Atheism/Lets talk about GOD!

[SayidSomal]

Wixii an Illah aminsaneyn waa laga roonyahay. :cool:

[Johnny B]

LG, Abti , I'm gonna bring Norf's dead out and take them to the heathen's pit, in a minute, but let me first share a serious "Fika" with the steaming up Siren.

 

Very interesting input The_Siren, Despite what in my circles is referred to as the 'bending over backwards', i can accept the overall call for strict Agnosticism, but take however issue with:

1: The claim that lack of Belief is 'some sort of' Belief.

2:The apologetic attempt to strengthen Faith in the existence of a Deity under the notion of Human incapability of grasping, understanding that particular Deity and variety of other things in it's environment.

 

Firstly i'd like to share with Sister The_Siren that Atheism in general is basically a lack of Belief in Gods, and most theists have difficulties understanding that, despite they themselves being practically Agnostic/Atheistic towards other religion's versions of Gods.

 

Having cleared that, let me flourish the gist of my contention towards the notion of 'lack of belief' being in itself a 'Belief'.

 

If I present you the name of the Ghost I am married to, namely, 'Mahboubawawa', there are likely three possibilities:

1: you be rationally convinced and accept my claim of actually being married to a Ghost.

 

2:you rationally stay unconvinced( or maybe feel intellectually insulted ) and after challenging my claim rationally conclude that you can't share my Belief in my marriage to a Ghost, hence, lack of Belief in that.

 

3: you rationally stay unconvinced( or maybe feel intellectually insulted ), but leave the possibility of me really being married to a Ghost undecided.

 

Consequently, the process of having/lacking Belief in my marriage to a Ghost,follows:

 

A: A firm Belief in my marriage to a Ghost through incoherence and imagination.

 

B: A lack of Belief in my marriage to a Ghost through rational Belief.

 

C: A Firm undecided Belief in my marriage to a Ghost through inability to really KNOW.

 

Now, the logical cut-rule here is, Only a rationally justified Beliefs are based on empirical evidence, therefore the lack of Belief in the marriage to Ghosts is rationally justified.

 

Now, are Beliefs, be they rationally justified or superstitious equal?, i leave that for the reader to answer.

 

As i have accounted for above, your claim of lacking Belief in Gods is truely a Belief , but it is a rationally justified Belief. Q.E.D

 

 

Now regarding our sister's apologetic attempt regarding the existence of a Deity, one can only hope that it was consciously deliberate, as the alternative could only display emotional imprisonment and unforgivable rational deficiency.

 

the concept 'God' is presented as an explanation.

 

God is claimed to not only exist, God is claimed to want,know and be behind every natural action that takes place, Also god is the explanation.

 

I find the attempt to wrap God's existence in Natural mystics and human inability to completely fathom nature way too apologetic in the search for an answer to the existence of a particular God, while Near Death experiences are awash in every culture, it's a cross-cultural phenomena, to hint that it represents a possibility for the existence of particular God can only beg the question. Near Death Experience must therefore constitute another inherent part of the human cognitive experience,as with all other cross-cultural,cross -religious behaviours.

 

And lastly though with negligence let me tell sister The_Siren that Atheists are neither necessarily snobs nor angry lot, quite the contrary, You hardly see an Atheist suicide bombing others because others happen to think differently.

That you relate being content in ones Belief to arguing with those who held a different Belief is not true. The urge to stand and account for one's Beliefs is human trait, and not something Atheists or agnostics has monopoly upon.

 

The need to preach, as it were, is widely available among the theists, flipping the positions and accusing them of being not content in their Belief would be out of the question?!

 

 

One last point regarding this recurring insinuation of Atheism being equal to another religion that is based on evolution instead of creationism as the other religions, must be once and for all burried.

 

Atheism is not dependant on evolution, it's as old as Theism while the evolutionary theory is only 200 years old.

 

 

Let me lastly quote one of my favorite English gentelmen, namely John Staurat Mill.

“To question all things; never to turn away from any

difficulty; to accept no doctrine either from ourselves

or from other people without a rigid scrutiny by negative

criticism; letting no fallacy or incoherence, or

confusion of thought step by unperceived; above all,

to insist upon having the meaning of a word clearly

and precisely understood before using it, and the

meaning of a proposition before assenting to it; these are the lessons we learn from ancient dialecticians.”

