Atheism and Islam

element_115x wrote:Thanks for the answer. So it really would seem for you that the evidence for God's existence is the 'far advanced beyond it's time' content of the Qur'an, and the Prophet who said/claimed he received the Qur'an from God.

May i now ask why you are not open to the possibility that the writings in the Qur'an may have originated from sources other than a 'God' as told by a certain Prophet? Basically you're just taking the words of the Prophet here, correct? That being said Prophet even further reinforced this by the fact that he demonstrated wisdom far beyond his time as well.

How impossible is it to consider that said 'knowledge' (about the guidelines to proper living, ethics, morals, behaviours, etc.) may have come from a previous society who improved upon these mores as they existed and interacted with nature and each other?

Thanks.

Well, I am very much open for that, why not?

All I ask is to bring your proof, not a mere hypothetical idea or presumption, supposition ect.

If you can bring a clear proof, then the Qur'an is wrong, therefore Islam is false - That's the meaning of it.


Thanks

Jewel wrote:

element_115x wrote:Thanks for the answer. So it really would seem for you that the evidence for God's existence is the 'far advanced beyond it's time' content of the Qur'an, and the Prophet who said/claimed he received the Qur'an from God.

May i now ask why you are not open to the possibility that the writings in the Qur'an may have originated from sources other than a 'God' as told by a certain Prophet? Basically you're just taking the words of the Prophet here, correct? That being said Prophet even further reinforced this by the fact that he demonstrated wisdom far beyond his time as well.

How impossible is it to consider that said 'knowledge' (about the guidelines to proper living, ethics, morals, behaviours, etc.) may have come from a previous society who improved upon these mores as they existed and interacted with nature and each other?

Thanks.

Well, I am very much open for that, why not?

All I ask is to bring your proof, not a mere hypothetical idea or presumption, supposition ect.

If you can bring a clear proof, then the Qur'an is wrong, therefore Islam is false - That's the meaning of it.


Thanks

Glad to know that. Moreover, i'm not saying that the Qur'an is entirely wrong in view of such revelation; i'm merely hinting that the Prophet's claim that it came from God is debatable.

Basically it's the 'God Question' we're contesting here, not the praiseworthy content of the Qur'an.

Now for the existence of such a 'hypothetical' progenitor society, i for one am still waiting for such archeological discovery. But I am not in a hurry to find out if there is actually one right under our noses, or none at all -- as if our lives depended on it. You see, it's just the 'skeptic' in us that couldn't readily subscribe to a God as Theistic beliefs based on books and claims lays it out to be. I for one have no major qualm in following the Qur'an. It's actually a good guide as you say.

I guess there are just people who are predisposed to believe immediately, and people who need more convincing evidences to support 'extraordinary' claims. I'm just explaining.

Thanks!

Jewel wrote:

Example of a civil case you're talking about and let's see if it's applicable and just.

What I said is that our situation is more nearer to a civil case rather than a criminal case. In a criminal case, the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt otherwise he is presumed innocent, tho in reality he may really be guilty.

In civil litigation, the plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the
evidence
favors the plaintiff.


Thanks

Can't you give any other example? Because certainly our case isn't a civil case. Neither I should win anything because I don't need to win anything. I just see your evidence as weak, and even I don't have evidence, it is not just to impose your belief system simply because I don't have evidence.

Should I accept Christianity then? What about Buddhism? You see, I don't have any evidence that all religion in this world are false, should I comply and believe to all of those?

I don't really think your case is applicable.

Peace

element_115x wrote:Glad to know that. Moreover, i'm not saying that the Qur'an is entirely wrong in view of such revelation; i'm merely hinting that the Prophet's claim that it came from God is debatable.

Basically it's the 'God Question' we're contesting here, not the praiseworthy content of the Qur'an.

Now for the existence of such a 'hypothetical' progenitor society, i for one am still waiting for such archeological discovery. But I am not in a hurry to find out if there is actually one right under our noses, or none at all. You see, it's just the 'skeptic' in us that couldn't readily subscribe to a God as Theistic beliefs based on books and claims lays it out to be.

I guess there are just people who are predisposed to believe immediately, and people who need more convincing evidences to support 'extraordinary' claims. I'm just explaining.

