Jump to content
Islamic Forum
IAmZamzam

Why I Am Not An Atheist

Recommended Posts

Redeem,

 

1. Oh yes: I have absolutely no doubt that my thoughts about reality are deficient. Every scientist has come to the same conclusion.

 

2. Yes, one can say that I'm "immoral and rebellious" against the Islamic god (and every other god), but it's rather a silly admonition, since (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_zenofzero(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/docs/IiIndoctrinationinIgnorance.pdf"]the most certain knowledge[/url] that humans have been able to gain, even more certain than the knowledge that we exist (for we may all be just simulation in some humongous computer game), is that there are no gods (and never were any).

 

3. I understand that you've concluded that you haven't "pitted [yourself] against [your] Creator", but my point was (and is) that you've misidentified your "creator".

 

4. I do try to "take advantage of the knowledge available... here", but in so many cases (e.g., Yahya Sulaiman and whitewrite) I find, not knowledge, but drug-induced delusional rants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

and you just wrote above

"we could be a mere simulation in a humongous computer game"

later down

you label another of your, 'simulated peers' opinions as 'drug induced rants'

what are you doing to your greay matter? Through your grey matter?

What is true? The simulation part or the neurotransmitter mediated rational thoughts i tried knocking into your electro-convulsive-therapy needing brain

i do not wish disrespect nor offence

i mean well

am rather agitatted by such extensive research as yoursresulting in saying the above two quotations in the same paragraph

GET BACK IN LINE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the "jist" of your detailed dissertations is;

"we the humans can NOT be certain about/of anything-ANYTHING"

&

you end it by concluding,

"so that proves that we can be certain of only one thing,'there is no god' "

we, the respondants to you, do it out of sympathy and hope that you will use your time,effort,sentiment and intellect, to come back to your senses.

Are we not (even if this be a simulated existence,yet within this simulated frame of refrence) are we not certain

absolutely certain that a stone WILL NOT MOVE UNLESS A FORCE IS APPLIED TO STIR/MOVE IT?

Yes we are certain about that,(within this simulated environment's frame of refrence)

THEN HOW Is the whole (simulated) universe in motion?

You are only repeating "pink floyd's' adolescent lyrics from their L.P tht in the 80's went best selling "the wall"

'it's a king who had a big hallucination' as those poor guys finally concluded of their christian pitiful fabrication of a god who suffers for what that minute,meek,weak god created -being told all their early lives they were born-sinners(trash)

come over and get admission at my facility

i dont mean that sarcastically

honestly , i will honour you as a muslim must honour a guest

just spend 40 days with me in my house

my ground rules

i am 51

and only this emotional trauma that had no other remedy(since i am family-less) did i resort to use a natural neurotransmitter of gaiety synthesized in the labs as heroine

otherwise

till 50 i was walking 12 to 14 kilometers/day, in one go(two hours)

and i have nearly resolved the emotional knots i was caughtup in

and Our CREATOR Has Sent this month "ramadan" that liberates man from any and every 'habit'- to the extent that even the work at day and rest at night(subject to the sun) is reversed for these 30 days

earnestly, you are welcome

salaama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, the OP is full of hasty generalizations and ad hominem attacks, I can't see if there's some point in between at all.

 

You are about the third atheist so far to claim a lack of clarity in the article; as yet, not one single non-atheist has done so, nor, to the best of my memory, did zoro, who is an atheist. I suppose that is encouraging since experience teaches me that when the only thing anyone can do is claim (as no parties more in agreement with me do) that there's no coherency or point to something (never mind if the entire first paragraph is dedicated to stating my point), that means I have successfully formed rational and convincing argument that they cannot find any other way to deny. Of course, the moment I say that I'm sure I'll see the same people start offering rebuttals out of offense, probably entirely with things already addressed in the OP itself, and therefore waiving the claim that they can't understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about the third atheist so far to claim a lack of clarity in the article; as yet, not one single non-atheist has done so, nor, to the best of my memory, did zoro, who is an atheist. I suppose that is encouraging since experience teaches me that when the only thing anyone can do is claim (as no parties more in agreement with me do) that there's no coherency or point to something (never mind if the entire first paragraph is dedicated to stating my point), that means I have successfully formed rational and convincing argument that they cannot find any other way to deny. Of course, the moment I say that I'm sure I'll see the same people start offering rebuttals out of offense, probably entirely with things already addressed in the OP itself, and therefore waiving the claim that they can't understand it.