[The_Siren]

So, after all that verbal contortionism I am left with two main points (leaving aside all imperial insults thrusted from lofty heights I presume? LOL)firstly its that you take exception to idea that the “belief” in the nonexistence of a deity is not a true “belief” in itself because its actually (According to you alone I gather) a rationally justifiable belief?

 

A tongue twister if I ever saw one... interesting, *scratches her head* but what I find rather amusing is that despite the lack of rationally produced conclusive evidence supporting Gods lack of existence you still feel it appropriate enough to cloak yourself with the term rational? Despite showing to be nothing but? *lifts a brow*

 

Neigh my dear there is nothing rational about not believing in something you are as of yet are unable to prove- If anything its rather arrogant and highly presumptuous don't you think?

 

The second think I noticed was what I can only presume to be an attempt at explaining near death experiences/phenomen on’s as being nothing more but universally acknowledged cognitive disposition’s which plague the mortal mind... -Well I’m not sure about you but when a “cognitive experience” goes far enough to described in pin point accuracy detail-discussions and actions and the position of items within a hospital room from a supposedly "dead" patient?... Well...all I need say is that...thats some heck of a “cognitive” experience! LOL-Seriously-my guess and all be it other-worldly is as good as any other, simply because I’m generous enough to leave a blank or ominously suggest that “powers” are at work is by no means an indication as to my presumed idiosyncratic religious inadequacies or shall I say “apologetic” base urges to believe in God.

If my guess is as good as any others? And it is considering that this remains within the balls marks of unexplainable physiology then why the need to censor or adamantly reject or produce a rather superficial and somewhat insulting humorous and simple explanation to combat my own “outrageous” remarks? LOL

 

Your funny I’ll give you that...

 

Rather perplexing too-but I must admit you however you did raise a fair point about my under the knife “hostile” atheist’s jab and thus your idea that they’re merely trying to preserve they’re own principles and not necessary because they’re own “belief” is shaky. Mayhap I spoke out of turn as I was referring to in truth my own experiences with a handful of wannabe atheist. I do however think you may have got a little ahead of yourself as secular ideas have killed more people in this world than one or two spaghetti strapped suicide bombers ...communism, nazism, mccarthyism anyone? You give bible bashers and faith healers far too much power me thinks-when its secular ideas which bring out revolts. (Not suggesting all are bad of course-but take it with a pinch of salt)

 

Ps- Actually the theory of Evolution predates Darwin and thus 200 years ago and though Atheism and evolution do not go hand in hand I do find that its one of the ideas that so-called reasonable men and women jump upon when it comes to understanding creation. Thats why its always comes up in heated religious debates, which I'm sure your aware of.

[N.O.R.F]

Originally posted by The_Siren:

In anycase... it really shouldn’t bother you too much, understand that people are human and arrogance is blind-understand that and you’ll be able to accept them as they are. They are Allah’s creation and it is he whom decides for us and seen as those we don’t have any real power (come on now lets be honest *controversial I know*) I don’t see why it should stress you that much. Have confidence in your iman smile, discuss and talk to your hearts content..but understand also that we all find our paths a little differently and sometimes it takes a while. Patience is truly a virtue.

 

Then again I've always been a laid back sort. *Stress her legs and then gets back to work*

Not bothered at all. It's more annoyance at their failure to at least provide some sort of an argument when they are done prancing about. You probably see what I mean now.

 

Johnny, hit me

[Chocolate and Honey]

Somalidu waxay dhahdaa(And I'm fond of Somali proverbs and always looking for situations they fit) i jiid ana aan ku jiido gacmo daalis weeye. I will come back for this topic when I get some time on my hands IA.

[Johnny B]

I must say , i've been called many things but A tongue twister maybe the most fitting one so far .

 

Having given you that, let me fall back to the stream of our little discourse with a bit of clarification holding the highlighter , as it were.

 

Firstly it must be said your presence wakens a badly needed passion for the thread and i'm entitled to stay optimistic that you'll draw the last straw unlike our Norf, with dignified humbleness, as that is how it ideally should be.

 

Starting to deal with a glaring misconception in your last post regarding Beliefs warrants a specific clarification.

 

Your position is that lacking belief in Gods is in itself a faith, hence another Belief, and i stated firmly that it is not Faith , but a rationally justified Belief just like the belief of the sun not rising from the West, while it is the Belief in the existence of a particular God or the Belief in the sun rising from the West that is based on pure Faith, hence not rationally justified.