Thanks!

The reason why I presented the Quran is for you and for anyone for that matter who wishes to verify the evidence. I know what is circular argument so I would not use that as my stand. If my evidence is proven to be false, then I have no more evidence left and for me to still continue in my belief would mean a BLIND FAITH.

With regards for the hope for archeological discovery, I as a rational person, would not wait for that. Life is too short. I would rather put my trust on what has been known as the most probable instead of putting myself in to risk thru hoping for any possible discovery in the next millennium or everlasting future; that's a very weak choice to choose.

Thanks

unrealdummy wrote:Can't you give any other example? Because certainly our case isn't a civil case. Neither I should win anything because I don't need to win anything. I just see your evidence as weak, and even I don't have evidence, it is not just to impose your belief system simply because I don't have evidence.

Should I accept Christianity then? What about Buddhism? You see, I don't have any evidence that all religion in this world are false, should I comply and believe to all of those?

I don't really think your case is applicable.

Peace

Think that I said it IT IS MORE NEARER to a civil case. I did NOT say that it is a civil case.

Why I said that? It is because I am not prosecuting you so that your side would like that of a defendant in a criminal case.

What we did is that we are arguing whether or not there is God - so we are on equal footing right?

In my case, I presented my evidence, the Quran, and offered it to you for verification. What you did is that you dont want to verify it because you said you are not interested. That's fine, but you have to take note that no matter how weak my argument against your side, I still have an evidence for my side.

Now, What evidence did you offer for your side/against my side? Nothing right?

So what we have is a party (A) which has an evidence tho not considered strong enough by the opposing party (B), WHILE Party (B) himself has not presented any evidence whatsoever; so which party is to be given favor here, party A, or party B?

I believe that it is Party A, because he has at least presented an evidence for his side while party B has presented nothing.

The saying of party B that the evidence presented by party A is weak is his mere opinion because party B didnt even tried to scrutinize the evidence of party A nor offered an evidence for his side. Party B's opinion is normal because he is the opposing side against party A, therefore his personal opinion doesn't count whatsoever.


That's what it is.


Thanks

Jewel wrote:
The reason why I presented the Quran is for you and for anyone for that matter who wishes to verify the evidence. I know what is circular argument so I would not use that as my stand. If my evidence is proven to be false, then I have no more evidence left and for me to still continue in my belief would mean a BLIND FAITH.

With regards for the hope for archeological discovery, I as a rational person, would not wait for that. Life is too short. I would rather put my trust on what has been known as the most probable instead of putting myself in to risk thru hoping for any possible discovery in the next millennium or everlasting future; that's a very weak choice to choose.

Thanks

Well i don't think your evidence is false, maybe just inadequate for skeptics. Like i said, i have no major problem in following the Qur'an as a good guide to everyday living... it's just the 'source' of it that we're contesting.

It's just that there could be other more compelling evidences for a God that will present itself, maybe not in this lifetime -- not through prophets or books this time, but maybe through other more compelling means.

I don't really care much for the repercussion of the 'Pascal Wager-ish' risk, since i don't have the mindset for it to start with.

Thanks!

element_115x wrote:Well i don't think your evidence is false, maybe just inadequate for skeptics. It's just that there could be other more compelling evidences for a God that will present itself, maybe not in this lifetime -- not through prophets or books this time, but maybe through other more compelling means. Like i said, i have no major problem in following the Qur'an as a good guide to everyday living... it's just the 'source' of it that we're contesting.

I don't really care much for the repercussion of the 'Pascal Wager-ish' risk, since i don't have the mindset for it to start with.

Thanks!

In that case, this is what I can say to you.

Guidance is from God and not from anyone other than Him. I cant guide you. If you want to be guided to the way to God, it is you who should do the first step and ask God to guide you.

Im so glad to hear from you that you dont have any problem with the Quran; that would mean to me that I am not following an evil book, so that I cant be questioned why I am following an evil book.

Prophets of old including prophet Muhammad were not able to convince some of their nearest relatives despite miracles which they showed before their very eyes.