 

Where did I say all that? What I meant was, it's full of ad hom attacks and hasty generalizations, so that I couldn't bother to read the rest and find if anything is in etween at all. Do you want me to specifically highlight the ad hom and generalization parts? And can you like, sort of give me the readers digest version of the questions which Atheists are supposed to answer? I'll try my best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never asked any non-rhetorical questions in that article--rather, it is a *statement*--and what you said was that the point was lost amidst the alleged fallacies. Probably it was a joke, but in any event certainly not a very funny one, and you're not the first here to say anything along the lines of there being no easy point to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never asked any non-rhetorical questions in that article--rather, it is a *statement*--and what you said was that the point was lost amidst the alleged fallacies. Probably it was a joke, but in any event certainly not a very funny one, and you're not the first here to say anything along the lines of there being no easy point to understand.

If the purpose was indeed to make the message clear, then you could've done it without fallacies and ad hom attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or is the burden of proof, again, on the one with the “extraordinary†claim instead? It’s apparently whatever an atheist needs it to be, actually, but that is not the point. The defense they keep citing during any given fifteen minutes when they’re currently saying it’s the person making the extraordinary claim who has the burden of proof goes, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.†That adage might have something to it in and of itself but in this context it presupposes that it’s simply a given that theism is somehow more “extraordinary†than atheism—whatever that’s even supposed to mean. It does seem to me that “extraordinary†is necessarily a very subjective word. And as for my own subjective notions I personally cannot see what makes the idea of the universe having an entity who created it any more extraordinary than ideas like an entire universe spontaneously generating out of nowhere as alchemists thought maggots did from meat, a universe spawning itself (impossible, as nothing can create itself: something has to exist first before it can perform creation or any other action), or even a plethora of entire universes (or perhaps an infinitude) existing to explain how this universe could be the way it is without having been designed that way. Apparently all “extraordinary†means here is “in reference to an outside, supernatural factorâ€. Or to boil it down a little more, “theisticâ€.

1. Atheism comes with no burden of anything, except a lack of belief in a deity. It makes no other claims.

2. Universe generating out of nowhere? Where did you get that from?

3. There's a third answer, you know, - "We don't know", which is what most rational atheists would admit. If you are talking about the hypotheses, then yes, we have some models that are consistent with what we know. But if anyone claims that to be truth, that would be irrational, doesn't matter if he's a theist or an atheist. Now as far as I know, theists don't consider god as a hypothesis, do they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Read the paragraphs you yourself quote more carefully next time. It was an offhand little bit about how, since we're using a subjective term to define a standard that's supposed to be about objective fact, I can play the same game too and show what I think is the more "extraordinary" to me.

 

2. Even in this very thread the idea of a quantum fluctuation (defined by atheists in these arguments, for all intents and purposes, as "uncaused events" and by everyone else as "changes in the amount of energy something has for which a cause is not yet currently known") spontaneously generating the universe has been propagated. You'd think that with all these countless eras of unbroken consistency of cause and effect holding true that even the most scientifically fanatical atheist would trust all those milliennia of experience and not themselves make the hasty generalization that "we haven't found a cause for some highly supernatural microscopic quantum phenomena, therefore we must conclude that there is none to be found in the fist place".

 

3. Theism doesn't come with a burden of anything either, by your own logic, except that we believe in deity. The part of my OP we've excerpted here went into almost ridiculous amounts of detail as to why the concept of a "burden of proof" goes on NO ONE here--and frankly the more I hear the phrase in *any* context and the more I think about the subject the more the very *idea* of "burdens of proof" seems like B.S. to me just to begin with, even when they're *not* over unprovable issues like God's existence. "What side of something offers the likeliest and most logical option?" should always be the question, never, "What side should be some default if the other fails as though that were a valid way of necessarily reaching fact?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does no one ever, ever, ever use "ad hominem" correctly?? Is it so much to ask that ANYONE knows what it means and can apply it correctly as well? I'm too tired of explaining it, just keep quacking in the wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Read the paragraphs you yourself quote more carefully next time. It was an offhand little bit about how, since we're using a subjective term to define a standard that's supposed to be about objective fact, I can play the same game too and show what I think is the more "extraordinary" to me.

