Look buddy more than half the world isn’t stupid and not only that if you’re dumb enough to believe that we’re all JUST AN ACCIDENT… and that humans have no purpose in life but just live and die. Come on MANG!
It is fair he IS GOD so he has the full power and authority to do whatever he wants. He wanted to create creatures who will be on there own and reward the ones who do good and hurt those who do bad. That is why when you do a good deed for some body BOTH you and the other person feel good about it. On the other hand if I go kill you, your dad would be really angry and would not like me and would probably would want to kill me. In other words PUNISH me which god will do to you.
This topic is something I started few days ago in another message board with the headline: Athiest: An open-minded person or someone in the state of denial?
And the question it followed was "how many signs does it take for one to believe anything or nothing?"
Like, how many signs do you need that a car is a car or how many signs does it take for you to believe that horse is a horse or how many signs does it takes for one to realise that rapping someone is wrong?
Alhumdulillah, so far all minus 2 have started to say now they believe on a "higher power". The rest 2 said they don't want to believe on a higher power and that's the way it is for them (AKA personal ego).
I know there is a long way for me to go into bringing them back into Islam but a dua from my Muslim sisters and brothers is requested.
Now I will ask the same questions to my Atheist brothers and sisters here because of one simple reason, each and every Athiest I have spoken to in person or online have such wonderful and strong answers for them to believe or not believe on the existent of Allah.
Faith in the religious/ethical sense also hinges on hope. Faith in mankind (humanism, if you like) is a very good example of a very irrational belief as mankind's penchance for barbarity is a constant.
If reason is comprehensive, if no sphere of reality is exempt from its scrutiny, there are no grounds on which to posit faith as an alternate method of cognition.
If reason can tell us anything there is to know, there is no longer a job for faith.
Reason is fine as far as it goes, but it is limited.
And here faith makes its grand entrance. Faith is called upon where reason is said to fail, and faith is represented as a supplement to reason, not an enemy.
Okay Since a genius like you think i’m dumb enough to think that it was all an accident or watever u wanna name it. then my Genius friend lets suppose your offering a non believer to convert to islam . How would you do that . Lets see what r the solid bases you can present to turn and atheist to a believer. come on:hoonh:
Obviously something powerful created us to be able to even come up with these things...believing in god doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory but I tell you what does. "Life started with a single cell organism that led to dinosaurs/humanity/etc....yea, I've got a bridge to sell YA!
-pak man
This Natural-Law Argument, This is the favorite argument all throughout the centuries, especially under the influence of Sir Isaac Newton and his cosmogony.
People observed the planets going around the sun according to the law of gravitation, and the thought that God had given a behest to these planets to move in a particular fashion, and that was why they did so.
This is, of course, a convenient and simple explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for any explanation of the law of gravitation.
Nowadays we can explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced. I do not propose to give you a lecture on the law of gravitation, as interpreted by Einstein, because that would take the discussion to a whole new dimension; at any rate, 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. You know that even in the remotest depth of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature. And a great many things that have been regarded as laws of nature are of that kind.
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 the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance.
There is, as we know, a law that says if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence to the contrary that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design. The laws of nature are of that sort as regards to a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes the whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was.
Quite apart from that, which represents the momentary state of science that may change tomorrow, the whole idea that natural laws imply a lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws.
Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be supposedly someone who told them to do that, because even supposing there were, you are faced with the question, "Why did God issue just those and no others?"
If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted.
If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary.
In short, this whole argument from natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have.
These arguments that are used for the existence of God change their character as time goes on. They were at first hard intellectual arguments. As time goes by they become less respectable intellectually and more and more affected by a kind of moralizing vagueness.
So now you are talking about the universe made by design: Which means everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to
live in it.
This is the argument from design. It sometimes takes a rather curious form; for
instance, it can be argued that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy to shoot. I do not know how rabbits would view that application. It is an easy argument to parody. Is sound to me like when Voltaire made the remark, that obviously the nose was designed to be such as to fit spectacles.
That sort of parody has turned out to be not nearly so wide of the mark as it might have seemed in the eighteenth century, because since the time of Darwin we understand much better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them, but that they grew to be suitable to it, that is the basis of adaptation.
There is no evidence of design about it.
When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the fanatics or the fascists?
Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions and temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending -- something dead, cold, and lifeless.
Your argument for the remedying of injustice is another very curious form of moral argument, which is: that the existence of God is required to bring justice into the world.
In the part of the universe that we know there is a great injustice, and often the good suffer, and the often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is more annoying; but if you are going to have justice in the universe as a whole you have to suppose a future life to redress the balance of life here on earth.
