Well??
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
Whatever. If you don't believe then don't. If you do believe then believe. Why mock others? Does it make you happy? Does it prove something? People only see content when they mock others. Its just sad to be honest.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
Whatever. If you don't believe then don't. If you do believe then believe. Why mock others? Does it make you happy? Does it prove something? People only see content when they mock others. Its just sad to be honest.
Who was mocking who? I asked who was making rational argument.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
Irrational guy was mocking rational guy… 
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
Peace Shamraz Khan
The video contains a major flaw. The flaw is that it is arguing the non-existence of God based on the idea of a pluralistic concept of God - i.e. Theists do not agree about The nature of God.
What we need to do is first ascertain the existence of God ... Once this is done then we can entertain the nature of God. The atheist uses the disagreement of the nature of God between people as a basis to reject God. That rejection is irrational. So to address the thread topic ... This video shows the atheist making an irrational act.
The argument for God is not based on people having subjective personal experiences as this video suggests. Rather the argument for God is based on analogical reasoning. The main analogy being as complexity increases the intelligence required also increases for that complex system to be. It is quintessentially rational to believe the universe has a Supernatural Creator based on this analogical thought process.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
Peace Shamraz Khan
The video contains a major flaw. The flaw is that it is arguing the non-existence of God based on the idea of a pluralistic concept of God - i.e. Theists do not agree about The nature of God.
What we need to do is first ascertain the existence of God ... Once this is done then we can entertain the nature of God. The atheist uses the disagreement of the nature of God between people as a basis to reject God. That rejection is irrational. So to address the thread topic ... This video shows the atheist making an irrational act.
The argument for God is not based on people having subjective personal experiences as this video suggests. Rather the argument for God is based on analogical reasoning. The main analogy being as complexity increases the intelligence required also increases for that complex system to be. It is quintessentially rational to believe the universe has a Supernatural Creator based on this analogical thought process.
Yes, but then you also have to consider the nature of "complexity" itself.
Complexity in the context of the Universe, is not the same as the complexity of say, a toaster oven. Because the toaster oven has a purpose, and all its internal mechanisms are geared towards meeting that purpose. We can THEN assume there must have been a maker who had it in his mind to make toast.
So if the complexity within a toaster oven is for the express purpose of toasting, what is the purpose of the supposed complexity found within the Universe? Without a purpose, the complexity of the Universe just seems to be the product of random chance. Theirs seems to be about as much planning in the Universe as their is in picking a red ball out of a bag full of mostly green balls over an infinite number of tries. One could argue that Life is the ultimate purpose behind the complexity. But life itself could be a fluke, just like picking the red ball out a bag of mostly greens.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
"A perfect being would have gotten it right the first time"
(4:06 above video)..
'There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text.
'
Willium muir(staunch orientalist critic of islam of 18th centurt)
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
The atheist's argument is as logical as the following statement:
Everyone in the world expect and wish different things from their lives in the world, therefore, the world does not exist.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
Yes, but then you also have to consider the nature of "complexity" itself.
Complexity in the context of the Universe, is not the same as the complexity of say, a toaster oven. Because the toaster oven has a purpose, and all its internal mechanisms are geared towards meeting that purpose. We can THEN assume there must have been a maker who had it in his mind to make toast.
So if the complexity within a toaster oven is for the express purpose of toasting, what is the purpose of the supposed complexity found within the Universe? Without a purpose, the complexity of the Universe just seems to be the product of random chance. Theirs seems to be about as much planning in the Universe as their is in picking a red ball out of a bag full of mostly green balls over an infinite number of tries. One could argue that Life is the ultimate purpose behind the complexity. But life itself could be a fluke, just like picking the red ball out a bag of mostly greens.
Peace Med911
You are trying to suggest that it is possible for complex systems to have no purpose. That is an irrational assertion.
Then you argue that "the complexity of the universe seems to be the product of random chance" that is another irrational claim ... Why? Because random chance does not create complexity ... then you proceed to give the analogy of picking out a red ball from a bag of mostly green balls in an infinite number of tries ... This presents another problem ... Infinite tries assumes time existed ... The point is at the cradle of creation ... Nothing exists not even time nor the concept of tries ... Furthermore it raises the question about who or what was the cause of red balls, greens balls, the bag existing in the first place? And why picking balls out of the bag is a necessary causality. Even the act of picking out balls for the purpose of creating a universe or not requires intelligence. And if all this is meant to be conceptual then we are not discussing things at this level. We are using as
I said earlier ... Analogical reasoning which technically is not logical but it is rational to use this tool, especially so when no other evidence is available. In law courts this tool is used and especially for character profiling.
