Why do you believe?

Society Religion & Philosophy
41

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by armughal: *
believe me u r not the first to be thinking on this (very wrong) line....

what can science prove for u????
why r we born????
why do we die????
what is life????
what is death????
nothing at all....
[/QUOTE]

Why r we born?... To worship God..???.......The most unsatisfactory answer by religion.
why do we die?...To account for what we did in our life before God...?....another unsatisfactory answer by the religion.
what is life?....life is a result of God's intention..?? An unsatisfactory answer by the religion.
what is death....for the start of after life..?? also unsatisfactory answer by the religion.

religion attempt to answer all the questions but all the answers are unsatisfactory. All these answer are not provable.

It is only science which is seriously making attempts to find correct answers of all your questions. Though science has not find the answers to most of the questions but it is moving in forward direction. Religion, with all its unsatisfactory answers has no importance while dealing with such questions.

42

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by fatehahmad: *
Mr. Chandigarh,

You wrote:

Its not the matter of being comfortable or not! There is only one truth out there and that is the absolute truth that humans beings and this universe is a result of not an accident but part of a plan and there is a creator out there. Believing in absolute truth is not a matter of choice.
[/QUOTE]

To believe in any one faith is really a matter of comfort. You believe in Allah, to be absolute truth because it is more comfertable to you. Because you born in Muslim family. you were educated in muslim style. What is surity that you would be a muslim if u happen to born in barhaman hindu family??

Islam is more comfatrable to you because your mind was prepared in this way.

You say there is one absolute truth in the Universe....Why u consider your God to be that absolute truth. Why not any other thing can be the absolute truth?

43

Mr. Basic_force,

Please read my post carefuly! I never said that 'my GOD' is the absolute truth. I said that the absolute truth is that there is 'creator' of this universe. And being comfortable with absolute truth is not a matter of choice. After that you can call 'that creator' whatever you want, whether be Allah, Bhagwan or something else! But thats a different discussion.

If somebody creates something, he knows it better how his creation should work not the other way round!

44

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
Chandigarh

I once had a dialogue with an aethiest and posted some of my arguments and counter arguments on this topic. I've also given a number of factual flaws to Darwins Theory which has made it impossible to be a reality. Once I dig it up I'll repost again.

However, in answer to your query, of why does one believe? The answer is very simple. CHOICE. We choose to believe or not to believe. Everyone ponders over Creation and then makes that decision to Believe in what they feel comfortable with. Even you believe. Not the same as us, but you still believe that their is no God based on your pondering.

Some Faiths are incompatable with Science but for us, Islam is very compatable with Science. I'm not going to elaborate further for the time being, as it is much easier for me to repost my previous views on these subjects.
[/QUOTE]

You gave factual flaws of Darwin's theory. Why u did not give factual flaws of your holy book..???....because u think that Islam is very compatible with science...????

I know that Darwins theory is not free of flaws. You have not pointed out any thing new. I also know that your holy book also is not free of flaws. Consider only the following one for the time being:

1- According to your holy book Hzrat Noah, despite being a prophet was a common human being. i,e. he was not a super natural being.

2- Being an ordinary human, he made such a huge "boat" and then he "loaded" pairs of all the animal species living on the earth.

3- In this modern information age, we know that there live hundereds of thousands or even more of animal species on this earth.

4- We also know that even today, it is impossible for ordinary human beings to built such a huge "boat" and then load pairs of all the living animal species. such a boat cannot be built using the most advanced technology in which you have to load millions of pairs of animal species.

In the light of above mentioned facts, following can be concluded:

1- Despite the claim of your holy book, Hazrat Noah was not an ordinary man. He was a supernatural being.

2- If Hazrat Noah was a Super natural being, then holy book's claim that he was an ordinary man proves wrong.

3- If Hazrat Noah was an ordinary man and he still built such a huge "boat" and sucessfully loaded all the pairs of animal species then we can conclude that holy book do not talk of the world in which we live. Because ordinary men of this world cannot do these things.

4- If your holy book does not talk of the world in which we live then it must be talking of some other world, perhaps an imaginary world. So the teachings of this book which does not talk of this world are not applicable to this world.