The bottom line is that there is no compulsion in religion or way of life;

There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is
henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and
believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break.
Allah is Hearer, Knower. (2:256)


Unto you your religion (way of life), and unto me my religion (way of life). (109: 6)

As for me, I will always consider you as my brother in humanity and respect your rights as a human person because that is what Islam teaches.


Thanks

Jewel wrote:
In my case, I presented my evidence, the Quran, and offered it to you for verification. What you did is that you dont want to verify it because you said you are not interested.

And how do I verify it? By making a book that says God exists? Nope, the only way to verify god's existence is for him to talk to us and formally meet us.

Jewel wrote:
Now, What evidence did you offer for your side/against my side? Nothing right?

So what we have is a party (A) which has an evidence tho not considered strong enough by the opposing party (B), WHILE Party (B) himself has not presented any evidence whatsoever; so which party is to be given favor here, party A, or party B?

I believe that it is Party A, because he has at least presented an evidence for his side while party B has presented nothing.

True, I don't have evidence. So I'm asking you again, should I accept Christianity and the rest of world's religion? There are lot of claims with very weak evidence in which I don't have evidence against to, should I believe them as well?

You see, I only accept very strong evidence. Even if I don't have evidence against them, that doesn't mean I'm just going to accept any claims just because they have weak evidence and I don't. It simply doesn't work that way.

unrealdummy wrote:And how do I verify it? By making a book that says God exists? Nope, the only way to verify god's existence is for him to talk to us and formally meet us.

Verify it by proving that the Quran can be made by anyone other than God; that people or anyone can make a book like the Quran without believing that there is God.

If you cant make a book like it, then at least present a book like it from anywhere you wishes to get from.

Yes God is already talking to you thru his revelation but you dont want to listen. In as far as meeting God personally, it's God's prerogative and not ours. Our duty to you is simply to deliver the message of God, nothing more.

16:82 But if they turn away
from you, (O Prophet remember that) your only duty is a clear delivery
of the Message (entrusted to you).

Chapter 88 - Remind them, for thou art but a remembrancer, (21) Thou art not at all a
warder over them. (22) But whoso is averse and disbelieveth, (23) Allah will punish him with
direst punishment. (24) Lo! unto Us is their return (25) And Ours their reckoning.
(26)

It is a pitiful demand BTW because who are you to demand such a thing to God, the lord of all the worlds. You are a mere atheist whose size is like an atom or even less compared to the universe while God is greater than all that he created.

Just wait because we too are waiting;

Are they waiting to see if the Angels come to
them,
Or Thy Lord Himself,
Or certain of the signs Of thy Lord!
The day that certain Of the Signs of the Lord
Do come, no good will it do to a soul
To believe then, If it believed not before,
Nor earned righteousness Through its Faith.
Say: "Wait ye: We too Are waiting."
(Surat Al-An'am 6:158)

True, I don't have evidence. So I'm asking you again, should I accept Christianity and the rest of world's religion? There's a lot of claims with very weak evidence in which I don't have evidence against to, should I believe them as well?

It would be bias for me to tell you not to accept them. However, you have all the means to verify their claims and their evidence and logic.

As for me, I have verified them and I find their evidences to be false and I see Islam's evidence to be true, logical and convincing.

Say for example Christianity; What's the basis of their faith, the bible right? What makes us believe that the bible is the word of God? Based on my experiences, what they will give you is nothing but personal opinions, emotions, and circular reasoning. They are even not scared to admit that their bible has contradictions and interpolations, and that some authors are unknown.

That is not what i find in Islam. As you can see, the evidence for Islam is even challenging people to prove itself to be false - That's so impressive to me, that's why I choose Islam, and my faith is not a blind one.


BTW, thanks for admitting that you dont have any evidence at all.

Thanks

Jewel wrote:Verify it by proving that the Quran can be made by anyone other than God; that people or anyone can make a book like the Quran without believing that there is God.

That is illogical. You can never make something like the Quran if you will not claim that there is god. That is the number one criterion of being like the book of Quran, first you need to declare that there is god. If ever we make book that is great, you will just say it is not like Quran because it doesn't mention about god. That challenge only applies to theists and not us atheists.

