World of religion

[Johnny B]

N.O.R.F;819743 wrote:

So, essentially, your rejection is based on nothing more than doubt whilst at the same time leaning towards the opposite of religion without considering the same evidence based proof you claim to have looked for in makin

g your decision to reject.

 

Johnny,

 

You're not convinced because you simply didn't bother

 

Is is sad that we've to walk you through the labyrinths of sound reasoning at this age , but we can always try .

 

tertium non datur, as it were.

 

(A) Life should be conducted according to someone who claims to have talked to a Deity.

(B)Life should not be conducted according to anyone who claims to have talked to a Deity.

 

 

If (A) is not convincing,or untrue (B) can not be non-convincing or untrue, and vice versa.

 

 

AYOUB,

The argument of Atheism being another Religion has been addressed.

[AYOUB]

Dear Johnny, is it too much to tell us what you believe in as opposed to what you have issues with? If you've addressed this before please quot it for me. Jazaaka Allah guidance.

[sharma-arke451]

Johnny B;819759 wrote:

Is is sad that we've to walk you through the labyrinths of sound reasoning at this age , but we can always try .

 

tertium non datur, as it were.

 

(A) Life should be conducted according to someone who claims to have talked to a Deity.

(B)Life should not be conducted according to anyone who claims to have talked to a Deity.

 

 

If (A) is not convincing,or untrue (B) can not be non-convincing or untrue, and vice versa.

 

 

AYOUB,

The argument of Atheism being another Religion has been addressed.

For a conclusion to be acceptable as true, there must be evidence to support it. your statements represent a false dichotomy.

[N.O.R.F]

Johnny boy, its one thing to disbelieve in a claim due to, as you say, a lack of evidence but quite another to believe in the opposite of that claim without any evidence Sound reasoning I'm sure

[Raamsade]

NORF, the natural state of affairs, the default of position of nature is non-existence until such time some adduces evidence to the contrary. So, atheist affirming his lack of believe in Allah doesn't need evidence for his lack of believe. In fact, you're asking him/her to prove a negatie which is impossible. Can you prove there is no invisible teapot orbiting the moon. If not, how are you any different from atheist?

 

While we can't disprove Allah's existence by appealing to evidence, we can however cite the self-refuting attributes of Allah. Take for instance, Allah's attributes of Just and Merciful. These are self-refuting and contradictory. To be merciful to someone means to be unjust to someone else. Allah can't both, He must be one or the other.

 

AYOUB;819700 wrote:

^ What do you believe and those who say they reject Islam believe?

You need to rephrase the question because I don't get what you're asking. Atheists don't believe in supernatural being or organized religions. But other than that, they're normal people who encapsulate diverse opinions and believes.

[sharma-arke451]

Raamsade;819883 wrote:

NORF, the natural state of affairs, the default of position of nature is non-existence until such time some adduces evidence to the contrary. So, atheist affirming his lack of believe in Allah doesn't need evidence for his lack of believe. In fact, you're asking him/her to prove a

negatie

which is impossible. Can you prove there is no invisible teapot orbiting the moon. If not, how are you any different from atheist?

i hope the word in the bold means negative, if so, then you are committing a fallacy in informal logic. BTW, the lack/absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. at least you accept that, some true/facts are impossible to prove,, like the negative nooo

 

Raamsade;819883 wrote:

While we can't disprove Allah's existence by appealing to evidence, we can however cite the self-refuting attributes of Allah. Take for instance, Allah's attributes of Just and Merciful. These are self-refuting and contradictory. To be merciful to someone means to be unjust to someone else. Allah can't both, He must be one or the other.

this amounts to insult, and LSt has to act

[AYOUB]

Raamsade;819883 wrote:

You need to rephrase the question because I don't get what you're asking. Atheists don't believe in supernatural being or organized religions. But other than that, they're normal people who encapsulate diverse opinions and believes.

Er.. I believe Allah is The Creator, The Originator, The Eternal, The Merciful, etc etc These are what Muslim call Asmaa ulxusnaa. As far as try to understand, you don't believe in Deity with these Quranic characteristics. Surely you are not clean slate with no beliefs. I'm not asking for an explanation of atheism, rather I'm asking for SOLers like you to explain their personal belief. The question stands, what do you and the other Allah rejectors believe?*

 

Raamsade;819883 wrote:

While we can't disprove Allah's existence by appealing to evidence, we can however cite the self-refuting attributes of Allah. Take for instance, Allah's attributes of Just and Merciful. These are self-refuting and contradictory. To be merciful to someone means to be unjust to someone else. Allah can't both, He must be one or the other.

believes.

You are confused buddy. Allah is Just to me and Merciful to me. Merciful and Just to all. Your confused senses justice and mercy raises more questions than answers. What is your sense of Justice and mercy based on? Who will judge you and the likes of Stalin for their sense Justice and mercy beliefs if you are in reality unjust and cruel?*

[wyre]

sharma-arke451;819896 wrote:

 

 

this amounts to insult, and LSt has to act

LST won't Act, coz he don't care who insults God :@

[Johnny B]

N.O.R.F;819863 wrote:

Johnny boy, its one thing to disbelieve in a claim due to, as you say, a lack of evidence but quite another to believe in the opposite of that claim without any evidence Sound reasoning I'm sure

 

Experience tells me that we've been here before , namely where you agree with me that disbelieving in a claim that lacks evidence is all-right , but at the same breath demand it's negation too to be proved with evidence,otherwise the negation itself must be disregarded or disbelieved.

 

Now, if you pay attention, I'd like to thread the ground so hang on here .

 

Case 1:

 

A states that a Deity by the name Akea rules the universe. - -> A Belief.

B states that another Deity by the name Eingana rules the Universe. --> Another Belief.

