderful new invention called "gravity" that will account for the predictabilty of the moon's orbit (as well as the orbit of all planets in the solar system.

 

There is no guiding "intelligence" that defines gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a wonderful new invention called "gravity" that will account for the predictabilty of the moon's orbit (as well as the orbit of all planets in the solar system.

 

There is no guiding "intelligence" that defines gravity.

 

There's no guiding intelligence, or there's no perceived guiding intelligence? There's a distinction.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no guiding intelligence, or there's no perceived guiding intelligence? There's a distinction.

 

Do you have any evidence that any one of the many asserted gods are guiding the process of gravity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have any evidence that any one of the many asserted gods are guiding the process of gravity?

 

Do you have any evidence otherwise?

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have any evidence otherwise?

 

Salam.

Yes, I do. Do you have any evidence I don't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I do. Do you have any evidence I don't?

 

I believe that it is up to you to find the evidence that Allah exists. That is something you will have to overcome, if you use the right faculties. But please do share with us evidence that He doesn't exist. If your proof is merely "He doesn't exist because there is no tangible proof for it", that is an unacceptable argument. Awareness does not dictate existence.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that it is up to you to find the evidence that Allah exists.

Why do you think that it is up to me to find evidence that Allah or any other gods exist?

 

That is something you will have to overcome, if you use the right faculties.

And what would those faculties be? Would the right faculties point also to other gods?

 

But please do share with us evidence that He doesn't exist. If your proof is merely "He doesn't exist because there is no tangible proof for it", that is an unacceptable argument. Awareness does not dictate existence.

As you are the one claiming that gods exist, it falls to you to provide evidence of such. If your proof is merely "I read it in a book", that is unacceptable. Lack of evidence does not dictate existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you think that it is up to me to find evidence that Allah or any other gods exist?

 

Why?

 

Because of this:

 

And what would those faculties be? Would the right faculties point also to other gods?

 

As you are the one claiming that gods exist, it falls to you to provide evidence of such. If your proof is merely "I read it in a book", that is unacceptable. Lack of evidence does not dictate existence.

 

You are the one who wants something. You should either do your best to get it, or merely quit.

 

But based on what you've stated in other topics, you have no interest in learning about Islam. I try not to waste my energy on people who have made up their minds.

 

Salam.

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


×