Jump to content
Islamic Forum
IAmZamzam

Why I Am Not An Atheist

Recommended Posts

[at] Yahya Sulaiman

assalaamualaikum brother

ABSOLUTELY SEMETIC AM I MYSELF

HOW CAN I DARE BE ANTISEMETIC

yOUR COMMENT IS A HUGE FAVOUR YOU HAVE DONE ME

BECAUSE IT ALLOWS ME TO TAKE MOST OF THE RESENTMENTS AGAINST ARABS, BACK

and i apologize to forum members and Allah Subhanohu,that as a Gift of ramadan

Ya Allah Forgive my extreme (bordering on blasephemy) abuse of Your Granted

Blessings to badmouth the nation(arabs) of your and mine,dearest,Muhammad alaih assalaat wassalaam ,aameen

it was all personal resentments that had putrefied during the 4 to 5 years that i was

abused terribly by One arab woman,

and like a fool,i voiced my hatred of her and her family's utter disregard for commonsensical

courtesy by badmouthing/maligning the entire arab nation.

Astaghfirullah

v saamihooni ya ashaab ya akhvaat

Alhamdulillah that i am out of that traumatic situation and not using any synthetic

neurotransmitters for anaelgesia/pain-killing

Alhamdulillah too that i shared my faults and flaws with my brethren.

insha Allah this will Only Mean Growth for all of us

because

alaih assalaatu vassalaam has already given the good news,

"a momin never drowns"

may we and our progeny be counted among the momineen by our Owner

today and forever and ever

aameen

summa aameen

jazak Allah yahya for reminding me to confess and ask for forgiveness

salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
Well I personally can't see how you have 'violated rule 22'.

 

This kind of thing is quite normal in this part of the forum, so far as I can see. Or are we considering the particular 'moderator' we might be thinking of?

 

Carefully comb over the forum rules if you're still confused about them.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

writewhite, perhaps it's my fault for presuming to understand the words of someone whose writing constantly confuses me to begin with, but all I meant was that when someone complains about people being "in line with the bankroll and the banker jew", it makes them sound prejudiced against Jews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean >banks= kews ?

If you do mean the above i agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carefully comb over the forum rules if you're still confused about them.

 

Salam.

 

I have combed over the rules to some extent, and I must say I am particularly interested in rule 30, and also rule 21.

 

Salaam

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
">banks= kews ?"

 

You see what I mean? I'm not even certain what you're talking about.

i post theu cell phone browser

the convenience of a cell phone

has made me avert laptops and desktops

however the cell phone key pads and punctuation marks are not very easy to use

so i tend to leave some parts of my meanings upto the reader

jews=banks

what i meant was that enslaving humanity thru banking systems is a jewish plan

salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i post theu cell phone browser

the convenience of a cell phone

has made me avert laptops and desktops

however the cell phone key pads and punctuation marks are not very easy to use

so i tend to leave some parts of my meanings upto the reader

jews=banks

what i meant was that enslaving humanity thru banking systems is a jewish plan

salaam

 

 

That sounds like a lot of rubbish to me! Who invented money? The Jews? I don't think so, it just started to be used by everybody as an alternative and a more flexible form of barter. Banks just evolved from the existance of money. If I can use the word 'evolve', that is.

 

Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arabs are semites too

is what i meant

at least the quraish/muhammad and meccan suhaaba were all semites

you do some research ronn

it is and has always been a jewish trend to lend money and make profits manifold the actual loan through usury

it truly is a jewish tool to keep the nonjewish populace at bay

[at] andullasi

must have very accurate info about my assertion above

salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny they should mention the rules...

 

33. discriminating based on race, religion, nationality: warn, hide post

 

I am *this* close to reporting you, writewhite. Really the only thing holding me back is the knowledge that the mods are probably going to see what you've written very soon anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny they should mention the rules...

I am *this* close to reporting you, writewhite. Really the only thing holding me back is the knowledge that the mods are probably going to see what you've written very soon anyway.

 

But, aside from the jews, somebody quite recently pointed out that the Arabs are a semitic race.

Is this relevant? I don't know.