 

Though its regretablly true that you fell in the cavity of the twisted logic of 'it's the possitive claimer that is to be disproved and not the other way around' , you still maintain a wider sense of generousity towards a differing stance, which can only be met by even more generous sense of belonging together under the Humanity umbrella.

 

It's intellectual dishonesty to not demand the possitive claimer to account for his/her claim, as that is like letting me claim that i Jonathan Bravo am an Angel and it's your duty to prove the contrary.

Conclussively , the validity, proveability, disproveabilty of the evolutionary theory or any other scientific theory is and can not be used for the existence of a Deity and its creation of the universe. namely, that axtra ordinary claim needs extra ordinary evidence. That about That.

 

I'll have to come back to your apologetic stance coupled with the under current jab and near death experience as your evidence of ( a reason ) to allow some 'powers' ( read Gods ) at work.

As Time is not what i have plenty of today.

 

Norf. ama hit you next .. nabad ku afaur cawa..

[N.O.R.F]

^Apologies for my bluntness which got you sulking. Didn't realise I had to be nice for you to only give us your 'rational' argument again.

 

Johnny: I don't believe in God.

Norf: Why?

J: Because it's unprovable.

N: So how did you come to live?

J: Erm, evolution.

N: That hasn't been proven yet. In fact, there are a number of holes in that argument.

J: I know but I'm being rational in my argument. :confused:

 

Where is Raamsade?

[5]

Wow this thread has evolved! (no pun intended )

 

I know I should read what everyone wrote, but frankly, I havent got the time now. Johnny B wrote:

 

"Your position is that lacking belief in Gods is in itself a faith, hence another Belief, and i stated firmly that it is not Faith , but a rationally justified Belief just like the belief of the sun not rising from the West, while it is the Belief in the existence of a particular God or the Belief in the sun rising from the West that is based on pure Faith, hence not rationally justified. "

 

This argument is flawed in so many ways I don't know where to start. Quite obviously (unlike you claim), you haven't committed a lot of time (or even thinking for that matter) to studying evolution theory or its origins. My guess is you came to the West alone or at some point parted ways with your family, and living a godless life just simply suits you better. But this is just speculation. Let me get down to the real debate.

First of all, lacking a belief in a god is a belief. Feel free to ask how. Or wait, give it a thought first - and then ask.

The "belief" of the sun not rising from the West is based on the fact that we see the sun rising from the East every single day. It's called seeing, which doesn't require believing. Faith/belief is believing without seeing.

 

"Though its regretablly true that you fell in the cavity of the twisted logic of 'it's the possitive claimer that is to be disproved and not the other way around' , you still maintain a wider sense of generousity towards a differing stance, which can only be met by even more generous sense of belonging together under the Humanity umbrella."

 

A lot of fancy words to make one long sentence that doesn't make sense. If anybody showed logical fallacy, it was you with your sun-rises-from-the-w est example.

 

"It's intellectual dishonesty to not demand the possitive claimer to account for his/her claim, as that is like letting me claim that i Jonathan Bravo am an Angel and it's your duty to prove the contrary."

 

Well first you'd have to explain why you are an angel and then provide proof. Claiming to be something without any kind of proof, is just that; claiming. The worlds and heavens was created by God and the proof is in the surahs of the Quran.

 

"Conclussively , the validity, proveability, disproveabilty of the evolutionary theory or any other scientific theory is and can not be used for the existence of a Deity and its creation of the universe. namely, that axtra ordinary claim needs extra ordinary evidence. That about That."

 

Norfky asked you a pretty simple question.

[The_Siren]

Nofsky- Fustrate yourself not in vain, brother Johnny is a slippery eel-would've made a good politician. LOL

 

Johnny boy- Firsly thank you for being polite secondly and lamentably after much of your literally posturing and prancing (entertaining as it is) I now see that any notions I had of having a proper discussion must be scattered to the wind as any further discussions will become subject to nothing more than semantic bickering and purposeful misunderstanding if our previous replies are anything to go by. No disrespect to you but I do believe I made myself clear on the belief in “no god” is a belief thing.