Oh, are we playing semantics here now?

 

2. Even in this very thread the idea of a quantum fluctuation (defined by atheists in these arguments, for all intents and purposes, as "uncaused events" and by everyone else as "changes in the amount of energy something has for which a cause is not yet currently known") spontaneously generating the universe has been propagated. You'd think that with all these countless eras of unbroken consistency of cause and effect holding true that even the most scientifically fanatical atheist would trust all those milliennia of experience and not themselves make the hasty generalization that "we haven't found a cause for some highly supernatural microscopic quantum phenomena, therefore we must conclude that there is none to be found in the fist place".

What are you talking about? Yes, those are hypotheses. If someone claim that to be absolute truth, I'll without a doubt call him irrational. What's your problem now?

3. Theism doesn't come with a burden of anything either, by your own logic, except that we believe in deity. The part of my OP we've excerpted here went into almost ridiculous amounts of detail as to why the concept of a "burden of proof" goes on NO ONE here--and frankly the more I hear the phrase in *any* context and the more I think about the subject the more the very *idea* of "burdens of proof" seems like B.S. to me just to begin with, even when they're *not* over unprovable issues like God's existence. "What side of something offers the likeliest and most logical option?" should always be the question, never, "What side should be some default if the other fails as though that were a valid way of necessarily reaching fact?"

Yes it does. Believing in a deity comes with a burden of proving an existence of such a deity. The most logical option is not to believe in anything except when we have evidence. Science can't just stop at the creator and say, "God always existed". There would always be a burden of explaining how such an infinitely complex being came into existence. Hence I would argue, that creation by deity is, a much more complex and unlikely solution for the origin of universe. So do you think that god (as in Abrahamic god) is the most likely and logical alternative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RS, did you really even read the entire OP in the first place? If so, read it again, I've already said it all in there. And the more people bring questions or arguments to me in response to it that it has already responded to itself, the more it has done its job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RS, did you really even read the entire OP in the first place? If so, read it again, I've already said it all in there. And the more people bring questions or arguments to me in response to it that it has already responded to itself, the more it has done its job.

 

Yes I have read your OP. Point out which of my above statements are wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scientists that remain CONSCIOUS of the FACT that

their own thoughts and ideas too are a part of the universe,

and then

they consider the question of how this existence came to be

very very easily conclude that:

a creator created an existence whcih is cognizable to the creation ONLY 'as opposed & Apposed to 'non-existence'

thus

when a scientist realises that everything tangible or abstract owes it's 'definition/presence' only to some opposit/apposite in reference to which itself is defined/recognized,

then does a truly honest scientist

surrender to :

The Creator Who Created all existence within 2 poles/opposite/in pairs

and admits that :

Such A Creator Ofcourse can never ever be comprehended by any creation(thoughts/ideas) that are simply imprisoned between the 2 poles Created by the Creator.

That my dear human brother is einstein's principle of relativity and Allah Has Informed/defined self as:

Is Pure of weakness(one weakening attribute is to be predicatble,comprehensible), and desrving of ALL praise (coz all existence,even the vocabulary and senses that appraise are His creation) and there is no entity except Allah, and He Is even Greater than the words(i wrote above) to express His freedom from weakness and there is no ability to do good or avoid harm except At His Behest.

the above is the(transl ted)definition that Allah States of Himself.

So

arguing ,while trapped within the poles of beginning and end

or day and night

or right and wrong

or satanic and angelic

or centrifugal and centripetal

or father and son

or happiness and gloom

or life and death

can never ever deliver even a micron/mote of info about Him Who Is Without the above 'imprisoning' polarities.

It is just like two wooden chairs trying to figureout what the carpenter is or feels or plans or does.

Salaam

and to the others

salaama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yes I have read your OP. Point out which of my above statements are wrong?"

