Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
Actually its not. Wait up a bit. Do you have any comments for post # 306 and 308. If not then we will move forward.
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
In your post 306, I am guessing that you are hinting at the existence of God. If you are hinting at something else then make it clear. Since we both agree that there is no proof for the existence or non-existence of God, then you cannot conclude that believing in the existence of God is something impossible.
And then it looks as if you are going on a rant about how Ahadith are not a credible source of information. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with Usul ul Hadith, and perhaps that will be more convincing for you.
And your three despicable techniques of the spread of religion, this type of stuff is used everywhere. If you would tell me which ideology you subscribe to, then I will point out the same techniques used in that ideology.
Bribery should be replaced with Reward, Threats with Punishment, and Indoctrination with Knowledge. All ideologies that have survived so far have in one way or another used these types of techniques.
As for your post 308, you again start off with the incomprehensibility of God. If you accept that God is incomprehensible then anything that you can think about God cannot be God. Like I've said earlier God has described Himself so that is what we describe God as, and we don't say that we know everything about God but rather we know whatever He has told us about Himself. If God says that He has a shin, and I think of a human shin then this cannot be God by definition.
Here's something else to think about, if we were to tell a child inside his mother's womb that there's a whole world outside, will the child believe us. Most likely the child would think that this can't be because there isn't enough room for all this. I hope you understand what I mean.
The ONLY way to find the proof of the existence of God is after one is dead.
The other assumption you have made is that we know everything there is to know about this world. This is obviously a false assumption.
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
Sorry brother you are assuming now; Maybe a way to find the proof of the existance of God is after one is dead.
I only did what every next person do, when people say their faith is complete to understand the world aren't they assuming their faith to be right without any proof. After all as I mentioned earlier if there was proof do we still require faith.
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
Negative Theology: If one examines the list of attributes quoted earlier, one will find that many of them are negations; i.e., they specify what God is not. The negative way is based on the premise that "we cannot know what God is, but rather what He is not."
Negative theology purports to give us an insight to God's nature by specifying which characteristics he cannot possess, thereby differentiating God from finite beings. Some of God's attributes are obviously negative: "immutable" tells us that God does not change; "ineffable" tells us that God cannot be described; "infinite" tells us that God is not finite;, "invisible" tells us that God is not visible. Even some terms that appear to be positive are essentially negative. To say that God is "eternal," for instance, is to say that God is "not subject to temporal succession." Furthermore, attributes such as "omnipotence" and "omniscience" signify capacities without limits, so they also stem (at least partially) from the negative way.
The first problem with negative theology is that, if God is described solely in terms of negation, it is impossible to distinguish him from non-existence "any Being which had to be characterized entirely in negations would, surely, not be discernible from no Being at all."
God is not matter; neither is non-existence.
God does not have limitations; neither does non-existence.
God is not visible; neither is non-existence.
God does not change; neither does non-existence.
God cannot be described; neither can non-existence.
And so on down the list of negative predicates.
If the theist wishes to distinguish his belief in God from the belief in nothing at all, he must give some positive substance to the concept of God. Moreover, negative theology is incapable of standing by itself. In order to state what God is not, one must have prior knowledge of what God is. Without some positive idea of his nature, it is impossible to determine which characteristics cannot belong to God. Nothing can be known to be incompatible with the unknowable.
How does the Abrahamic religions know that limits are incompatible with God's nature?
Why is it not possible for God to be a material, visible organism?
On what basis is it claimed that God cannot be a finite?
Why does change conflict with the nature of God?
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
Not at all. In fact, we do claim to know specific attributes...e.g. the 99 'names'...I think this in itself negates your argument.
What the claim is is that God is unknowable in His entirety. As seen from above, the only retorts typically revolve around wordplay and the use of words that imply restriction...but then, such is the domain of human experience, so it isn't reasonable that we would have the vocabulary to describe the infinite.
And so the whole exercise in criticizing the concept of an unknowable God hinges on using or projecting words that are known to be limited. The Thing and nothing dualism is a good example.
Simply put, the way around your objections is to state:
God is not matter; yet exists
God does not have limitations; yet exists
and so on as proclamations of God's characteristics.
Such is the difference between non-existence and transcendence. And of course, this reduces the whole argument down to the real issue at hand: existence, and what a thiest is required to prove above and beyond what a non-thiest is required to prove. Been there, done that.
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
I guess from your perspective it's an assumption.
But if there is something destined for mankind after death, then that will become 100% clear after death. There's also something called Ain ul Yaqeen, but you are probably not interested in such details.
Islam does not answer ALL the questions of this world, but rather Islam gives me all the information that I need. There's a big difference.