Jewel wrote:
Yes God is already talking to you thru his revelation but you dont want to listen. In as far as meeting God personally, it's God's prerogative and not ours. Our duty to you is simply to deliver the message of God, nothing more.

Wish ko lang. Problem is thousands of religions claim the same thing.

Jewel wrote:
But whoso is averse and disbelieveth, (23) [/color][color=cyan]Allah will punish him with
direst punishment.

If that's the case, your god is not different from Christianity's god. A control freak god who destroys everything he doesn't like but still like a child who doesn't know that all of these came from him. Why give the people the choice not to believe if you're just going to punish them? If you want a guarantee, your god must have had created robots instead.

Jewel wrote:It is a pitiful demand BTW because who are you to demand such a thing to God, the lord of all the worlds. You are a mere atheist whose size is like an atom or even less compared to the universe

Then your god is evil, all he cares is himself. Self-centered sadistic monster. Thanks for introducing me some of Quran's teachings, now I know it's not any different from the Christianity's Unholy Book.

Jewel wrote:
while God is greater than all that he created.

Nothing is bigger than the universe. Universe is the totality of everything including time. No one can do anything without time.

It would be bias for me to tell you not to accept them. However, you have all the means to verify their claims and their evidence and logic.

As I said, not all humans have the time to verify that hundreds of books of all religion in this world. That is impractical. It is simply impossible. It would mean forgetting your life and all you are living for.

As for me, I have verified them and I find their evidences to be false

I don't believe you in that statement. There's just simply many of them. Just the bible itself takes years to realize its absurdity, what more if we're talking about hundreds if not thousands of books.

That's so impressive to me, that's why I choose Islam,

That is a very subjective statement. If you're going to ask me, no, I'm not impressed. Maybe I'm impressed on how evil your god can be and how self-centered he is.

Jewel wrote:
BTW, thanks for admitting that you dont have any evidence at all.

I don't need evidence to support the negative position, I already explained why. All claims will be ignored unless they present strong evidence. Consider me like a judge that dismisses all casse that don't have strong substance. Also, the judge don't need evidence to dismiss the case, the lack of strong evidence is enough to dismiss it.

Nothing personal but the more you reveal me the verses of the Quran the more it feels like it is really like the Christianity's Bible.

@unrealdummy

well, nothing is personal here my friend, just sharing of ideas, so dont get mad.

The bottom line is that in this dialogue between you and me, you seem to be the loser because I presented an evidence for my case while you did not.

What makes me laugh is that you are abandoning your post and you now wanted to be the judge - Is that how a good opponent would do?

You cant be a player and a referee both at the same time because no team would agree to play with you - That's illogical.

In a dialogue like this, the verdict should be based only to what has been presented by both parties and not what the parties were supposed to present.

It is either A or B or Draw - but it is never draw because A has an evidence no matter how weak, while B has nothing.

Thanks.

@Jewel

As I said, I don't make a claim that god doesn't exist.

I am simply dismissing your claim that god does exist. So I'm really acting as a judge here and you as someone who makes a claim that god exists. Certainly a judge doesn't need any evidence to dismiss the case.

Nope, I'm not getting mad.

I think you are wrong about what you think. Being better than the other doesn't make you right or doesn't prove your belief. You're just better. But weak evidence is still weak evidence regardless if your opponent has evidence or not.

You can never prove anything using a weak evidence no matter how better you are than the rest. It doesn't prove anything, it doesn't make you right.

Proving your belief requires strong evidence and it doesn't require comparison with others.

unrealdummy wrote:@Jewel

As I said, I don't make a claim that god doesn't exist.

I am simply dismissing your claim that god does exist. So I'm really acting as a judge here and you as someone who makes a claim that god exists. Certainly a judge doesn't need any evidence to dismiss the case.

Nope, I'm not getting mad.

I think you are wrong with about your statement that because you're better than the other doesn't make you right or doesn't prove your belief. You're just better. But weak evidence is still weak evidence regardless if your opponent has evidence or not.

You can never prove anything using a weak evidence no matter how better you are than the rest. It doesn't prove anything, it doesn't make you right.

Proving your belief requires strong evidence and it doesn't require comparison with others.