This is only one flaw....

1-

45

Mr. Basic_force,

It depends how you interpret the whole story of Hazrat Noah AS. Some Muslims and christians believe that every living species on earth was loaded on that boat, which I believe was not the case as it is not humanly possible. My interpretation of this whole thing is as follows:

[QUOTE]

Hazrat Noah had forewarned his people that they would be destroyed because of their evil ways and their constant rejection of his claims. He forewarned them in the same breath that the means of their destruction would be water, a deluge whose like had never been seen before and that neither man nor animal would be safe from it.

No sooner had the warning gone out, than Noah, on whom be peace, began to build the ark that he had been commanded by God Almighty to build, aboard which true believers were to be saved. Those who rejected him would laugh and ridicule him and his companions. No one could bring himself to believe that the skies would fall and cover the land, so much so, that not an inch of dry territory would be available for man to save himself from the rising deluge. At last came the day, when according to the Holy Quran:

Thereupon, We opened the gates of Heaven with water pouring down. [Al-Qamar: 12]
It rained so heavily as had never been seen before. Noah and those who believed in him boarded the ark and carried with them some provisions for a limited period, and some animals and birds, which had been gathered before. The onlookers kept watching the spectacle unfold before their eyes and kept pouring scorn on him. With the rising water, the ark began to float and homes and high ground began to submerge under the water.

[/QUOTE]

I don't find anything unscientific about the whole spectacle. Now its upto you to believe the version given above or the one un-scientific presented by some christians and Muslims.

46

Hi Basic_force,

You do have some valid ponts, but i think another thread would be more appropiate for that discussion.

Kind regards,
Chd

47

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by fatehahmad: *
Mr. Basic_force,

It depends how you interpret the whole story of Hazrat Noah AS. Some Muslims and christians believe that every living species on earth was loaded on that boat, which I believe was not the case as it is not humanly possible. My interpretation of this whole thing is as follows:

I don't find anything unscientific about the whole spectacle. Now its upto you to believe the version given above or the one un-scientific presented by some christians and Muslims.
[/QUOTE]

So you are not one of those "some muslims" who say that all pairs of animal species were loaded. But you are one of those muslims who say that only "some" pairs of animal species were loaded.

First of all let me say that those who say that all pairs of animal species were loaded are not "some muslims". They are in majority. I think you should include yourself in "some muslims" catagory who think otherwise than majority do.

Secondly, all the present day living animal species are believed (by majority muslims) to be the decendents of those which were saved by Hazrat Noah. Present day living species are millions in number. It means that Hazrat Noah Story as believed by the majority muslims is not free of scientific and logical flaws.

48

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by chandigarh: *
Hi Basic_force,

You do have some valid ponts, but i think another thread would be more appropiate for that discussion.

Kind regards,
Chd
[/QUOTE]

I think you suggest me to give "high potency" doze to fundamentalists Muslims. Ok shall do it at appropriate time.

49

Mr. Basic_force,

If majority of the muslim wrongly interpret some verses of Holy Quran, does it make the Holy Quran itself flawed?

50

Hi ravage,

If you are reading this, please do read Chapter 18 of Joseph Heller's
Catch-22. It has something regarding our discussion (without
being judgemental).

It is easily available in ebook format.

All the best,
Chd.

51

Re: Why do you believe?

Thankyou for your post.

I read through all the posts related to your question and most of them (99%) do not answer your question.

We first need to know the reality of the scientific method of thinking, its limitations and restrictions.

The scientific method of thinking is concerned with obtaining of knowledge (of the nature) of the thing under study through conducting experiments on the thing. The scientific method of thinking cannot function except in the study of tangible things.

Hence the things which are not tangible (things you cant feel), cannot be under study through the scientific method of thinking. So the scientific method of thinking cannot be applied to things which you cannot touch, so in the view of science anything that cannot be touched has no existence. Accordingly there is no existence for history as history cannot be touched nor can it be subjected to experiments.

So we can understand that the scientific method of thinking has its limitations, in that it can only be applied to physical things which can be touched and can be subjected to experimentations.

