Re: Atheism
I stand corrected. You become biased. But not like an atheist. It is not a bias if you avoid incorporating unnecessary conjectures into your worldview -- like gods, invisible pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters. It is basic reason.
Similar in the sense that you guys are not open to the idea of God's existence and we to the idea of God's non-existence.
Re: Atheism
Similar in the sense that you guys are not open to the idea of God's existence and we to the idea of God's non-existence.
Not exactly. Let's start from the definition of "God". Can you exactly define the parameter "God"? According to the definition, is the parameter necessary to support your model of the Universe? Can a model of the Universe be suggested without introduction of this new parameter? Is this parameter provable/falsifiable? Suggest an experiment that can falsify your hypothesis.
Re: Atheism
Not exactly. Let's start from the definition of "God". Can you exactly define the parameter "God"?
Let's start with parameter thing. Although I believe God is above and beyond any parameter. In any case, my idea of God is:
Re: Atheism
Then your belief is no better than a belief in an invisible pink unicorn (and an infinite number of similar beliefs) for those who have an affinity for these kind of things on a faith level.
Peace AlexB
Well then let's look at the three together ... the belief in "no Deity" the belief in "Deity" and the belief in "invisible pink unicorn" ...
Let's qualify the concept itself first ...
Let's say that Deity is the Cause of all that is ... so saying there is no Deity is saying that there is "no Cause of all that is" ... this presents a problem to the people who believe that there is no Deity, because the definition of Deity to them is not "the Cause of all that is" because to them the "Cause of all that is" is "Probability" perhaps ... we'll come to that question later ...
Rather what I want to know is how something can be both "invisible" and "pink" at the same time ... forget about unicorns for the time being ... but surely we can say that the idea of "Deity" is better than "invisible pink unicorns" on the basis that the name itself suggests a contradiction in terms ... "pinkness" comes from light of the visible part of the spectrum - if it is pink it can be seen ... but if it is invisible then it cannot be pink ... not at the same time ... you see ... our concept of Deity already wins ... now let's confront that other question ... but I'll let you answer first.
Re: Atheism
Let's start with parameter thing. Although I believe God is above and beyond any parameter. In any case, my idea of God is:
I know what Ah'd means. I speak Hebrew. Anyway, this definition explains nothing at all about the role of the "God hypothesis" in the description of the Universe and answers the questions I posted above. The definition must be relevant to your model of the Universe. Why would you need this specific element at all?
Re: Atheism
Shalom AlexB
The concept of Deity is water tight in Islam ... If you want we can together walk the path of our ancient father Abraham (AS) and see what questions he (AS) asked himself ...
Re: Atheism
I think these 2 attitudes are common among any religion out there. Personally, I'm an atheist and see all religions as human-made constructs. I don't see religions as a source of morality, but rather a human attempt to codify it and validate/enforce it by appealing to a higher authority - an argument, which appears to be the most convincing for an average human being.
1) I respect your personal orientation and personally I have no problem with anyone who chooses to be an atheist.
2) Regarding morality.. it's largely a matter of geography. The original sin lies in hurting others. Other than that no should should try to impose his perceived set of morality on others. I live in a different environment compared to you and the requirements of morality may differ.. but I think every one has a consensus on the basic principle of morality about respecting the rights of others.
3) I am not an atheist. I believe in God because when I observe the facts around me I see precision and harmony. Speed of light is constant to nano seconds.. the planets revolving around the sun have a precise speed.. a little bit less they would crash in to the sun.. and a little bit more would take them out of the orbit. For me these things constitute an intelligent design and indicate towards an Intelligent Designer whom we call Allah, God, Yahweh etc. etc.
4) I don't believe in miracles. When we observe around us this Intelligent Designer operates through set principles of nature. What we may think as miracle may be the lack of understanding for that natural principle at that point of time. After all we are only two legged idiots living on a drop of ocean with very limited mental capabilities.
5) I call myself a muslim.. and frankly speaking I am a muslim because of a natural accident that I was born in a muslim family. Most of the people who are telling you that they follow a religion because they have studied and understood the details.. are actually BSing.. I can bet some of the staunchest mullahs would have been half naked enthusiastic pandits had they born in a hindu family..
6) I don't find anything against the basic moral and logical observations I have made in my life in my religion. The moral ethics I have learned from my deeply religious parents are of very high standards. There is no logical fallacy in Islam if you accept it with an open mind and do not become a literal dishonest religionist. These people even go to an extent that they change the translation-interpretation of the original text of the scriptures to suit their agendas on the pretext that the people did not understand the real meaning what God wanted to convey due to the lack of comparative intelligence at that point in time. I have seen this happening a lot of times.. and for me this is dishonesty.