I am not just making a presentation man, we are comparing which of the two sides is stronger. Had you be the jugde, i wont waste my time for it because I know what you would say right? hehhehe

So you abandoned your post, and you want to be the judge; what makes you think that i would agree to that?

Jewel wrote:
I am not just making a presentation man, we are comparing which of the two sides is stronger. Had you be the jugde, i wont waste my time for it because I know what you would say right? hehhehe

So you abandoned your post, and you want to be the judge; what makes you think that i would agree to that?

From the very start I am already acting as a judge, and I said before that I make no claims. Of course I don't ask you to agree with me, but I ask you to present your evidence and reason out so I'd be convinced.

unrealdummy wrote:

From the very start I am already acting as a judge, and I said before that I make no claims. Of course I don't ask you to agree with me, but I ask you to present your evidence and reason out so I'd be convinced.

Hehehe, watta trick!

Your opinion also that there is no God doesnt convice me, so what is that?

Mmm I think I said I don't make claim that god doesn't exist. I even said I'm open to such possibility didn't I?

unrealdummy wrote:Mmm I think I said I don't make claim that god doesn't exist. I even said I'm open to such possibility didn't I?

turning to being subjective from being objective, nice move

I dont have to convince you, that was not my objective at all.

My very objective was to prove that the Islamic position is better than the atheists' position - and i think i successfully attained my objective, esp when you made a confession.


Thanks

Mmm I think not. Atheism is simply the lack of belief. It's not about claiming the god doesn't exist. Maybe what you're referring to are those anti-theists who don't accept any possibility that there could be a god.

I made a confession about what? That I have no evidence? We don't need evidence to reject anything that is being introduced to us. Insufficiency of evidence and reasoning is enough for us to reject any claims.

unrealdummy wrote:Mmm I think not. Atheism is simply the lack of belief. It's not about claiming the god doesn't exist. Maybe what you're referring to are those anti-theists who don't accept any possibility that there could be a god.

I made a confession about what? That I have no evidence? We don't need evidence to reject anything that is being introduced to us. Insufficiency of evidence and reasoning is enough for us to reject any claims.

this was your confession:

Nope, I'm not getting mad.

I think you are wrong about what you
think. Being better than the other doesn't make you right or doesn't
prove your belief. You're just better. But weak evidence is still weak
evidence regardless if your opponent has evidence or not.

So as i said, my objection is not to convince you because that is not my scope. My objection is to prove that Islamic belief on the existence of God is not a blind faith but based on logic and evidence, and that the atheist's stand is weak.

So having something weak is better than nothing at all.


Saying that my evidence is not convincing is extremely personal; that's normal because you are on the opposite side. But didnt you realized that tho it is not convincing to you, it is convincing to billions of people? So dont be subjective here because that wont really count at all.

The point is that my stand as a theist has showed something to support my stand, while you showed nothing - that's the bottom line now.

Now, you assume to be like a neutral observer after having the match with me

Do we have an "agnostic-atheist" now?

this was your confession:

I see, in that case I don't see anything wrong. So what if Islam is better than Christianity? Does that prove that Islam is true? It's like saying 2+2=5 is better than 2+2=6 because 2+2=5 is more accurate than 2+2=6 though both are still wrong. The bottom line is that comparing is never equivalent to proving. You can't prove that something is true by comparing.

My objection is to prove that Islamic belief on the existence of God is not a blind faith but based on logic and evidence, and that the atheist's stand is weak.

That is a misconception. Atheism doesn't have any stance, thus the lack of belief system. It doesn't have any belief about god(s). So comparing Islam to Atheism is like comparing oranges and apples. Atheism is not even a religion. I think you know this already.

Now, you assume to be like a neutral observer after having the match with me

Do we have an "agnostic-atheist" now?

Are you assuming that I'm an anti-theist? I think I never made any claims in any thread saying that god doesn't exist. Agnostic-atheist? Whatever the case maybe, that's still an atheist. Agnosticsm is an attitude of how you think about the possibilities, to be remain open to evidence and persuasion. Atheism is the lack of belief. So yeah, you can say that.

unrealdummy wrote: I see, in that case I don't see anything wrong. So what if Islam is better than Christianity? Does that prove that Islam is true? It's like saying 2+2=5 is better than 2+2=6 because 2+2=5 is more accurate than 2+2=6 though both are still wrong. The bottom line is that comparing is never equivalent to proving. You can't prove that something is true by comparing.