 

But just to simplify it and regrettably repeat myself again (something which I am loathe to do)...the essence of and just one definition of the word Belief- is the confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. So your Sun rising from the west analogy is rather silly (I’m sure you’ll agree in hindsight) and for reasons so obviously pointed out by GG. That being while we have evidence ie ‘logical” and thus “rational” evidence to counteract the notion of the Sun rising from the west your own philosophy of Gods inexistence fails to provide anything of substance.

 

Unfortunately and therefore your pyramid of a "rational belief” structure is a rather contradictory notion which inadvertently highlights naught else but the inadequacies in your decorative labyrinthine theories.

 

As for your Angel analogy? LOL-You’ve got to be kidding right? *Lifts a brow*

 

Its not dishonest it’s called science and it’s how we relatively rational human beings test theories, ideologies and belief structures. Your own one was that there was no god and thus its your responsibility to either prove your hypothesis correct or as close as to (or statistically probable) and significant possibility.

 

The same applies for anyone who vouches for god’s existence. It would be fair to ask that the person provide some sort of measurably quantitative factor in order to ascertain an ideas validity. If one is unable to..then one leaves it to "faith" another acronym for "belief"

 

It’s rather a standard practise in science and I’m a little amused if a little embarrassed with having to spell it all out as it were my dear. If perchance you do not have sufficient evidence as to support your ideas “much like faith” as it requires “belief” then you’re humorously falling into the same “irrational” traps. LOL

 

So to conclude if...after all of this your either unable to understand or accept this rather simple idea then let us leave it aside as I’m not of the disposition to argue in circles. Having said that if you can provide something truly different and interesting regarding the “near death” experiences things then please free feel to divulge. If however your going to do a Dana Scully on me...then keep your peace-I prefer not to expel too much energy on trying to convince a born again sceptic on all things unexplained-especial ly when the pathic excuse for an explaination is flimsy..much like anyone elses..*shrugs*

 

Thus its with much I bid you adieu. I’m off to watch District 9 and would be more interesting on discussing this point.

[The_Siren]

Excuse me for the quick rambles everyone...I was half stuffing myself with Aftur. Oh and I'd just like to point out one other reply which was missed out.

 

One I found rather interesting...quite refreshing even as its definitely a difference stance altogether. Now this really would make for an interesting discussion piece.

 

Originally posted by humble.:

Shabeel and JB, first I am not really too bothered about proofs or non-proofs or existence or non-existence or some such thing that might throw us into the whirl wind of claims and counter-claims, but let me, for the benefit of discussion, be more of a complete nutter and reduce the whole argument of this thread as being simply

2

of many other human or imaginative explanation of what exists or doesn't exist. What if there could be more arguments than just these two? What if there are other explanations more inclusive than Darwinism? Or that of religion?

 

What I find very amusing in all human arguments is that its not merely the truth that humans are after, but somehow the 'missing link or truth' becomes the very exercise of 'countering the other'. And slowly by slowly, the need for truth itself becomes redundant since it doesn't either support one or another side of the argument.

 

Perhaps we should find the hidding place of the truth?

 

BTW, I don't think this forum exists, it is the constract of my imagination. I somehow created it. Now counter that.

Definitely outside of the box and I like it. ...and that was NOT even a shameless attempt to seduce its author with compliments. Nothing but unadulterated honesty.

[Garmaqaate]

Shahaadadu aan qabsana haddii kale waxaan is arki doona anaga oo diintii, dhaqankii xoornay oo qoon lumay noqonay. Jidkii Eeba waa toos.

 

That said!

Religion is faith. IIMAAN. Somalis have generally adopted Islam as their faith. I have never thought and will never think a debate is warranted between matters of faith and matters of science. Each has its own path. Each has its audience and each has it tenets. Religion has its doctrines and it bases its views on divine revelation. Science and scientific thought are based on human deductions (be they correct or incorrect). We should try to keep faith and science apart.

 

That said!

Alxamdu Lillaahi rabbil caalamiin. "Caalamiin!". Did you get that? The Quraan has plenty of such amazing aayas. Caalamiin=worlds/uni verses. In plural! At the time of its revelation, people had geo-centric (earth centric) world view. The Quraan emphasises the plurality of the universe at a time when it was a known "fact" that the earth was the centre of the universe! There are many more ayaas I could quote but just this one alone is enough to make any non-believer to think and pose for a second, a minute may be.

 

May you all pose for a minute at the signs, the "aayas", of the creator.

[5]

Originally posted by Garmaqaate:

We should try to keep faith and science apart.