 

Regards,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What difference does it make if a single word happens to apply to both groups? Does that render one incapable of being biased against the other? Both Americans and Canadians are North Americans and yet there is still a lot of prejudice between the countries. The point is, HE IS MAKING RACIST REMARKS. Semantics don't even begin to enter into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets say banks have enslaved humanity

Yahya one of my ex wives was an american jew converted to Islam

i know jews very well

she disliked them terribly

and was very selfcentred and venomous herself too

something about dna i guess

or as said in the Quran

daraba alaihum alzilla vl mskna

ANY HOW I SHALL Refrain from making such 'racist'remarks

salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The weirdest thing about racists is how unspeakably bigoted their own talk can become at the very moment that they're denying, or even being sarcastic aobut the very idea of, their racism. Let writewhite's most recent post serve as a lesson in this. I have decided that I'm not angry because the only people he's making look bad are other racists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got as far as "Disbelief in X = belief in Y" bit.

 

Not true.

 

You're getting atheism confused, here. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. To repeat myself from another post, all babies are born atheistic. Babies have no knowledge of God or gods and therefore do not hold any belief in them.

 

Atheism means "Without Gods.", it doesn't matter under what circumstances you're "without gods", just that you are.

 

 

"Which is funny in a way because I wasn’t even aware that unprovable issues had burdens of proof."

 

Every positive statement you make has the burden of proof, if it's unprovable then you can't prove it. I can't prove it wrong, but I don't have to, my position is a rejection of your statement.

 

"There is a god."

 

"I don't believe you. Prove it."

 

I could just as easily state that (I'm sure you've heared this before, but I'm not reading the whole thing when there's things so wrong in it this early.) there's an invisible teapot floating in Space between Saturn and Jupiter's orbits.

 

Of course, I can't prove it. As such, you have every reasonable doubt to reject my statement about the teapot, because there's absolutely no logical or rational reason to believe it exists. It doesn't matter if you can't prove it doesn't exist.

 

Ultimately, what can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If we start blindly believing things without any evidence for them, then why not believe in every possible thing that anyone could ever possibly imagine... ever? They're all just as likely to exist as eachother.

 

Here's a list of things that can neither be proven nor disproven, tell me which ones you would consider it even remotely rational to believe in, and why:

 

The Tooth Fairy.

Father Christmas.

The Easter Bunny.

The Boogeyman.

Giant invisible dragons on Neptune.

Ethereal space pirates.

Cthulu.

Ra.

Odin.

Brahman.

God.

Quetzalcoatl.

Kukulcan.

The Matrix.

 

That's just a few of the infinate list of possible things that are "Unprovable".

 

 

When these problems are adequately addressed, I'll contnue reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, to put it simply, rejecting belief in a positive statement on the grounds that it's not proven does not equate to believing positively against it.

 

"I believe there is no god." =/= "I do not believe there is a god."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Got as far as "Disbelief in X = belief in Y" bit.

 

Not true.

 

You're getting atheism confused, here. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. To repeat myself from another post, all babies are born atheistic. Babies have no knowledge of God or gods and therefore do not hold any belief in them.

 

Atheism means "Without Gods.", it doesn't matter under what circumstances you're "without gods", just that you are.

"Which is funny in a way because I wasn’t even aware that unprovable issues had burdens of proof."

 

Every positive statement you make has the burden of proof, if it's unprovable then you can't prove it. I can't prove it wrong, but I don't have to, my position is a rejection of your statement.

 

"There is a god."

 

"I don't believe you. Prove it."

 

I could just as easily state that (I'm sure you've heared this before, but I'm not reading the whole thing when there's things so wrong in it this early.) there's an invisible teapot floating in Space between Saturn and Jupiter's orbits.

 

 

Of course, I can't prove it. As such, you have every reasonable doubt to reject my statement about the teapot, because there's absolutely no logical or rational reason to believe it exists. It doesn't matter if you can't prove it doesn't exist.

 

Ultimately, what can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If we start blindly believing things without any evidence for them, then why not believe in every possible thing that anyone could ever possibly imagine... ever? They're all just as likely to exist as eachother.

 

Here's a list of things that can neither be proven nor disproven, tell me which ones you would consider it even remotely rational to believe in, and why:

 

The Tooth Fairy.

Father Christmas.

The Easter Bunny.

The Boogeyman.

Giant invisible dragons on Neptune.

Ethereal space pirates.

Cthulu.

Ra.

Odin.

Brahman.

God.

Quetzalcoatl.

Kukulcan.

The Matrix.