I didn't say that I have no proof for my belief in Islam. But what may be sufficient for me as a proof may not be sufficient for you. Obviously if there was proof then faith is not required because it becomes certain.
But then if God wanted to make us all Muslims, he could have easily done so but He didn't want that.
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
How? The is nothing to suggest that your notion can be correct, give me an example.
How and why? Please don't bother if you will say because its written.
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
These were the original questions.
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
Wisdom, love, knowledge, power these may be fine qualities, but just;
What are they qualities of?
What is the nature of the being possessing them?
Affirmative theology, if it is to rescue God from the oblivion of the unknowable, must accomplish more than list secondary characteristics. If it cannot, affirmative theology is, at best, a useless device.
In addition, the God of affirmative theology is beset by a problem of long historical standing from which he cannot escape. All of the supposedly positive qualities of God arise in a distinctively human context of finite existence, and when wrenched from this context to apply to a supernatural being, they cease to have meaning.
To illustrate this problem, consider the following questions:
When the Abrahamic religions says that God is alive; does he mean that God is alive in the same sense as natural organisms? If so, God must be a material entity who will eventually die.
When God is said to be wise or to possess knowledge, is this, the conceptual knowledge with which man is familiar? If so, God is capable of error and can acquire his knowledge only through mental effort.
When God is said to have a certain power or capacity, is this power similar to the concept as we understand it? If so, God must be limited.
When God is said to be loving, is this a love with which we are familiar? If so, God must have emotions with which to feel passion.
If the Abrahamic religions wishes to use positive characteristics for God while retaining their meaning, he must reduce his God to a manlike or anthropomorphic level. On the other hand, if these predicates do not mean the same when applied to God as they do when applied to natural entities, then they assume some unknown, mysterious meaning and are virtually emptied of their significance.
In this event, God is pushed into agnosticism. Frederick Ferré describes the theistic dilemma as follows:
[quote]
The theist is caught in a cross fire. Either human language is allowed to retain its meaning, drawn from human experience of the finite, in which case it cannot be about the God of theism, who is not supposed either to be finite or to be properly describable in finite terms; or language, "purified" of its anthropocentric roots, is emptied of meaning for human beings, in which case it can be neither human language nor for us "about" God.
[/quote]
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
How? The is nothing to suggest that your notion can be correct, give me an example.
What is there to show that the notion is wrong? Give ME an example.
Please read the conclusion...this all simply reduces down to an issue of existence in the first place.
You're operating on the assumption that anything that exists must manifest itself in some physical and observable way. What if this is not true? How does one go about 'showing' this?
This doesn't even apply to God specifically...what if there is in fact a whole class of events that go on orthogonal to our reality. One can question it's relevance...but not it's reality.
Now, to extend this line of thought...what if the only manifestation is the revelation event? How to satisfy your query?
[quote]
...Please don't bother if you will say because its written.
[/quote]
Why is this not valid?
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
What are they qualities of? What is the nature of the being possessing them?
They're qualities of God....why is it reasonable to assume that we need to be able to understand the entirety of God's nature in order to appreciate the individual qualities?
[quote]
Affirmative theology, if it is to rescue God from the oblivion of the unknowable, must accomplish more than list secondary characteristics. If it cannot, affirmative theology is, at best, a useless device.
[/quote]
Why is being unknowable 'oblivion'? Why is it useless? Is there no value in human understanding, as limited as it is?
[quote]
All of the supposedly positive qualities of God arise in a distinctively human context of finite existence, and when wrenched from this context to apply to a supernatural being, they cease to have meaning.
[/quote]
Or we simply are intrinsically unable to grasp the nature of the being. I don't follow how they cease to have meaning...at worse, it is a limited understanding.
[quote]
When the Abrahamic religions says that God is alive; does he mean that God is alive in the same sense as natural organisms? If so, God must be a material entity who will eventually die.
[/quote]
They do? As far as I know, the Abrahamic traditions have God as the originator of life...God simply is.
[quote]
When God is said to be wise or to possess knowledge, is this, the conceptual knowledge with which man is familiar? If so, God is capable of error and can acquire his knowledge only through mental effort.
[/quote]
Knowledge implies consciousness of objective facts. Not the process through which they are learnt...which is a very animal thing. It is reasonable to suggest that the objective reality we inhabit is only knowable by God.
[quote]
When God is said to have a certain power or capacity, is this power similar to the concept as we understand it? If so, God must be limited.
[/quote]
Yes...which is what I refer to as wordplay.
[quote]
If the Abrahamic religions wishes to use positive characteristics for God while retaining their meaning, he must reduce his God to a manlike or anthropomorphic level.