I find that impossible, seeing as God created all.

 

Originally posted by Garmaqaate:

That said!

Alxamdu Lillaahi rabbil caalamiin. "Caalamiin!". Did you get that? The Quraan has plenty of such amazing aayas. Caalamiin=worlds/uni verses. In plural! At the time of its revelation, people had geo-centric (earth centric) world view. The Quraan emphasises the plurality of the universe at a time when it was a known "fact" that the earth was the centre of the universe! There are many more ayaas I could quote but just this one alone is enough to make any non-believer to think and pose for a second, a minute may be.

 

May you all pose for a minute at the signs, the "aayas", of the creator.

Good post! I was watching a documentary about Einstein the other day and they were explaining how he got his idea for time's relativity whilst he was in a tram. Liar! I yelled in my mind. Now of course, Islam knew time was relative in a time when gaalga did not even understand the importance of self-hygiene.

 

My next guess is gaalga will try to study the possibility of the universe expanding to a point, and then shrinking back to nothingness. I'm just kidding, of course they're already at it: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Big_Crunch

Now of course, naturally we Muslims know this will happen iA. Aduunka dhan waa la soo dhuubayaa, gad gadaal.

 

I just find it really sad that Muslims are turning away from this wonderful, beautiful, peaceful, amazing religion that God has blessed us with (without even really studying and getting to know it). Islam is the most wonderful thing I know, alhamdulillaah.

Ya Allah, help us become better people and reward us with Jannah! And help and guide the lost ones! Aamiin!

[Naden]

The_Siren, do you actually think the the onus of proof is on the person who says that they doubt the existence of a God? Surely the onus is on the positive claimant alone.

 

*waves to Johnny and blows a kiss in the air*

[5]

Naden, did you read the 3rd post of this thread? That is a religious person trying to explain the existence of God, and why for any known worldly existence to be possible, we need an infinite deity (God) to exist. Now we gave the ball to you, and ask YOU to explain why YOU think no infinite deity exists. Someone mentioned and presented the evolutionary theory (which btw in itself does not shut out the possibility of a god) as a fact but was unable to provide any proof.

 

Please be kind and jump in the discussion. We already explained in non-religious terms why God exists. Now you tell us why He doesn't. And by the way "we can't see him" isn't a good enough reason, there are a million other things which we can't see or hear with the human instincts.

[The_Siren]

Nadan-

 

Aaah! *points a finger in the air* now I understand your meaning... So what you and Johnny boy were saying is that if let us say generally the responsibility of proving ones faith lies with the original claimers surely if they are unable to prove anything (qauntifiable)would it be a rationally reasonable option (at that precise time) to not accept their word until further evidence is provided?

 

Hmmm...Now I see what you mean it does seems a rather reasonable enough attempt to simplify things I suppose if not a little closed off and compartmentalised. I mean there are things within this universe that are unexplained-would it truly be that bad to listen to all views, assess them individually and if there is no clear answer leave a question mark on it instead of boxing it into the skeptical "bollocks" category

 

Otherwise we become subject to not only a culturally acceptable arroagance but ignorance in the face of unaswered gaps. An example of such a rationality led to the idea that the earth was flat-until proven otherwise, that genetics does occur via a system of "blending~" infact but not mendelian genetics. So you see if they (the scientific ie somewhat rational community) can be wrong? Then so can you...

 

All I propose is that people keep an open mind and leave aside any presumptuous notions without either the evidence to support or negate it. Its rather simple. I guess people in general are not happy with leaving questions marks all over the place and wish instead to fill the gaps within their understing-for what purpose I don't know.In pursuit of the truth? Or as a result of the basic forms of human self preservation? *Shrugs* Perhaps? Who knows..

 

Ps GG LOL-Sister if you'll permit me to give you one piece of advice try not to provide religious answers to those who are not "religous" in the form of I.e telling them of the maricles within the Quran when they most likely don't accept the Quran as a historically acceptible document anyway. Right or wong...it would save you a lot of time arguing. Try to find a common ground for which discussions can commense without it coming to blows-with another person sprouting verses from the quran. Wonderful and rather lovely do I find these verses yes... but others? I doubt it would be of relevance to them.

 

Ps 2. I didn't even get to watch District 9-Totally pissed. Perhaps this eve?LOL-Off topic I know but eh..*shrugs?