Because God cannot be tested under laboratory conditions, the scientists reject God.

The question that really needs to be answered is that 'just because one cannot see something, does it mean that it does not exist?'

If someone found on thier way home from work that thier house windows had been broken, they would definatively arrive at the conclusion of a cause for this (ie that a person had been responsible for this) even though nobody had witnessed it.

So now, the answer to your question as to why the muslims believe in God. The reason for why muslims believe in God is because they are rationally convinced of an ultimate cause behind the existence of the universe.

So the rational principle which states that there is a cause behind every effect also applies to the universe, ie that there is definately something which created the universe. And so the muslims call this entity a creator (khaliq) and Allah (swt).

I want you to come back to my views and maybe afterwards we can discuss why the muslims believe in hell fire and heaven.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by chandigarh: *
Why do people believe in the existence of 'god' ? On in afterlife,
heaven/hell? And follow various religions that affect/govern their lives so as to appease this god bloke.

After several years of gradual and subconscious contemplation, I came toconclude that

  1. the existence/non-existence of "god" is inconsequential to me. The
    answer to the question, after taking stock of the universe and the world
    around me is that the 'answer' matters diddly-squat.

  2. As a skeptic, this conclusion suited me perfectly in my atheism and
    belief real-politik and Darwinism, which science in this enlightened age
    supports (IMHO of course).

  3. This gives me a freedom/choice of following my life, not blindly
    governed by dictates of men who existed (if at all) thousands of years
    ago.

I did have a bit of problem in the beginning, feeling contempt and pity for those who spent their lives 'believing' and surrendering to the
biggest mafia in the world (organised religion). Though a bit of the
superiority complex remains, I have learned to accept , since there is no
answer (and as a scientist, I have to acknowledge that the answer after
all may be 'yes'), I have no right to feel the contempt that I once did.

But I have always wondered why those who believe in this age of science, do so...

chd
[/QUOTE]

52

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by fatehahmad: *
Mr. Basic_force,

If majority of the muslim wrongly interpret some verses of Holy Quran, does it make the Holy Quran itself flawed?
[/QUOTE]

Mr.,

Yours this argument is valid that if majority muslims wrongly interpret the verses of their own holy book, holy book cannot be blamed for this wrong interpretation. But you should see your holy book which infact talks of "all" and not "some" pairs of animal species. So the flaw is there.

53

Re: Re: Why do you believe?

Mr. malikhan1983,

I read your post and reached at the conclusion that you have been unable to justify your claims.

Consider your following words:

"The scientific method of thinking is concerned with obtaining of knowledge (of the nature) of the thing under study through conducting experiments on the thing. The scientific method of thinking cannot function except in the study of tangible things."

You say that scientific method cannot function except in the study of tangible things. Rest of your analysis center rounds this point. First of all, just for record, I want to say that science also deals with "intengible" things. Study of electromegnatic waves, electrons and the study of other fundamental particals etc. all are "intengibles" You can see none of them. Science still studies them under the laboritory conditions.

However it was only just for your record. Then you pointed out that scientific method is not applicable to all the problems. Yes you are right. Certain things are certainly beyond the scope of scientific method. ** But the things which are beyond the scope of scientific method are within the scope of "rationalism" and "Logic".** You have given the example of history that it is out side the scope of scientific method because according to scientific method "history do not even exists." You are right again. But we are able to find out correct history using our "rational" and by using the "Logic". We can observe our present. In the light of results of these observations we are able to make judgements about our past. For example we can observe the present day Pakistan and see that it has vast agriculture base and limited industrial base. We can conclude that (Present day)Pakistan was an agricultural based economy in the history. We can see that present punjabies speak "punjaby", we also find some ancient scripts and writings some where in the same territory. We can conclude that Punjabies had been speaking "punjaby" upto a certain moment in history and had been speaking (or at least writing) that ancient language in a particular time in history.

You then raised the following question:

"The question that really needs to be answered is that 'just because one cannot see something, does it mean that it does not exist?"

You are right. Just because one cannot see something do not mean that it does not exists. Now I ask you the same question. "A thing which we cannot see or observe or feel, Does it means that this thing necessasirally exists..?? Because Muslims insist on necessary existance of their God.