 

That's just a few of the infinate list of possible things that are "Unprovable".

When these problems are adequately addressed, I'll contnue reading.

 

I think you are wrong to start with about the exact meaning of 'Atheism'.

I've always understood that an atheist actively believes that 'there is no God' It's not simply a lack of belief, that would be closer to agnosticism which says that 'I don't know if there is a God or not'.

 

Hope this helps,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with knowledge, not belief.

 

An atheist does not believe in a god or gods, it doesn't have to be a conscious choice.

 

You could be born on a remote island into a tribe of people that have never even heared of the concept of a god, and you'd be an atheist.

 

An atheist simply does not believe in any gods, by definition. They don't have to consciously refuse to beleive in a god, or claim that for a fact there are no gods, all they have to do is not believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way I can describe it is this.

 

A gnostic theist would say "I KNOW there is a god."

 

Most theists fall into that category, from my experience.

 

An agnostic theist would say "I believe there is a god, but I don't know for certain."

 

A gnostic atheist, which I rarely come across, would say "I know for certain that there are no god/s."

 

And an agnostic atheist, which again, from my experience, most seem to fall in to, would say "I have no valid reason to believe in a god, so I dismiss the idea based on a lack of evidence." or "What's a god?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with knowledge, not belief.

 

An atheist does not believe in a god or gods, it doesn't have to be a conscious choice.

 

You could be born on a remote island into a tribe of people that have never even heared of the concept of a god, and you'd be an atheist.

 

An atheist simply does not believe in any gods, by definition. They don't have to consciously refuse to beleive in a god, or claim that for a fact there are no gods, all they have to do is not believe.

 

No, agnosticism 'deals' (if you like) with a lack of knowledge - the agnostic says: 'I don't know if there is a God or not'

 

Gnosticism is the study or belief or experience of knowledge, not a lack of it.

 

If you are speaking of unconscious belief than that is called instinct, prejudice. Surely we are right to assume that people hold conscious beliefs here? We are, after all, unable to communicate with the unconscious minds of others (never mind our own, sometimes).

 

Everything is a matter of degree, so I suppose when you say that atheists simply are unbleivers then this would be one end of a spectrum of disbelief, the other being a downright asserion that there is not and connot and can never be 'a God'.

If you lived on a hypothetical remote island where the inhabitants didn't posses the capability of abstract or speculative thought then the concept of atheism or it's opposite simply would exist, even though, to you they would appear to be atheists (projecting your own values upon them).

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing. Even after I thought the thread was over, it still remains littered by atheistic counters that have already been addressed in the OP itself. Not one single person, even when new people sign up for the board, can find one single argument to make that hasn't already been refuted and ignored in the very OP. How many more pages of this are we going to have? Can't we just close the thread already since obviously nothing new can come of it by this point? It would have been the same had it been closed after the first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this thread has proven anything, it's how incurably a one-trick pony your average atheist is. To the point where if you take away the few tricks they actually have, they'll still just keep on performing them and insisting that you never did any such thing. Or in the case of Cruorem, not even bothering to watch you do it. I mean, wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s recap this thread. First, let me remind you of exactly what I predicted in its very first paragraph:

 

I know how the arguments always go and I had already written this article months ago to avoid the whole mess. So here it is: a response to every single bit of it in advance. I am putting it here to help my brothers and sisters have something to simply quote or link to, if they like it, just as I know do, instead of going around in the maddeningly predictable usual circles (which I'm sure will still be attempted in the response section below).

 

Just to kill time, let’s see how much this prediction has come true so far. In fact, let’s see if I can even count the number of times the atheists have completely ignored the rebuttals-in-advance to what they were saying. We’ll do them in the order in which they appeared. (EDIT: It turns out there are so many examples that they can’t all be listed in one post!)

 

#1 and #2

 

Let us please have no more of this nonsense about, “We’re all atheists: I just happen to believe in one fewer god than you do.” I’m apolitical and maybe even anti-political but you never hear me say to conservatives or progressives or Green party people, “Everyone is anti-political; I just happen to believe in the validity of one fewer political philosophy than you do.” Nobody says that, and why? Because it’s asinine, no matter how nonliterally it may be meant. I mean, by such logic we may as well go ahead and define all people as nihilists as well: we all believe in only one more philosophy or value system than the nihilists, don’t we? If the point is merely a call for tolerance or understanding or empathy or identification then I’m sure there are much better, simpler ways to make such a point which are more cogent.