[/quote]
...or our words take on the role of allegory and metaphor, which are crucial to enhance the expressive power of language. Indeed, if the whole purpose of revelation is to relate God's will to human existence, such a means is almost neccessary. Revelation is human-centric.
[quote]
On the other hand, if these predicates do not mean the same when applied to God as they do when applied to natural entities, then they assume some unknown, mysterious meaning and are virtually emptied of their significance.
[/quote]
Why? They are the closest approximation.
Neither you nor Mr. Ferre seemed to have caught on to this rather obvious possiblity...
Language is always an approximation of reality. English, for example, is a very blunt way to describe nature. Math is a much better way. But then, Math is as far as we can go...
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
Everything in this world follow some kind of physical rules or observable rules, this is how we know they exist. Except one entity. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that everything which is present follow the same priciple.
Then I would say why everyone was not revealed directly atleast then you have something to work on. And as abrahamic God requires everybody would be theist and one true path. But God does work in mysterious ways.
Anyway why are talking about what ifs, why not what is?
Because all claims in the religious scriptures are based on faith. For a person without faith these are all mere words. Can faith be verified? I hardly think so.
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
Ok I am ready accept if you it can be verified. I am ready to take individual qualities, but the only problem is the known qualities are also based only on faith.
You should be answering that not me, theists say God is unknowable. I say only non-existance is unknowable.
And it is not because the lack of knowledge only, its also the lack of evidence.
I have no problem with limited knowledge but limited unverifiable knowledge is something else totally.
Again a matter of faith, unverifiable.
Again a matter of faith, unverifiable.
...or our words take on the role of allegory and metaphor, which are crucial to enhance the expressive power of language. Indeed, if the whole purpose of revelation is to relate God's will to human existence, such a means is almost neccessary. Revelation is human-centric.
Why? They are the closest approximation.
Neither you nor Mr. Ferre seemed to have caught on to this rather obvious possiblity...
Language is always an approximation of reality. English, for example, is a very blunt way to describe nature. Math is a much better way. But then, Math is as far as we can go...
Thats exactly what I mean if the language of the manual are inadequate how can you say that the machine which I designed based on these manual are as per the design, how would you even know the difference. All you can do with approximate knowledge is approximate job.
Sorry I am not very good with maths but as I understand that also works on 2+2=4 not 2+2 approximately equal to 4.
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
No reply for one year.
Anyway a good essay by Farzad Roohi.
What is the greatest lie in human history?
Before you answer this question, try to answer the following question: What is the biggest lie that you were told when you were a kid? The story of Santa Clause, tooth fairy, or unicorn? How about the story that a stork brought you to this world from heaven when you were told by your mother for the first time when you asked her where you had come from, and how.
According to a Swedish legend, the stork received its name from flying around the cross of the crucified Christ crying "Styrka! Styrka!" (Strengthen, strengthen). The stork story is just a legend as the legend of the resurrection of Christ. Legends, tales, fairy tales, fables, myths, Biblical verses, Quranic verses, Satanic verses, and sagas are all the same; they all have the same nature; they are lies. A lie is a story which is not verifiable. A lie could be little and short like tooth fairy or big and long like God and the Holy Books. A lie could be constructive or destructive. We actually use different terminology for constructive lies and call them white lies.
Now, think about other lies in your life. Think about your girlfriend's age when you first met her. How about the amount of money and wealth that your boyfriend had when you asked him for the first time? How about the little white lie that Clinton had no affair whatsoever with Lewinsky when he was questioned for the first time?
Did you know that one lie can give birth to another? Flying stork around the cross of the crucified Christ crying "Styrka! Styrka!" (lie number 1), given the later resurrection of Christ (lie number 2), and the belief in Christ as the giver of life (lie number 3), it was told that the stork had something to do with the creation of new life (lie number 4) and hence the delivery of babies (lie number 5).
As you already know, there are many lies in our lives. Some politicians, history writers, and all priests, rabbis, mullahs, imams, and fiction writers are good at creating imaginable lies in a believable way. It seems that creation is in action where you hear lies after lies. After all, lies could be a creationist tool to carry on with the story of creation, another lie.
How about God and the reality about His or Her existence? As you know, we, Homo sapiens, have been the most intelligent inhabitants of the planet Earth for the last 200,000 years or so. The Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Zoroastrian God has been around just for the last 5,000 years. The real question is where He or She, God, was before 3000 BC.
To me, God is the Santa Claus of human adulthood; a Santa Claus for those adults who have not grown up intellectually enough to see that there is no such a thing as God. We have tried to unravel many mysteries and lies during the course of human history. The Clinton/Lewinsky lie is one of the most recent lies that we managed to unravel.