 

Anyone who has read, absorbed, and remembered what I said there will know that I already did that long before you made said statements. The more and more commonly people bring rebuttals to something that were already refuted in that something itself, the more and more its author knows he's succeeded with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Yes I have read your OP. Point out which of my above statements are wrong?"

 

Anyone who has read, absorbed, and remembered what I said there will know that I already did that long before you made said statements. The more and more commonly people bring rebuttals to something that were already refuted in that something itself, the more and more its author knows he's succeeded with it.

 

Meh. I was responding to a specific point from your OP itself. So I take it that nothing is wrong with my statements then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scientists that remain CONSCIOUS of the FACT that

their own thoughts and ideas too are a part of the universe,

and then

they consider the question of how this existence came to be

very very easily conclude that:

a creator created an existence whcih is cognizable to the creation ONLY 'as opposed & Apposed to 'non-existence'

thus

when a scientist realises that everything tangible or abstract owes it's 'definition/presence' only to some opposit/apposite in reference to which itself is defined/recognized,

then does a truly honest scientist

surrender to :

The Creator Who Created all existence within 2 poles/opposite/in pairs

and admits that :

Such A Creator Ofcourse can never ever be comprehended by any creation(thoughts/ideas) that are simply imprisoned between the 2 poles Created by the Creator.

 

So what you're saying is, an honest scientist must conclude that the universe was created (argument from incredulity) and simply take it from there on faith and worship a creator? Sounds fair. Even *if* such a deity exists, an honest scientist would only try to explain the origin of that deity instead of worshipping it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what you're saying is, an honest scientist must conclude that the universe was created (argument from incredulity) and simply take it from there on faith and worship a creator? Sounds fair. Even *if* such a deity exists, an honest scientist would only try to explain the origin of that deity instead of worshipping it.

 

 

Naturally logic and reason dictate that if there is a 'creation', then there must be a creator. This is presumably is where all religious things came from originally: once man began to be able to think ...

 

Thanks,

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is God a creation?

Or to put it another way, how was God created? Or, how did God come into being? And there perhaps, we have the origins of ' faith'.

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is God a creation?

Or to put it another way, how was God created? Or, how did God come into being? And there perhaps, we have the origins of ' faith'.

 

ron

 

For God to have been created, there had to be a time when He did not exist. But there was no time before Him, because He created time. Everything that is now, later, then, before, after - all these words are dependent on the passage of time. If something exists outside of time, there is no "time" when it was not existing. None of us could ever grasp what it feels like to be such an entity, since we are fully immersed in time (and space, for that matter).

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naturally logic and reason dictate that if there is a 'creation', then there must be a creator. This is presumably is where all religious things came from originally: once man began to be able to think ...

 

Thanks,

ron

Well, that comes with an assumption that everything is 'created', but I agree.

 

 

For God to have been created, there had to be a time when He did not exist. But there was no time before Him, because He created time. Everything that is now, later, then, before, after - all these words are dependent on the passage of time. If something exists outside of time, there is no "time" when it was not existing. None of us could ever grasp what it feels like to be such an entity, since we are fully immersed in time (and space, for that matter).

 

Salam.

 

Can you please explain, if god exists outside time, how could he create universe? Because creation means change, which requires time. Heck even to think, god would require time by definition, wouldn't he? It sounds a bit like square circle, sure sounds fine, and I can't prove it doesn't exist, but it's logically incoherent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For God to have been created, there had to be a time when He did not exist. But there was no time before Him, because He created time. Everything that is now, later, then, before, after - all these words are dependent on the passage of time. If something exists outside of time, there is no "time" when it was not existing. None of us could ever grasp what it feels like to be such an entity, since we are fully immersed in time (and space, for that matter).

 

Salam.

Redeem, a part of what you're saying is supported by evidence, but physicists describe it differently.

 

Thus, according to a well supported, 1915 theory by Emmy Noether (who many agree should have been awarded a Nobel prize in physics), for time to exist, energy must exist. Stated differently: before energy existed, there was no time.

 

Consequently, before the Big Bang, i.e., before energy was separated into the positive and negative components (with positive energy what we normally consider as 'energy', including mass, and negative energy being the energy in "empty" space), there was no time.

