Atheism and Islam

Jewel wrote:

So tell me what would that more efficient strategy be. Hypothetical ideas again?....

Yes, and conjectures as well. If the use of Books and Prophets hasn't been fool proof, we would've agreed that it's the most compelling means for a God to use to start with anyway.

element_115x wrote:Again, only the idea of the Theistic Allah God is at stake here. It is only the Prophet's claim about God that's contested here. The noteworthy aspects of the Qur'an as a guideline for good living (spiritually and worldly) can be viewed as separate from the claim of Allah's existence, as i said before.

I beg to differ here. These cant be separated because it is in the evidence for the where the claim be verified and rationalized. How is it that in a single book (verbal revelation) where the evidence for the existence of God is put at stake? amazing!

As I said before, If I am an atheist and a theist (not a Muslim) wants to prove me that God does exist, I would immediately ask for a physical proof - What does he have as an evidence that God does really exist, and that evidence is something that man cant make (say the bible, how does it prove that there is God except by a mere claim?)

If there is a God and He wants us to believe without seeing Him, He must have given us proofs; a proof that something which cant be produced by anyone other than Him.

For us, the Prophet's claim can be viewed as anecdotal... unless of course, other more compelling evidences for the god Allah (other than the Qur'anic claim) can be presented. The Qur'an may only prove that Mohammed is a very wise man. As i keep saying here.

No, it's not like this. Had the Quran did not give a way to prove itself to be false and all it says is nothing more than a mere claim, then that wouldnt prove anything because anyone can make any claim, such as the bible, how would anyone be convinced that God does exist when what is presented is a book full of inconsistencies, errors and contradictions? that doesnt make sense.

But if I/you are presented a book, full of wisdom, has a complete guidance, practical, clear and easy to be followed and most of all inimitable to the extent that it challenges people that it cant be produced by anyone other than God then I have no choice but to accept it.

With that the Qur'an doesn't fail if the God claim fails. It will remain as a literary masterpiece where values can be learned. Now i don't know if Islam as a religion will disintegrate entirely -- maybe just modified if only to save the valuable contents of the Qur'an.

It would fail because it means that what is written in it (it's content) is a big LIE/falsehood.

Theistic God needs to be qualified and quantified to convince skeptics. As to what? We can't definitely say -- (that's why you call it 'Argument from Silence). If it can't, then it's place is in the Metaphysical where there's no point arguing about it anymore, just accepting it as it is, and respecting believers' view about it.

No, it's not like that - believing God without evidence is a blind faith. However, if an evidence is presented and the evidence is not proven to be false, then the claim must be true until the evidence proven to be false.

I can tell you that I believe in God because I just feel that there is God - that wont prove anything. But if I present to you an evidence then you cant just deny my claim without proving my evidence to be false.

Equivocation noted. Freewill seems to be a God's favorite cop out excuse. No offense.

no offense whatsoever dont worry, this is just sharing of ideas.

Unless you say that free will is not a reality, then you can dismiss that "excuse"

God is by it's meaning, the one to be obeyed and loved. Would you please explain to me how would you love somebody without free will. If you force somebody to love you, then that is not love anymore right? so free will must exist.

So in that case, what's makes a Muslim any different from ordinary people in this regard, discounting the fact that Muslims have the 'guidelines'?

What makes the difference is the evidence presented. Obviously, if there are two or more claims that contradict each other, it would be illogical for you to say that all those claims are true. The logical implication is that it is either only one of them is true or all of them are wrong. Look at the evidence and verify. Did you see any religious denomination here confronting atheism with physical evidence other than Islam? What they will give you is circular reasoning and blind faith - That is why, the best way to disprove them is to question their source; bible, vidas, ect.

True, it's a universal religion, as you say. I'm not contesting that aspect anyway.

Namaste!

Thanks for agreeing.

element_115x wrote:Yes, and conjectures as well. If the use of Books and Prophets hasn't been fool proof, we would've agreed that it's the most compelling means for a God to use to start with anyway.

Sounds funny to me. should i give up my physical evidence because there is a hypothetical/imaginary/conjectures that there is no God?

That is a very risky and horrible idea.

Jewel wrote:@ dummy.

I feel that the dialogue between you and I is becoming a joke.

I'm glad you are now starting to realize how your argument feels like

Jewel wrote:
Would it be fair to you if we end up here and we'll let the people choose for themselves which argument here is heavier than the other?

Sure, let's take a break. Got some loads to finish.