So peole say that there must be a God, and that there must be Heaven and Hell in order that in the long run there may be justice.
That is a very curious argument. If you looked at the matter from a scientific point of view, you would say, "After all, I only know this world. I do not know about the rest of the universe, but so far as one can argue from probabilities one would say that probably this world is a fair sample, and if there is injustice here then the odds are great that there is injustice elsewhere also."
Supposing you got a crate of oranges that you opened, and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue, "The underneath ones must be good, so as to redress the balance." You would say, "Probably the whole lot is a bad consignment"; and that is really what a scientific person would argue about the universe.
A scientific person would say, "Here we find in this world a great deal of injustice, and so far as that goes that is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in this world, and therefore so far as it goes it supports a moral argument against deity and not in favor of one."
Of course I know that the sort of intellectual arguments that I have been talking to you about is not really what moves people.
What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.
I'm not an atheist but i've no concern with God and vise versa. So i think i fall close to that category .You asked what keeps an atheist alive i would say the same thing which keeps a theist alive .. simple! and plz dont tell me that faith or belief or some other______ keeps theists alive. please
No I'm not going there. My point is what gives life to a human being. A human cannot live with a soul. Or is just bodily balances that make up your soul. What is an Atheists point of view on this?
i can't speak on behalf of atheist people cuz i'm not one of them .i'm sure science gotta have some kinda answer to this question . As far as my* concern goes*
*our life starts with a cell and that cell develops and get stronger and bigger and as the time passes by it gets old and weak and after completing its life cycle it dies and theres the end of the so called SOUL. *
why is it that when one sees an invention one thinks of its inventor? couldn't we say that it just popped up wiht random chance? for example, upon seeing a boeing 757, would one think that it was a tornado that swept through a junkyard where all the necessary material for a 757 was present and left behind that plane?
This is in fact wot the atheists believe. They say that all the necessary conditions were present for life billions of years ago and so life just started. Compare this to the example of the boeing 757, which is more rediculus? the idea that you can get a 757 from chance if the right conditions r present or the creation of creatures which are millions of times more complicated than a boeing 757?
I m a believer in evolution but i believe that it was guided instead of a blind chance game. I may be wrong, but is it not the fact that a child learns everything from his/her parents and the ppl around? Now there r in fact creatures who leave their offsprings the moment they r born or even when they r in eggs. Where do these creatures learn all the necessary skills for survival? When they get old they can do everything the parents were able to do. how is it so?
Very valid point but works only on the inventions you see. What about the inventions you don't see, when you don't see a boeing 757, It is safe to assume that there is no boeing plane at all until you SEE one.
The Quran is so P-E-R-F-E-C-T that at times people convert to Islam JUST because they realize that the wording of it couldn't have been from any one but GOD.
If GOD was to send a big sign down upon us it'll defeat the whole purpose of seeing who of his are followers and who are not. Everyone would start doing what he would want us to do and have a pointless life.
Everything in this world has a purpose. The reason we go to school, reason we learn how to eat, how to drive a car, etc.. etc... Me making this point has a purpose also and the person reading this has yet another purpose. Therefore it should be easy to comprehend that life has a purpose and it's defined as a single test to see who goes to heaven/hell.
If GOD was to send a big sign down upon us it'll defeat the whole purpose of seeing who of his are followers and who are not. Everyone would start doing what he would want us to do and have a pointless life.
Nowadays we can explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced. I do not propose to give you a lecture on the law of gravitation, as interpreted by Einstein, because that would take the discussion to a whole new dimension; at any rate, 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.
[/quote]
This is untrue. It's simply moved the discussion to a different level. And the bottom line is, at some point, you need to accept Gravitation as a given. It's just there. It's relation to space/time and bodies with mass can be quantified, but what such reasoning is itself subject to a regression of endless questiong. So, in the case of gravitation, what is it about matter and gravitation that produces the effect of Gravity? Find the answer, then I'll ask you what's behind that phenomena, and so on.
Where things get bad is when you have to introduce incredibly complex models to explain simple things. And if at the end of the day, all you can do is take the pheonomena as-is, then we're really in no better position philospohically than those who espouse the natural law view. It's simply a question of when we quit trying to explain things.
So no, our modelling of nature is becomming quite complex and less elegant. Oh well, why not chalk it up to the limits of our cognition? Why this irrational belief that our reason can explain all?
[quote]
If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe
[/quote]
Which theologin argues that? Rather, the universe is as is...it's a very basic statement, but hardly admits to the kind of reasoning you suggest.
What we see as profound may not be. Stars may in fact be nothing more than space junk with no other reaso than to entertain us at night. Who knows. Who cares. They're fun to model.
Strange things happen to the scientific mind when they enter the realm of metaphysics.