That is a misconception. Atheism doesn't have any stance, thus the lack of belief system. It doesn't have any belief about god(s). So comparing Islam to Atheism is like comparing oranges and apples. Atheism is not even a religion. I think you know this already.

I dont know if i would smile or not - What do you call a person who doesnt believe that there is God no matter what his reason is? - Washing your hands cant cover the fact that Islamic stand is better than atheists' stand.

You are also wrong that Muslims dont consider atheism as a religion; misconception. In islam any way of life is a religion no matter how and what you call it to be.

May be you wanted to say that atheism doesnt have the spiritual aspect as most of the religions do.

Have you seen him who has taken his whims and desires to be his god? 25:44

So you still have a God tho your God is not like our God - it is still a religion

Are you assuming that I'm an anti-theist? I think I never made any claims in any thread saying that god doesn't exist. Agnostic-atheist? Whatever the case maybe, that's still an atheist. Agnosticsm is an attitude of how you think about the possibilities, to be remain open to evidence and persuasion. Atheism is the lack of belief. So yeah, you can say that.

I assumed that you are an atheist because you dont believe that there is God tho you are open for that possibility. But for the moment, you are still an atheist because you dont believe in God. That's it.


Thanks

Jewel wrote:So as i said, my objection is not to convince you because that is not my scope. My objection is to prove that Islamic belief on the existence of God is not a blind faith but based on logic and evidence, and that the atheist's stand is weak.

So having something weak is better than nothing at all.

Generally, i don't think the atheist stand can be weakened by the fact that it can't provide evidence for God's non-existence. Even more so if the evidence you seek should only revolve around the 'idea' of a God that you are laying out (i.e, the theistic Muslim God).

Again, it truly would make things easier for us skeptics to accept the God you're presenting here (as claimed by a Prophet, and attested to by a book) if we can quantify/qualify just what Allah is, instead of just relying on it's characteristic of making itself directly known only through prophets... like, in explaining perhaps why can't everyone be Prophets, so there won't be room for being skeptical about the matter?

As i've hinted before, it is easy to make a claim that 'God did it!' without considering alternative explanations for such phenomena as the Qur'an to have ever happened.

Jewel wrote:Saying that my evidence is not convincing is extremely personal; that's normal because you are on the opposite side. But didnt you realized that tho it is not convincing to you, it is convincing to billions of people? So dont be subjective here because that wont really count at all.

Personally i have no problem if everyone on the planet believes in God being behind the production of the Qur'an, or of any other books for that matter, except me. Specially now that you've mentioned that it's a 'personal' thing. I'd simply say these people weren't skeptical enough... and being skeptical happens to be something 'personal' to me as well.

Jewel wrote:The point is that my stand as a theist has showed something to support my stand, while you showed nothing - that's the bottom line now.

I don't take this as a contest of whoever presents the most convincing case for a God is made any better than the other... not at all. For whatever it's worth, discussions like this only shows how good the reasoning skills of people are.... and if we really think about it, where would God be if His middlemen (the people who aids us in 'looking' for God) are nowhere to be found?

Namaste.

Peace bro element.

I make separate responses for you and for dummy;

do we have a separate discussion here between you and me, and dummy and I , or is this element+dummy versus Jewel?


I think that in your last post, you took my response to dummy and used it for me. If that's the case, no problem, I will treat our dialogue that way too.


Thanks

Jewel wrote:Peace bro element.

I make separate responses for you and for dummy;

do we have a separate discussion here between you and me, and dummy and I , or is this element+dummy versus Jewel?


I think that in your last post, you took my response to dummy and used it for me. If that's the case, no problem, I will treat our dialogue that way too.


Thanks

Hi! I just take it as it comes, anyway the flow seems to have the same backbone, anyway. It's still in conjunction with the topic. Only i delete the parts where you are obviously directing things to @unrealdummy or any one for that matter. Namaste!