The story of God and His or Her affair with our universe is the biggest lie of all in human history. This destructive big lie, God, is going to be around for another few decades if not a century before we wake up and smell the coffee. This is the most optimistic view regarding the gradual death of God, The Big Lie. The pessimistic view will be that God will manage to kill all of us before we kill Him or Her. This is what I call the extinction of Homo sapiens due to Homo idiocy.
The second biggest lie in human history is that money is the root of all fortune. I let you elaborate on this lie. Good luck!
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
Okay, I'll bite.
Ok I am ready accept if you it can be verified. I am ready to take individual qualities, but the only problem is the known qualities are also based only on faith.
No, they're based on subjective qualities. Kind of like calling somebody "good". The criteria for verifiability only applies to reoccurring natural phenomena. Why does God fall in that category? In any case, the original question stands. Verifiability seems like a cop-out.
[quote]
You should be answering that not me, theists say God is unknowable. I say only non-existance is unknowable.
[/quote]
LOL...and what universal, verifiable principle states that this is a question you don't need to answer? Non-existence being unknowable requires validation, in any case...at least by your own standards...
[quote]
And it is not because the lack of knowledge only, its also the lack of evidence.
[/quote]
No...not really. Incapability precludes the possibility for there ever being evidence. Again, this is something vastly different than, say, gravity or optics.
[quote]
I have no problem with limited knowledge but limited unverifiable knowledge is something else totally.
[/quote]
Sounds like a matter of faith to me...
[quote]
Again a matter of faith, unverifiable.
[/quote]
And to all your 'unverifiable' responses, nor are they refutable.
Verfication makes sense only when there's a common vocabulary, or conceptual common ground to work with. Theology can't be expressed in any logical system, so asking for verification falls into the realm of the absurd. Again, it's a cop-out...an excuse not to think out of the box.
[quote]
Thats exactly what I mean if the language of the manual are inadequate how can you say that the machine which I designed based on these manual are as per the design, how would you even know the difference. All you can do with approximate knowledge is approximate job.
[/quote]
End users see the manual...with little to no concern for design. Want to find the design, feel free to reverse engineer...
And what natural phenom. does 2+2=4 approximate? Think more along hte lines of Newton's formulation for gravitation. It is at some level wrong, but it's good enough to get as around the solar system.
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
:) pico I am happy you were the one to reply, I was missing the good old days with all these crappy threads we have nowadays. Now be a gentleman and give me sometime before I formulate my rebuttal.
BTW Happy Eid bro
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
:) pico I am happy you were the one to reply, I was missing the good old days with all these crappy threads we have nowadays. Now be a gentleman and give me sometime before I formulate my rebuttal.
Of course :)
[quote]
BTW Happy Eid bro
[/quote]
Eid Mubarak back at ya....
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
We don't need to prove that God does not exist. The claimant must provide the evidence for what he claims.
Granted, religions have provided evidence, but their evidence is contradictory, more specifically the evidence for God as presented by the Abrahamic religions. God, Allah, and Jehovah, say a lot of wonderful, touching things, and yet perform despicable deeds and create vicious monsters. Look at their acts and not their words. If we step out of blind faith, and stop trying to make excuses to fit things into "God's perfect plan", you realize that:
- if a God exists, he does not exist as religions would have us believe.
- if God exists as religions would have us believe, he is a sick ******* and not worthy of an ounce of respect, worship, or servitude.
- there is no God.
In any case, I do not believe there is a way to prove any of the above. Perhaps that makes me agnostic. However, if during my life (and if there is an afterlife, after) God is proven or disproven once and for all, I will not change a thing about me or my life for that God.
from Mark Twain's Letters from Earth:
[quote]
"Strange...a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied seventy times seven and invented Hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him!"
[/quote]
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
i think i may have been an atheist at some time, probably a part of me still is, and that's only cos of the huge proportions of suffering/injustice i see in the world around me. that cannot/shouldnot be the will of God.
i think thats partially us people to blame..
we always need a reason to blame someone or something when something wrong happens...
we rarely reflect upon ourselves and see what we didnt do for God or what wrong we did that caused this to happen...
Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
is ATHEISM like a religion??
like how do you consider yourself an atheist --- is it like people of Islam, consider themselves a Muslim etc?
i find this sooo intriguing - i believe in God - so i cant imagine not looking up to God for help or religion to guide me...- when in doubt---i know the first thing i do is pray to God to give me comfort --
so for atheists how does that work out-- do you just sort of go with the flow. I guess it goes back to the original question of this thread- what exactly do you believe in then, like not every Muslim believes in the same thing too...does every atheist have their own justification to belief. Or rather is it that you dont have to believe in anything at all.
Sorry if i offended anyone with all my questions- im just not that knowledgeable to atheism :) thanks a bunchh