 

Incidentally, the same theory yields that, without momentum, space has no meaning.

 

What seems to have started our universe, however, is not some creator but "simply" a quantum-like fluctuation in the original total-vacuum that broke the normal symmetry of such fluctuations. I call it "quantum like" because we don't know if quantum mechanics adequately describes the dynamics of a total vacuum.

 

The (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_zenofzero(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/docs/Z_The_Zen_of_Zero.pdf"]picture[/url] that then emerges is that, perhaps a fluctuation in what we now call 'energy' resulted in the precipitation of a single string (or elementary particle) of (positive) energy, which was then unable to recombine with the negative-energy portion of the same fluctuation. In turn, that single "precipitation" of (positive) energy not only started time but also resulted in the Big Bang, in which explosively more energy was separated into positive and negative components.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let zoro's words be a good demonstration to the rest of you as to what valuing the vague and hasty conclusions of a fleeting scientific community over thousands of years' worth of common sense, and over your own sense of reasoning itself, will do to you: it'll have you actually going so far, and stooping so low, as talking about things happening--literally--before time existed, as though time preceded itself. It's like saying that that because spatial relationships don't exist without objects, therefore there is such a thing as a "leftmost" point in space, and because of *that* nothing could ever exist that is not located at any particular point in space. When anyone else talks like this for any other reason they are called a schizophrenic: when one can pretend that it's confirmed by experimentation which not only never really said any such thing but had nothing much to do with such abstract concepts in the first place and was never meant to, then you're being scientific and you'd have to be crazy and irrational to *deny* it.

 

When atheists offer you euphemistic admissions that quantum physics sounds like nonsense to people who don't really "understand" it, all they really are doing is refusing to accept, not the fact that it's their own unwarranted inferences from it that are nonsensical, but that there is anything wrong with being nonsensical allegedly in the name of science in the first place. As with Muslims who harp endlessly on so-called scientific miracles in the Koran science, to these people too, is just a banner to rally around in order to justify beliefs that they would still hold anyway for other reasons even were it to be justified in their minds from any other quarter. Which wouldn't necessarily be an entirely bad thing if they would just accept that it's what they're doing.

 

When I write a story there is a definite beginning to it, but that isn't the same thing as "the beginning of prose itself", which doesn't even mean anything. It's just the first in a series of events, from a man who is neither obligated to be a character in a story of some sort himself nor to be part of the same chronlogy as his own characters.

 

But it's no use, because just as arguing with Trinitarians is futile due to how often and how shamelessly they'll shift their ground between defending the Trinity based on its incomprehensibility and defending it by insisting that we're just not understanding it properly, so is arguing with science-obsessed atheists always futile due to how often and how shamelessly they'll shift their ground between bragging about the uncertainly and lack of final and true knowledge in science and talking about the conclusions of current scientists (or rather, what they infer of said conclusions on their own) as though anyone who disputes it is automatically wrong and ignorant. When it helps to highlight an imaginary superiority to the dogmatism of religion then science then that will be their line but two minutes later they'll be talking about its current theories with utmost dogmatism themselves--always denying it, of course, but actions speak louder than words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RS: For the third or fourth time, that part of the article, as stated very clearly in its own self, is a demonstration of how using a vague and highly subjective term like "extraordinary" as part of an attempt at forming a standard for determining truth by evidence can go either way depending on what a person's own subjective idea of "extraordinariness" is. "Extraordinary" all by itself proves, and means, absolutely nothing unless all the parties involved agree on what counts as "ordinary" to begin with. If you already disbelieve in God or the supernatural then of COURSE they're going to strike you as "extraordinary", but if you believe in God then nothing will seem more ordinary than the presence of a likely omnipresent Being. The very saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," already sounds suspiciously like a euphemism for, "If it's not part of my current belief system then I'm going to pretend to myself that it's rational to expect unreasonable amounts of convincing before I change my mind," just to begin with, but to apply it to a theism-atheism debate is nothing short of masking a completely circular argument in seemingly non-circular terms. I've said all this already in the article itself, but I'm willing, as you can see, to spell it out.

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


×