Jewel wrote:
Thanks for sharing your ideas, much appreciated. We may have different positions but we are the same human being. I love you as a friend and a fellow human being.

Thanks.

Same to you bro! We're brothers in humanity.

Peace

Jewel wrote:I beg to differ here. These cant be separated because it is in the evidence for the where the claim be verified and rationalized. How is it that in a single book (verbal revelation) where the evidence for the existence of God is put at stake? amazing!

As I said before, If I am an atheist and a theist (not a Muslim) wants to prove me that God does exist, I would immediately ask for a physical proof - What does he have as an evidence that God does really exist, and that evidence is something that man cant make (say the bible, how does it prove that there is God except by a mere claim?)

If there is a God and He wants us to believe without seeing Him, He must have given us proofs; a proof that something which cant be produced by anyone other than Him.

It is only you who tries to equate the existence of God thru a written book. That has been your thesis all along. Why be fixated on a book that 'seemingly' can't be made by men? Besides, If i ask for a 'physical' proof, i would directly ask for such a God to stand right in front of me. I don't need to see a book, i need to see God Himself. See?

Jewel wrote:No, it's not like this. Had the Quran did not give a way to prove itself to be false and all it says is nothing more than a mere claim, then that wouldnt prove anything because anyone can make any claim, such as the bible, how would anyone be convinced that God does exist when what is presented is a book full of inconsistencies, errors and contradictions? that doesnt make sense.

Again, 'the Book is Proof of God' thesis. Can't you consider other avenues to prove God's existence other than through this line of thought?

Jewel wrote:But if I/you are presented a book, full of wisdom, has a complete guidance, practical, clear and easy to be followed and most of all inimitable to the extent that it challenges people that it cant be produced by anyone other than God then I have no choice but to accept it.

The book reasoning, yet again. Are there other, more compelling proofs for a God other than books? Please show us more. Thanks!

Jewel wrote:It would fail because it means that what is written in it (it's content) is a big LIE/falsehood.

Of course not. If the guidelines written in the Qur'an works for the betterment of humanity and society, then it's not a failure. Are you implying that when the God claim included in it is falsified, then people should go live barbaric lives again? That's preposterous!

Jewel wrote:No, it's not like that - believing God without evidence is a blind faith. However, if an evidence is presented and the evidence is not proven to be false, then the claim must be true until the evidence proven to be false.

I can tell you that I believe in God because I just feel that there is God - that wont prove anything. But if I present to you an evidence then you cant just deny my claim without proving my evidence to be false.

Well, i guess the 'book' evidence is just not enough for skeptics. It would be useless for us to prove it 'false' either, since not enough studies have been made to link the 'wisdom' contained in the book to mundane causes, so i guess we have to suspend the debunking for some other time until enough research work has been done.

But if you can present other evidences, let's examine them. Or is the 'Book' your only arsenal?

Jewel wrote:no offense whatsoever dont worry, this is just sharing of ideas. Unless you say that free will is not a reality, then you can dismiss that "excuse".

It is a reality for us. But a God can surely transcend it... not unless such a God is bounded by human constructs.

Jewel wrote:God is by it's meaning, the one to be obeyed and loved. Would you please explain to me how would you love somebody without free will. If you force somebody to love you, then that is not love anymore right? so free will must exist.

Perhaps that's just one definition for God that's uncannily laden with human constructs. Others, like New Agers and Hermeticists would probably say it's about reconnecting to the 'Source' or THE ALL. Others would say it's merely obeying the natural way/order of things. I'm sure there are many others that goes beyond the concepts of 'love' and 'obedience'.

Jewel wrote:What makes the difference is the evidence presented. Obviously, if there are two or more claims that contradict each other, it would be illogical for you to say that all those claims are true. The logical implication is that it is either only one of them is true or all of them are wrong. Look at the evidence and verify. Did you see any religious denomination here confronting atheism with physical evidence other than Islam? What they will give you is circular reasoning and blind faith - That is why, the best way to disprove them is to question their source; bible, vidas, ect.

NO, i respect people to believe in whatever they want, as long as they get better for it, and they don't inconvenience their fellowmen and nature for such 'beliefs'. They don't have to prove their Gods to me in the first place. I view such process (as what we're doing here) merely as a means for believers to bolster their faiths, nothing more.

But what is it that really separates or differentiates the God subscribers from non-God subscribers?

Namaste!

Jewel wrote:

Sounds funny to me. should i give up my physical evidence because there is a hypothetical/imaginary/conjectures that there is no God?

That is a very risky and horrible idea.