Regarding purpose ... any designed system must have a purpose, the inception of which is with the designer. Since we are not the designers of the universe it is foolish to seek the purpose of it within ourselves and we must seek that Designer to obtain the purpose. Having previously concluded through analogical reasoning the universe must be designed. So it is also wrong to infer the universe has no purpose, because then we are tacitly claiming knowledge of what we are not part of.
This is when we must seek out the Designer of the Universe ... To get its purpose and in turn our purpose from That Designer ... It is hence a requisite that the universe and living entities like us are obligated to seek our purpose because we ourselves operate in this way and it is poor to infer our life has no purpose yet everything we do within our lives has its own specific purpose to us.
This argument is again not part of formal logic, but it is part of rational thought. That since we desire purpose so then we can assume that we ought to empathise that our Designer has a purpose for us and that becomes required for us to know that.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
Since Pakistanis fight with each other, therefore Pakistan does not exist.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
The atheist's argument is as logical as the following statement:
Everyone in the world expect and wish different things from their lives in the world, therefore, the world does not exist.
Although he is implying absurdity but there is no exception that every human wish belongs to either fame or money( happiness). Though money is not happiness but human today is after money as if it is the happiness. even fame is sort of happiness. So every human being wants happiness.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
Its not as simple as picking a red ball. to take life a form randomly it has to take several “red balls” PRECISELY. If randomness then DNA pattern would require precise randomness in that case, and random actions occurring precisely to make a working pattern is not randomness.
Consider the probability of making atomic structure and molecular model. even if it was started randomly then it is hard to believe this precise structure is not being affected by the randomness anymore. If you believe in shape models then let me know how more than one vertices could connect randomly to form a shape which is true for countless shapes in this universe.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
how does that eliminate the possibility of being one of them true if more than one people claim a thing belongs to them?
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
Peace Shamraz Khan
The video contains a major flaw. The flaw is that it is arguing the non-existence of God based on the idea of a pluralistic concept of God - i.e. Theists do not agree about The nature of God.
What we need to do is first ascertain the existence of God ... Once this is done then we can entertain the nature of God. The atheist uses the disagreement of the nature of God between people as a basis to reject God. That rejection is irrational. So to address the thread topic ... This video shows the atheist making an irrational act.
The argument for God is not based on people having subjective personal experiences as this video suggests. Rather the argument for God is based on analogical reasoning. The main analogy being as complexity increases the intelligence required also increases for that complex system to be. It is quintessentially rational to believe the universe has a Supernatural Creator based on this analogical thought process.
I think that's a perfectly rational response. Forget about religions for second, let's just talk about the possibility of there being a creator of this universe. Logically, the only LOGICAL conclusion is that this universe has a creator because everything that WE know has been created by someone/something. Having said that, I do not think the video is about proving whether there is a god or not. It's about how confusing religions are to the Atheist that the simple message gets missed.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
I think that's a perfectly rational response. Forget about religions for second, let's just talk about the possibility of there being a creator of this universe. Logically, the only LOGICAL conclusion is that this universe has a creator because everything that WE know has been created by someone/something. Having said that, I do not think the video is about proving whether there is a god or not. It's about how confusing religions are to the Atheist that the simple message gets missed.
Well then many people are just irreligious ... Or "areligionists" rather than "atheist" ... If they claim their atheism stems from this confusion then they have made the rational error. If however, they call themselves atheists out of convenience and are really confused about the nature of God because of the confusing messages about God then I would say they are behaving lazily and are not fulfilling their obligation to discern between the various ideas of God in order to establish for them what the truth might be about God. Not really ever entertaining that there is no God again unless they find a flaw in the initial reasoning process that got them to this point.
What they need to do after realising the necessitation of a Creator is to entertain various candidates for God and eliminate them and hence it is then possible to at least rule out most religious orders in this way.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
Well then many people are just irreligious ... Or "areligionists" rather than "atheist" ... If they claim their atheism stems from this confusion then they have made the rational error. If however, they call themselves atheists out of convenience and are really confused about the nature of God because of the confusing messages about God then I would say they are behaving lazily and are not fulfilling their obligation to discern between the various ideas of God in order to establish for them what the truth might be about God. Not really ever entertaining that there is no God again unless they find a flaw in the initial reasoning process that got them to this point.