Following is your end analysis:

"If someone found on thier way home from work that thier house windows had been broken, they would definatively arrive at the conclusion of a cause for this (ie that a person had been responsible for this) even though nobody had witnessed it.

So now, the answer to your question as to why the muslims believe in God. The reason for why muslims believe in God is because they are rationally convinced of an ultimate cause behind the existence of the universe.

So the rational principle which states that there is a cause behind every effect also applies to the universe, ie that there is definately something which created the universe. And so the muslims call this entity a creator (khaliq) and Allah (swt)."

You present cause and effect principle and conclude that effect is this Universe and the cause is your God. I agree to cause and effect principle. Every effect must have a definate cause or a set of causes. If the universe is the effect then what is its corresponding cause..?? According to you it is your God. According to a "Materialist" the cause of such a universe can be the blind forces of attraction and repultion between atoms, molecules and still tiny fundamental particals. According to a "Rationalist", the cause of such a universe can be a God or even a group of gods. May be it is those blind forces which has been described by the Materialist.

Ok lets suppose that cause of such a universe is a God. What is the surity that it is the same God who has revealed your Holy Book...?? What is the proof that it is the same God in which you and your muslim community brothers believe..??What is the proof that "materialist's" blind forces are not the cause of this universe..??

First try to answer the above questions then I will proceed further.

54

^^
regarding the flood in Noahs time, wich is referred to in nearly all cultures and is widely alluded to in the Qur'an. BF it is your flawed perception, and not the interpretations of 'majority muslims'. that the accounts of a global flood come from other religions and cultures, such an assertion of a world-wide flood is not from the qur'an, the flood was localized.

55

basic_force:k: :bravo:
Good points.

To ravage (or anyone else who cares), the following article reflects in part my nihilism and beliefs.

Its R rated, so wacchit…

http://exile.ru/128/128010118.html

Matt Tiabbi "God can Suck my… "

56

Re: Re: Re: Why do you believe?

thanks for your reply.

First of all I think we need to be unified upon understanding the meaning of tangible. I think you understand it to mean those things which can only be touched. This is an inaccurate understanding of the word as it actually means:

having substance or material existence; perceptible to the senses; "a physical manifestation".

So anything which has a material existence or a physical manifestation or can be sensed is considered tangible. So electrons have a physical manifestation and a material existence and so does energy and so all of these things are tangible and can be studied by science.

But things like public opinion and thoughts are not tangible (do not have physical existence) and so you cannot study them in the laboratory or conduct experiments on them.

So science cannot deal with things which are not tangible and so another method of thinking is required e.g. rational thinking. So because God cannot be put under laboratory conditions and is not tangible, we require the rational method of thinking where the mind is used.

You yourself used the rational way of thinking when you recognised that science cannot deal with things like history. So you used your mind to arrive at conclusive facts such as 'the punjabi popolace speaks punjabi'.

So lets move the discussion forward by agreeing that we need to use our mind and arrive at a conclusion whether God exists or not. In other words, we need to use the rational method of thinking.

You actually agreed upon the principle of cause and effect and so do I because it is a rational principle which is definate.

So we would all agree that there exists an ultimate cause for the universe.....

So lets base our discussion on what is the reality of this cause. meaning can the ultimate cause be matter, can it be random forces of atoms, can it be a God or Gods etc....

I would like you to respond to my post and look forward to it.

Thanks

M.ali

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by basic_force: *
Mr. malikhan1983,

I read your post and reached at the conclusion that you have been unable to justify your claims.

Consider your following words:

"The scientific method of thinking is concerned with obtaining of knowledge (of the nature) of the thing under study through conducting experiments on the thing. The scientific method of thinking cannot function except in the study of tangible things."

You say that scientific method cannot function except in the study of tangible things. Rest of your analysis center rounds this point. First of all, just for record, I want to say that science also deals with "intengible" things. Study of electromegnatic waves, electrons and the study of other fundamental particals etc. all are "intengibles" You can see none of them. Science still studies them under the laboritory conditions.