 

The second “spectrum of colors” that should be used to distinguish atheists from theists deals with the god being considered. For example, a particular Christian theist might conclude that the probability that the god of Islam exists is only 1% (i.e., this Christian theist would be a Muslim atheist). Meanwhile, most Muslim theists apparently have concluded that the probability that Jesus is God is less than 1%, i.e., Muslim theists are Christian atheists!

 

All good Muslims are atheists (or "unbelievers") with respect to all other religions.

 

 

#3

 

Leave scientific methods and “the scientific method” to the scientists; their only place in matters of the abstract and physically unprovable is either woeful misapplication or grievous pretentiousness, or even as a narrowing of the mind. In any event all of these arguments I have just mentioned are merely excuses to dismiss an argument on some other ground than its own merits anyway... Besides, you can’t have it both ways: atheists are constantly admitting to me that science frequently goes against common sense and that it should be valued over logical reasoning itself. Which as good a reason as I’ve ever heard not to make science such an ultimate priority. Indeed, I couldn’t have thought of a better one myself if my very life depended on it.

 

To produce new information, data are needed. Thus, the only known way to evaluate the relative probabilities that different ideas are approaching truth is to apply the scientific method (in conjunction with Bayes’ theorem)....

 

 

#4

 

The word “gravity” [for example] is not an explanation for anything at all, it’s just a word...Not only could I not figure out how these unique absolutes we call physical “laws” or “forces” or “properties” or what have you could be there at all, I didn’t even know what they were in the first place. It occurred to me quickly enough that no one else did either, including scientists. Indeed, they seemed almost content not to know...In ancient times...when someone dropped a rock to the ground and it got hurled down by something unseen, they might have said that it was a “spirit” carrying it to the ground. Now we say it’s a “force”. What makes the latter term have any more meaning than the former, let alone any more likelihood of being accurate??...

 

[bertrand Russell said:] ”Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced [wherein] you no longer have the sort of natural law that you had in the Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand, nature behaved in a uniform fashion. We now find that a great many things we thought were natural laws are really human conventions… On the other hand, where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive…are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was.”

 

Can you see what he’s doing here? You see it, don’t you? He’s just explaining one kind of law (physical) by referring it to another kind of law (mathematical) in order to explain the whole of law. He is, in short, taking exactly the same approach he derided when discussing cosmological arguments for God’s existence in the very same essay I’ve been quoting, and so I would respond in turn with his very own quip:

 

“It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, ‘How about the tortoise?’ the Indian said, ‘Suppose we change the subject.’ The argument is really no better than that.”

 

Even now, almost eighty-four years later, it is these same terrible answers of Russell’s that atheists have been parroting nonstop ever since.

 

”Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion...
Edited by Yahya Sulaiman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#5 and #6:

 

And let us hear no more of these childish (nay, infantile) analogies that atheists like to use as comparisons for God, religion, “proving a negative” , etc.. Santa Claus, “the flying spaghetti monster”, leprechauns in the attic, fairy tales, the “celestial teapot”, invisible pink unicorns, grow up! Even if one leaves aside the utter puerility of all this hackneyed mockery the insult and snobbery involved is still too egregious to ignore. Whether there are any intellectual grounds for these comparisons or not there certainly are no ethical grounds, although some atheists still defend the appeals to ridicule with the claim that anyone who believes the “absurd” things we do deserves to be mocked ruthlessly; and thus do they demonstrate a sense of justice that is no better or more mature than their sense of humor. Whether you’re right or wrong about the point you make, you’re never going to make any point about anything productively by associating the contrary viewpoint with a flying spaghetti monster. Get over yourselves. Sheesh. If you don’t take our views seriously then why are you even bothering to discuss them at all?

 

And actually, Yahya does similar (later in his essay) when he dismisses claims about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Apparently, it’s only his own, evidentially void speculation that supposedly deserves reverence!