 

Here disbelieving in Akea's rule of the Universe due to lack of evidence doesn't per automatic make belief in Eingana's rule of the Universe more right/correct, it simply doesn't follow.

An evidence for Einganas rule of the Universe is equally demandable.

 

case 2:

 

A states that a Deity by the name Akea rules the universe. - -> A Belief.

B states that Akea's rule of the universe lacks evidence. - -> A Disbelief.

 

Here disbelieving in Akea's rule of the Universe due to lack of evidence is already the position of B.

Now demanding an evidence for an evidence that Akea's rule of the Universe lacks evidence is simply wrong.

 

B is the negation of A , and as long as there is no evidence for A , B remains necessarily true.

 

NORF: Windows is the best OS around.

JOHNNY: There is no evidence for that.

NORF: Disbelieving that Windows is the best OS around due to lack of evidence is one thing , but believing in there is no evidence for Windows being the best OS without evidence is another.

JOHHNY: But that there is no evidence for windows being the best OS around IS my evidence. Q:E:D

 

 

 

sharma-arke451;819773 wrote:

For a conclusion to be acceptable as true, there must be evidence to support it. your statements represent a false dichotomy.

You're improving , read NORF's demand for the reason of rejection , despite non convincing evidence.

 

sharma-arke451;819773 wrote:

 

this amounts to insult, and LSt has to act.

No i was wrong , you are not improving, appealing to authority is a fallacy, argue as to why the attributes of Allah are not self-refuting and you may learn or teach us something.

[Garnaqsi]

Johnny B;820005 wrote:

Experience tells me that we've been here before , namely where you agree with me that disbelieving in a claim that lacks evidence is all-right , but at the same breath demand it's negation too to be proved with evidence,otherwise the negation itself must be disregarded or disbelieved.

 

Now, if you pay attention, I'd like to thread the ground so hang on here .

 

Case 1:

 

A states that a Deity by the name Akea rules the universe. - -> A Belief.

B states that another Deity by the name Eingana rules the Universe. --> Another Belief.

 

Here disbelieving in Akea's rule of the Universe due to lack of evidence doesn't per automatic make belief in Eingana's rule of the Universe more right/correct, it simply doesn't follow.

An evidence for Einganas rule of the Universe is equally demandable.

 

case 2:

 

A states that a Deity by the name Akea rules the universe. - -> A Belief.

B states that Akea's rule of the universe lacks evidence. - -> A Disbelief.

 

Here disbelieving in Akea's rule of the Universe due to lack of evidence is already the position of B.

Now demanding an evidence for an evidence that Akea's rule of the Universe lacks evidence is simply wrong.

 

B is the negation of A , and as long as there is no evidence for A , B remains necessarily true.

 

I couldn’t have put it better myself!

[AYOUB]

Johnny B;820005 wrote:

Experience tells me that we've been here before , namely where you agree with me that disbelieving in a claim that lacks evidence is all-right , but at the same breath demand it's negation too to be proved with evidence,otherwise the negation itself must be disregarded or Experience tells me that we've been here before , namely where you agree with me that disbelieving in a claim that lacks evidence is all-right , but at the same breath demand it's negation too to be proved with evidence,otherwise the negation itself must be disregarded or disbelieved.

Yes we have been here before, but it never stops you to keep churning this lousy lines over and over, does it. If only you were as forth coming as to what you actually believe as opposed to giving excuses for your "Godlessness". I'm assuming you are that because non of you have been forth coming in explaining your beliefs in a strange cultish fashion.

 

Norf has been unfair in demanding to know why you don't accept a Deity as your creator. He as a Muslim should know Allah guides those who ask for guidance and misguides those whom deliberately ignore his guidance. The guidance comes in different form or variety. What's evidence for one person's beliefs cannot necessarily be for another. I believe they'll always be those who do not get it. The Kafirs, Mushriks and those with diseases in their heart, as Quran lumps them together. So it's futile to try reason this one if you ask me.

 

What's left is for our house "Atheists" to explain their beliefs. Do you guys read the horoscopes like some Atheists I know. What about wear lucky charms, cross fingers and other Mushrik symptoms. I see the image posted on the opening post lumps a lot beliefs into one "Atheist category". Which one are you and what's your opinion on life, creation, justice, mercy, etc etc etc . This is what we can benefit from not what we've had coming from you so far. I need to know what you not what Oscar Wilde believed.

[N.O.R.F]

^I know. I just want to, in my non-scholarly way, highlight just how much they bend, skew and jump when actually confronted about their beliefs. Can someone who doesn't know what he is rejecting be taken seriously?

 

Johnny B;820005 wrote:

Experience tells me that we've been here before , namely where you agree with me that disbelieving in a claim that lacks evidence is all-right , but at the same breath demand it's negation too to be proved with evidence,otherwise the negation itself must be disregarded or disbelieved.

 

Now, if you pay attention, I'd like to thread the ground so hang on here .

 

Case 1:

 

A states that a Deity by the name Akea rules the universe. - -> A Belief.

B states that another Deity by the name Eingana rules the Universe. --> Another Belief.

 

Here disbelieving in Akea's rule of the Universe due to lack of evidence doesn't per automatic make belief in Eingana's rule of the Universe more right/correct, it simply doesn't follow.

An evidence for Einganas rule of the Universe is equally demandable.

 

case 2:

 

A states that a Deity by the name Akea rules the universe. - -> A Belief.

B states that Akea's rule of the universe lacks evidence. - -> A Disbelief.

 

Here disbelieving in Akea's rule of the Universe due to lack of evidence is already the position of B.

Now demanding an evidence for an evidence that Akea's rule of the Universe lacks evidence is simply wrong.

 

B is the negation of A , and as long as there is no evidence for A , B remains necessarily true.

So B is an Agnostic