However it was only just for your record. Then you pointed out that scientific method is not applicable to all the problems. Yes you are right. Certain things are certainly beyond the scope of scientific method. ** But the things which are beyond the scope of scientific method are within the scope of "rationalism" and "Logic".** You have given the example of history that it is out side the scope of scientific method because according to scientific method "history do not even exists." You are right again. But we are able to find out correct history using our "rational" and by using the "Logic". We can observe our present. In the light of results of these observations we are able to make judgements about our past. For example we can observe the present day Pakistan and see that it has vast agriculture base and limited industrial base. We can conclude that (Present day)Pakistan was an agricultural based economy in the history. We can see that present punjabies speak "punjaby", we also find some ancient scripts and writings some where in the same territory. We can conclude that Punjabies had been speaking "punjaby" upto a certain moment in history and had been speaking (or at least writing) that ancient language in a particular time in history.

You then raised the following question:

"The question that really needs to be answered is that 'just because one cannot see something, does it mean that it does not exist?"

You are right. Just because one cannot see something do not mean that it does not exists. Now I ask you the same question. "A thing which we cannot see or observe or feel, Does it means that this thing necessasirally exists..?? Because Muslims insist on necessary existance of their God.

Following is your end analysis:

"If someone found on thier way home from work that thier house windows had been broken, they would definatively arrive at the conclusion of a cause for this (ie that a person had been responsible for this) even though nobody had witnessed it.

So now, the answer to your question as to why the muslims believe in God. The reason for why muslims believe in God is because they are rationally convinced of an ultimate cause behind the existence of the universe.

So the rational principle which states that there is a cause behind every effect also applies to the universe, ie that there is definately something which created the universe. And so the muslims call this entity a creator (khaliq) and Allah (swt)."

You present cause and effect principle and conclude that effect is this Universe and the cause is your God. I agree to cause and effect principle. Every effect must have a definate cause or a set of causes. If the universe is the effect then what is its corresponding cause..?? According to you it is your God. According to a "Materialist" the cause of such a universe can be the blind forces of attraction and repultion between atoms, molecules and still tiny fundamental particals. According to a "Rationalist", the cause of such a universe can be a God or even a group of gods. May be it is those blind forces which has been described by the Materialist.

Ok lets suppose that cause of such a universe is a God. What is the surity that it is the same God who has revealed your Holy Book...?? What is the proof that it is the same God in which you and your muslim community brothers believe..??What is the proof that "materialist's" blind forces are not the cause of this universe..??

First try to answer the above questions then I will proceed further.

[/QUOTE]

57

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by the real AK47: *
^^
regarding the flood in Noahs time, wich is referred to in nearly all cultures and is widely alluded to in the Qur'an. BF it is your flawed perception, and not the interpretations of 'majority muslims'. that the accounts of a global flood come from other religions and cultures, such an assertion of a world-wide flood is not from the qur'an, the flood was localized.
[/QUOTE]

I openly admit that Muslims has more right to interpret their holy book than to me. I have received feedback on my this view only from two muislims so far. Both of them claim that majority muslims iterpretation about this story is that either "some" animals were loaded or the flood was only "Localized".

So if both things are true i.e. only "some" animals were loaded and that the "flood" was "localized" according to the interpretation of majority muslims (which has been authenticated by two muslims on this forum so far.) then I being a non-muslim has no right to consider any other interpretation to be true. So I withdraw my objections on this story. because if both these things are true than this story contains no logical flaw.

58

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you believe?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by malikhan1983: *
thanks for your reply.

First of all I think we need to be unified upon understanding the meaning of tangible. I think you understand it to mean those things which can only be touched. This is an inaccurate understanding of the word as it actually means:

having substance or material existence; perceptible to the senses; "a physical manifestation".

So anything which has a material existence or a physical manifestation or can be sensed is considered tangible. So electrons have a physical manifestation and a material existence and so does energy and so all of these things are tangible and can be studied by science.

But things like public opinion and thoughts are not tangible (do not have physical existence) and so you cannot study them in the laboratory or conduct experiments on them.

So science cannot deal with things which are not tangible and so another method of thinking is required e.g. rational thinking. So because God cannot be put under laboratory conditions and is not tangible, we require the rational method of thinking where the mind is used.