7) Religions were never meant to teach you science. They are moral and spiritual guidance system for the improvement of individual-sicieties. They should be taken in the spirit in which they were established.
8) Personally I am a muslim but I do not claim that I know everything and I can not be wrong. You may say I am a muslim with some agnostic tendencies. Bottom line is I can live with questions I can not answer but I can not live with answers I can not question..
9) Communication is the best thing which has happened to mankind. The fact that we are talking to each other about our thinking is already our victory against ignorance.. It's really our achievement which must be celebrated..
Re: Atheism
Correction our ancestral form has been taken from this world ... i.e. Adam was fashioned from clay/dust ... of this world and then taken to heaven. The alien part of it is merely the returning of what has orginally come from here anyway ... that is enough to destroy the alien argument, but even if we were true aliens i.e. not from this world in any way, shape or form - we believe Allah (SWT) has power over all things.
If Adam was really created on this planet.. than what's your problem with evolution. I don't think God shared the mechanism of his creations in detail with you. And how do you know that Adam's going to heaven was not in spiritual terms and nothing to do with physical realities.
Literal interpretation of scriptures without understanding the spirit behind the scriptures is making you one hell of a confused guy..
Re: Atheism
If Adam was really created on this planet.. than what's your problem with evolution. I don't think God shared the mechanism of his creations in detail with you. And how do you know that Adam's going to heaven was not in spiritual terms and nothing to do with physical realities.
Literal interpretation of scriptures without understanding the spirit behind the scriptures is making you one hell of a confused guy..
Peace yazdi
I arrogantly don't consider myself a person who lacks understanding scientific principles ... that is a flaw in me ... but boy do I not understand evolution ... it betrays every "self-perceived" scientific bone in my body ... Please can someone explain it to me ... I would love to know how it happens ... on a sub-cellular level, DNA level, possible reversibility, reproducibility, scientific intervention to cause speciation, and so on ... I want to see this happen ... and learn about it in the text books ... Is that too much to ask? My problem with evolution is that the sellers of this idea sell it as a science and not as a dogma as it appears to me ...
You see the Qur'an is truly amazing ... not only is it in conformance with established science, but non-established but readily accepted science can't disprove the Qur'an either ... The problem I have is not with evolution and the Qur'an, but with evolution and the Islamic aqeedah ... The 'aqeedah strictly informs us that what happens is due to Allah (SWT) and the appearance of "means" i.e. cause and effect is an illusion ... hence things like miracles I believe are evident because the cause and effect predictability stems from this deception which is loosely based on the idea that Allah (SWT) is consistent ... but He is not bound by that consistency as it appears to us ...
For us it is consistent to say that gravity causes things to move together ... but in our 'aqeedah it is not that at all ... but Allah (SWT) maintaining gravitational attraction ... so it betrays our reason if one day this attraction becomes a repulsion ... for a few seconds ... but on the 'aqeedah it makes perfect sense ... because He who was causing the attraction is He who is causing the repulsion ...
Re: Atheism
Right. 
Re: Atheism
I can be wrong but certainly I am not that naive.. I can very well recognize a deeply confused guy.. 
P.S I rank amongst the top 0.25% on IQ scale.. it might not be enough to understand the whole reality of this universe.. but certainly it is enough to make certain basic judgements..
Re: Atheism
I can be wrong but certainly I am not that naive.. I can very well recognize a deeply confused guy.. :)
P.S I rank amongst the top 0.25% on IQ scale.. it might not be enough to understand the whole reality of this universe.. but certainly it is enough to make certain basic judgements..
Lets keep the personal attacks aside. :)
There is no fossil evidence of intermediate forms that may or may not prove the theory. Since it remains unfound, the theory is not very scientific, is it? Evolution is abductive reasoning.
Re: Atheism
3) I am not an atheist. I believe in God because when I observe the facts around me I see precision and harmony. Speed of light is constant to nano seconds.. the planets revolving around the sun have a precise speed.. a little bit less they would crash in to the sun.. and a little bit more would take them out of the orbit. For me these things constitute an intelligent design and indicate towards an Intelligent Designer whom we call Allah, God, Yahweh etc. etc.
With all due respect, you are assumptions are false. The speed of planets revolving around the sun is not constant! Also, the speed of light changes according to the medium through which it is traveling. It is only constant in a vacuum.
But, I understand your point. It's a point I can concur with. Science is not the realm or religion. I'm reminded of two quotes by Neil deGrasse Tyson
*
Great scientific minds, from Claudius Ptolemy of the second century to Isaac Newton of the seventeenth, invested their formidable intellects in attempts to deduce the nature of the universe from the statements and philosophies contained in religious writings.... Had any of these efforts worked, science and religion today might be one and the same. But they are not.