FYI, you only have physical evidence for a 'book'.

Now, as for the God contained in it, it's merely defined by letters and sentences, which needs to be processed in certain regions of our brains for it to 'manifest' itself.

element_115x wrote:FYI, you only have physical evidence for a 'book'

It's not a book, it's a verbal and recited revelation, full of wisdom, linguistic excellence, inimitable, complete guidance for both spiritual and worldly human life, no inconsistencies, clear and simple, from an illiterate man of arabia 1431 years ago - how is that possible ??

Now, as for the God contained in it, it's merely defined by letters and
sentences, which needs to be processed in certain regions of our brains
for it to 'manifest' itself

same response: recited revelation, full of wisdom, linguistic excellence, inimitable,
complete guidance for both spiritual and worldly human life, no
inconsistencies, clear and simple, from an illiterate man of arabia 1431
years ago - how is that possible ??

Jewel wrote:It's not a book, it's a verbal and recited revelation, full of wisdom, linguistic excellence, inimitable, complete guidance for both spiritual and worldly human life, no inconsistencies, clear and simple, from an illiterate man of arabia 1431 years ago - how is that possible ??

I just reacted on what you said earlier regarding the 'physical' evidence you have, and that's obviously the physical book. Of course i know it's originally recited and passed on that way. Now imagine if it wasn't written down, and what believers only hold are the memorized revelation inside their heads -- where skeptics would just end up 'taking your words for it'. That would make it a classic anecdotal meme.

As for the 'how' is that possible, i'll repeat what i wrote down in a previous post:

"Well, i guess the 'book' evidence is just not enough for skeptics. It would be useless for us to prove it 'false' either, since not enough studies have been made to link the 'wisdom' contained in the book to mundane causes, so i guess we have to suspend the debunking for some other time until enough research work has been done.

But if you can present other evidences, let's examine them. Or is the 'Book' your only arsenal?"

Jewel wrote:same response: recited revelation, full of wisdom, linguistic excellence, inimitable,
complete guidance for both spiritual and worldly human life, no
inconsistencies, clear and simple, from an illiterate man of arabia 1431
years ago - how is that possible ??

Ditto.

Namaste!

element_115x wrote:I just reacted on what you said earlier regarding the 'physical' evidence you have, and that's obviously the physical book. Of course i know it's originally recited and passed on that way. Now imagine if it wasn't written down, and what believers only hold are the memorized revelation inside their heads -- where skeptics would just end up 'taking your words for it'. That would make it a classic anecdotal meme.

That is why I said before that it is not a mere book.

Yes the written form is available as a physical evidence for everyone to verify esp. those who dont know arabic/have not memorized it. However, it's miraculous aspect does not rely on the written text only but how it is protected by its author is so amazing, it is printed in the memory of millions of Muslims starting from a young child 6 years old. Where can you find a book like that?

element_115x wrote:
As for the 'how' is that possible, i'll repeat what i wrote down in a previous post:

"Well, i guess the 'book' evidence is just not enough for skeptics. It would be useless for us to prove it 'false' either, since not enough studies have been made to link the 'wisdom' contained in the book to mundane causes, so i guess we have to suspend the debunking for some other time until enough research work has been done.

But if you can present other evidences, let's examine them. Or is the 'Book' your only arsenal?"

Namaste!

Such as....

Jewel wrote:


Such as....

Miracle claims? The way the Christians present evidences. Any ideas?

Jewel wrote:

That is why I said before that it is not a mere book.

Yes the written form is available as a physical evidence for everyone to verify esp. those who dont know arabic/have not memorized it. However, it's miraculous aspect does not rely on the written text only but how it is protected by its author is so amazing, it is printed in the memory of millions of Muslims starting from a young child 6 years old. Where can you find a book like that?

Well maybe if people let their kids memorize 'The Little Prince' en masse and with calculated reinforcement, then you'll probably get your answer. It's just a matter of selecting which books we want to do it with.

element_115x wrote:

Well maybe if people let their kids memorize 'The Little Prince' en masse and with calculated reinforcement, then you'll probably get your answer. It's just a matter of selecting which books we want to do it with.

I dont think so because it is unique to the Quran; a clear and simple and practical and complete guide to human life both physical and spiritual aspects and still preserved as it was revealed, and it's language is inimitable - how can anyone memorize a book like it? In the first place, there is no book like it.

So it is not only a matter of which to memorize but what do you memorize, and who memorizes it.



tho the Quran is in arabic language it is memorized by all different nations of the world, non arabic speaking people?