You yourself used the rational way of thinking when you recognised that science cannot deal with things like history. So you used your mind to arrive at conclusive facts such as 'the punjabi popolace speaks punjabi'.

So lets move the discussion forward by agreeing that we need to use our mind and arrive at a conclusion whether God exists or not. In other words, we need to use the rational method of thinking.

You actually agreed upon the principle of cause and effect and so do I because it is a rational principle which is definate.

So we would all agree that there exists an ultimate cause for the universe.....

So lets base our discussion on what is the reality of this cause. meaning can the ultimate cause be matter, can it be random forces of atoms, can it be a God or Gods etc....

I would like you to respond to my post and look forward to it.

Thanks

M.ali

[/QUOTE]

I thank you for you not becoming angry on my opening agressive remarks in my previous post. I am sorry for that.

My comments on "tangible", "intangible" in the previous post were only subsidary. These were only for record. Now you have specifically defined the term "tangible". Ok I shall confine myself to this meaning of "tangible" during this discussion.

Yes we need to apply rational method in such a case. We have cause and effect method before us and we can prepare a list of possible causes of such a universe. But we are still unable to choose any one or more from the list to be the sure cause of this universe. We have no rational base to make any choice. If we are making a choice, then we are going against the rational principle. If we make a choice we cannot "prove" our choice to be true. If our choice is that "God" is the ultimate cause of this universe then there arise two questions; First question being that then "what is the cause of God..??" Second question is specific to Muslims only. They still have to prove that this "God" is not different from their "Allah" in which they believe.

59

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why do you believe?

thanks again, I apologise for responding late as my internet connection had problems.

Before I put forward my view and questions, I have to say that this discussion has been very productive and emotions havent dominated it and I thankyou for your participation.

Ok, so you and I both agree that when discussing the cause of the universe we need to discuss it from the principle of cause and effect. as you said

[/QUOTE]
Yes we need to apply rational method in such a case.

So now, we are going to confine ourselves to the rational way of thinking and the principle of cause and effect. I want to point out that the mind can arrive at definate facts when applying this principle.

So as an example, If you and I went on a rocky mountain (maybe for a trip) which is surrounded by other giagantic mountains and on our way we heard an echo of a sound. So both of us heard, " Hello, Hello, Hello, Hello, Hello" and this is due to the echo.

Both of us would arrive at the same conclusion, by using the cause and effect principle, that there was a 1st cause which was the starting point and that there was nothing before this first cause ie it was independent from any cause.

So even though none of us saw the person who yelled "hello", we know for a fact that there had to be a starting point ie the first hello sound and this would not be open to interpretation.

So now if someone asked the question, " what caused the first hello sound", We would respond that there was nothing before that sound and it was the 1st cause. So there was a starting point and it made a chain of sounds.

So now when we say that the universe had to be created by a 1st cause, that first cause has to be the starting point and there was nothing before it and this is consistent with the mind and the cause and effect principle.

so even the communists recognised that there had to be a starting point which is eternal and uncaused and foe them it was matter.

What are your views regarding the above

Thanks

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by basic_force: *

I thank you for you not becoming angry on my opening agressive remarks in my previous post. I am sorry for that.

My comments on "tangible", "intangible" in the previous post were only subsidary. These were only for record. Now you have specifically defined the term "tangible". Ok I shall confine myself to this meaning of "tangible" during this discussion.

Yes we need to apply rational method in such a case. We have cause and effect method before us and we can prepare a list of possible causes of such a universe. But we are still unable to choose any one or more from the list to be the sure cause of this universe. We have no rational base to make any choice. If we are making a choice, then we are going against the rational principle. If we make a choice we cannot "prove" our choice to be true. If our choice is that "God" is the ultimate cause of this universe then there arise two questions; First question being that then "what is the cause of God..??" Second question is specific to Muslims only. They still have to prove that this "God" is not different from their "Allah" in which they believe.

60

one can live without knowing all these. early humans immediate needs
were food water and to just to survive in the jungle. still most humans
immediate needs are food shelter from harsh conditions.