*
*Whenever people have used religious documents to make accurate predictions about our base knowledge of the physical world, they have been famously wrong.
*
I arrogantly don't consider myself a person who lacks understanding scientific principles ... that is a flaw in me ... but boy do I not understand evolution ... it betrays every "self-perceived" scientific bone in my body ... Please can someone explain it to me ... I would love to know how it happens ... on a sub-cellular level, DNA level, possible reversibility, reproducibility, scientific intervention to cause speciation, and so on ... I want to see this happen ... and learn about it in the text books ... Is that too much to ask? My problem with evolution is that the sellers of this idea sell it as a science and not as a dogma as it appears to me ...
To quote Charles Babbage: *I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
*
I don't mean this as an ad hominem attack at all, please don't take it as such. But I'm flabbergasted by this response. It is beyond me how someone that claims to have an understanding of science, engage in polemics, and be so deeply flawed in the basic postulations of the subject. I am utterly awe stricken.
Re: Atheism
To quote Charles Babbage: *I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. * I don't mean this as an ad hominem attack at all, please don't take it as such. But I'm flabbergasted by this response. It is beyond me how someone that claims to have an understanding of science, engage in polemics, and be so deeply flawed in the basic postulations of the subject. I am utterly awe stricken.
Red-herring .... Please answer the question. Show me how evolution happens on the sub-cellular level, DNA level and demonstrate it, show me an induced situation of where your ilk have made speciation occur.
Otherwise it is merely a belief of yours ...
Re: Atheism
With all due respect, you are assumptions are false. The speed of planets revolving around the sun is not constant! Also, the speed of light changes according to the medium through which it is traveling. It is only constant in a vacuum.
But, I understand your point. It's a point I can concur with. Science is not the realm or religion. I'm reminded of two quotes by Neil deGrasse Tyson
* Great scientific minds, from Claudius Ptolemy of the second century to Isaac Newton of the seventeenth, invested their formidable intellects in attempts to deduce the nature of the universe from the statements and philosophies contained in religious writings.... Had any of these efforts worked, science and religion today might be one and the same. But they are not. * *Whenever people have used religious documents to make accurate predictions about our base knowledge of the physical world, they have been famously wrong. *
To quote Charles Babbage: *I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. * I don't mean this as an ad hominem attack at all, please don't take it as such. But I'm flabbergasted by this response. It is beyond me how someone that claims to have an understanding of science, engage in polemics, and be so deeply flawed in the basic postulations of the subject. I am utterly awe stricken.
i got a quote for you why you believe something is created from nothing this is most unscientific of you old chap!
Re: Atheism
You see I'm a simpleton ... I can understand Deity making things, but I canny understand all that complex stuff ... about how the universe formed ... Each level down we probe we are using more and more complex ideas ... The whole idea of unification is to lean towards simplicity ... But we find the most complex things are happening or we use complex models to explain what is happening. If it is taking our greatest minds to work out what must be happening, then the cause of making it happen can't be nothing ... It has to be more intelligent than us ... Way more intelligent and powerful.
Re: Atheism
My grandfather was a man who spent his entire life helping and providing for his family. I refuse to believe he was some sort of chimpanzee! 
Re: Atheism
Red-herring .... Please answer the question. Show me how evolution happens on the sub-cellular level, DNA level and demonstrate it, show me an induced situation of where your ilk have made speciation occur.
Otherwise it is merely a belief of yours ...
On the same pretext you can deny gravity-nuclear forces.. even your own existence because nothing can be proven as conclusively as you want. I will continue to believe in gravity while are welcome to jump from a high rise building to get a real taste of gravity.
Evolution is a "fact".. recognized by nearly all the major scientist and all the reputable educational institution. Darwin's theory of evolution tries to explain the "fact" of evolution. It may not be true to it's full extent and tomorrow we may have another-better theory to explain the fact of evolution.
Just like gravity is a fact. newton's theory of gravity was replaced by Einstein's theory to explain the 'fact' of gravity.
Your ideas conflict with the understanding of all the reputed scientist-educational institutions of the world. You are welcome to keep your opinion but it will not get any serious recognition from the scientist-acedemic community of the world. With this kind of reasoning the serious academic community of the world will take you as a closed minded religious fanatic insisting on his own dogmas without any logical argument.
Have a nice day.. and wish you best of luck with your efforts..!!!
Re: Atheism
Lets keep the personal attacks aside. :)
There is no fossil evidence of intermediate forms that may or may not prove the theory. Since it remains unfound, the theory is not very scientific, is it? Evolution is abductive reasoning.
No intention of making personal attack..
I am criticizing-attacking opinions here.. I have nothing against anyone.
P.S On personal level I am pretty fond of you guys. Doesn't mean I have to respect some stupid opinions and have be to polite about it..