 

I could just as easily state that (I'm sure you've heared this before, but I'm not reading the whole thing when there's things so wrong in it this early.) there's an invisible teapot floating in Space between Saturn and Jupiter's orbits. Of course, I can't prove it. As such, you have every reasonable doubt to reject my statement about the teapot, because there's absolutely no logical or rational reason to believe it exists. It doesn't matter if you can't prove it doesn't exist. Ultimately, what can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If we start blindly believing things without any evidence for them, then why not believe in every possible thing that anyone could ever possibly imagine... ever? They're all just as likely to exist as eachother. Here's a list of things that can neither be proven nor disproven, tell me which ones you would consider it even remotely rational to believe in, and why: The Tooth Fairy. Father Christmas. The Easter Bunny....

 

#7 and #8:

 

Some atheists...try to escape a shared burden of proof by redefining “atheism” as a “lack of belief” in deity. “Lack of belief”. Now there’s an awkward phrase if ever I’ve heard one. Let me explain it to you. These folks, you see, have decided to call people who have never heard of God and supposedly don’t know about Him atheists too. Just for the sake of argument let’s go along with this for a moment, even though the regular, self-aware kind of atheists seem to be the only people in the world who ever use the term that way at all. Let us call the regular atheism (disbelief in God, whom one has heard of) atheism A, and mere ignorance of God atheism B. The argument in question is that since default position atheism B belongs to category AB along with atheism A, that means that AB (atheism itself) is the default position. (You may need to read that sentence a few times before you can penetrate the incoherence I’m describing.)...Well I’m sorry folks, but AB is not the default (if any of it is), only B. To refer to the whole category of AB as the default is like calling children “men” since as yet they’re neither men nor women and then using this new application of the label in an argument about men vs. women. After all, a child is a non-woman, right? In any event none of the atheism B folks have any bearing on this issue anyway. Forget about them. They’re not the ones in this debate, they have nothing to do with this debate, they’re just being introduced out of nowhere as a non-sequitur or desperate diversion.

 

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

 

You're getting atheism confused, here. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. To repeat myself from another post, all babies are born atheistic. Babies have no knowledge of God or gods and therefore do not hold any belief in them. Atheism means "Without Gods.", it doesn't matter under what circumstances you're "without gods", just that you are.

 

In all fairness, a better analogy would have been ova that have not yet grown enough chromosomes to become male or female, instead of children who already do have a definite gender. But ignored is ignored. At least Cruorem, unlike the others, admitted that he was responding to something he didn’t even bother reading. To save time I’ll avoid having all of his endless repetitions of the same be counted as separate examples.

 

#9 and #10:

 

The “if God is the cause of natural law then He must also be subject to some law of His own” evasion may be the worst argument of its kind yet unfortunately it’s not the only one by any means. There seems to be an entire trend atheists have made out of attempting weakly to stand all the common arguments for God’s existence on their own head. They say that if God created the cosmos then something must have created God. They say that if God designed the world then He must have had His own designer. They say that we’re not following our own logic.

 

Never mind that all our common experience does teach us all that the causer and the caused, the designer and the designed, are always different, have different characteristics, and may even work in different ways. Never mind that God, if He exists, is a supernatural being and therefore a train of natural law must necessarily end before reaching Him, as I’ve already pointed out. Never mind that likewise a nonphysical being that creates the physical cosmos obviously could not possibly be part of the same chain of physical causation Himself. Never mind that even if God did have His own creator, designer, or higher law, that still wouldn’t change the fact of His existing in the first place, which if you’ll remember is supposed to be the subject at hand. And never mind that God is very likely outside of the confines of time anyway and therefore, by corollary, outside of the confines of causation.

 

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?

 

(Which also makes #10, and the NEXT one #11, given the "burden of proof" rehashing, which I thoroughly discussed in the OP.)

 

EDIT: I didn't catch this at first but it also ignores the Ockham's Razor thing I mentioned, so that's an even dozen!

 

Even *if* such a deity exists, an honest scientist would only try to explain the origin of that deity instead of worshipping it.

 

 

That’s twelve times at least they’ve ignored the OP while pretending to respond to it (or on a couple of occasions, to another person’s agreement with the same arguments, which amounts to the same). But I’m pretty sure I’ve missed a few.

 

I’ve already stuck around here longer than I intended to. So unless by some chance someone has something new to say, God willing I’ll leave it to the rest to continue to go around in circles with you people. The only useful purpose any of this has served is to show just how utterly without real rebuttal atheists will be when you take away the meager amount of meager weapons in their arsenal beforehand. They’ll just keep firing them anyway like a child with a pretend gun.

Edited by Yahya Sulaiman

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


×