What they need to do after realising the necessitation of a Creator is to entertain various candidates for God and eliminate them and hence it is then possible to at least rule out most religious orders in this way.
I think many atheists, including myself, simply don't believe there is a religious god/gods. This doesn't mean they are out right denying the existence of there being a creator of THIS universe. It's not humanly possible to know what god/our creator is. For me, the problem is when anybody (religion) tries to define with absolute certainty what the unseen force is or what breathes life into anything. This is why I will never seek religious explanation of what this force is. Religions have lost all credibility as far as explaining/describing what created this universe. It's just stories and I can tell stories too.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
how does that eliminate the possibility of being one of them true if more than one people claim a thing belongs to them?
I think atheist question is if God is perfect designer why would he confuse us? Why not just tell everyone what he wants and we can all follow whatever he wants instead of guessing what he wants?
Btw, another interesting point in the video is what is absolute truth and what is beliefs (eg 2+2=4 is universally true, but not everyone agrees about religious/beliefs) & religions are cultural construct confined by borders & universal truth has no such boundaries.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
What perfect designing capability has to do with confusing stuff? If an interviewer confuses a candidate that means interviewer is incompetent 
What if it is the test for human and is part of design and the play?
Yes you cannot compare religion with math. nor is religion meant to do that. Religion is message from the God that contains moral ethical guideline and it has nothing to do with math.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
I think many atheists, including myself, simply don't believe there is a religious god/gods. This doesn't mean they are out right denying the existence of there being a creator of THIS universe. It's not humanly possible to know what god/our creator is. For me, the problem is when anybody (religion) tries to define with absolute certainty what the unseen force is or what breathes life into anything. This is why I will never seek religious explanation of what this force is. Religions have lost all credibility as far as explaining/describing what created this universe. It's just stories and I can tell stories too.
What, according to you, is the definition of an 'atheist'?
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
I think many atheists, including myself, simply don't believe there is a religious god/gods. This doesn't mean they are out right denying the existence of there being a creator of THIS universe. It's not humanly possible to know what god/our creator is. For me, the problem is when anybody (religion) tries to define with absolute certainty what the unseen force is or what breathes life into anything. This is why I will never seek religious explanation of what this force is. Religions have lost all credibility as far as explaining/describing what created this universe. It's just stories and I can tell stories too.
Peace Theorist
What research have you done on the various ideas about God that leads you to make the statement "lost all credibility"?
On one hand you are agreeing that "the nature of God" debate is not enough to conclude God does not exist, however, on the other hand you are saying that "an absolute claim about the nature of God" is not acceptable to you and leads you to reject religion.
This is riddled in confusion. Is it not an absolute claim to call God - "Our Creator". As you have called Him? Or to say that it is not possible to know God - that too is an absolute claim about the nature of God - i.e. that humans cannot truly know Him. And if that is the case then why reject Islam ... because Islam says the same thing.
Wa La Shay'a mithluhu
And there is nothing like unto Him.
From Aqeedah At-Tahawiyya point number 2.
Humans can only know by what we experience and some of our experience are objective (i.e. shared by others) and other experiences are subjective (i.e. unique to us). Some of our experiences lead us to REAL states and others will lead us to DELUDED states. Both objective and subjective experiences are prone to this ... there is no rule that makes objective experience superior to subjective experience. For example an illusionist can quite effectively delude a whole audience in one of his/her tricks. Conversely a subjective experience might be REAL and point to the truth of God. Although most of the time layers of interpretation of those initial "feelings" lead people to draw very different conclusions about the same "spiritual" experiences.
My point being that if nothing is like Him and we can only know what we experience then we cannot know Him by any sort of analogy that we have at our empirical disposal.
We cannot in the objective sense - or in the scientific sense ever know God - and both you say this ... and Islam too. So why reject Islam? Or other religions that might be saying the same thing?
Rather this points to one thing - religions are being given a hard time - its popular to do that in this day and age and little desire or motivation exists to partake and undertake serious scholarly analysis of dogma and philosophical thought. We are ruling out religion without giving it a fair trial. Would you agree?