69 replies to this topic

[Muhammed Ali]

كريم, on 10 July 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

whereas the day of judgement can exist without evil doing so.

Quote

free will and the day of judgement either way are justified because evil came from the lack of good as mentioned previously

The statements implicitly contradict each other?  

Regarding the first point; can the day of judgment really exist without evil if good has nothing to be compared to? What if those being judged do not even understand the concept of evil?

Quote

If God let everybody into paradise staight away, then they wouldn't know its worth due to the fact that they would have never experienced struggle before gain and they wouldn't have had to earn it.

I think this is more like it that sort of point should be raised earlier.

And Allah knows better.

Edited by Muhammed Ali, 10 July 2012 - 04:16 PM.

[Ishraq]

Greetings,

Quote

If evil/suffering is defined as lack of good then why […]

From what you've wrote, it’s clear that you don’t understand what it means for evil to be nothing but the privation of the due good.

[Muhammed Ali]

Ishraq, on 10 July 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

Greetings,


From what you've wrote, it’s clear that you don’t understand what it means for evil to be nothing but the privation of the due good.

Enlighten me please

[ßÑíã]

Muhammed Ali, on 10 July 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

If evil/suffering is defined as lack of good then why did God create this lack of good when He created the natural disasters? Why not create a natural system that does not lack good?

Is every evil action of a human being considered to be a lack of good? So the decision and intent to perform evil is nothing more than adopting to remove goodness from oneself? Is that decision itself also a lack of good or is it only the subsequent evil action (that results from the intention) that is a lack of good? If the decision itself is nothing more than a lack of good then how did it come into existence? Or maybe I should ask how did it cease to exist?

If all evil human actions are a lack of good then does it mean that they dont really exist? So if someone buys a gun and then walks into a school and kills all the children; are all those actions nothing more then just a lack of good ? Isn't there a difference between not performing a good action and actually creating a harmful action?

Again, I am playing devil's advocate (except for the part where I challenge the redefinition of all evils into nothing more than a lack of good).

You may have not read my post properly, it wasn't God who created the lack of good, it came into existance through the actions of the people.  What would be the point of a system that has creations without the capability to lack good due to their own decisions? Bring me one evil action that is not a lack of good, and seen as the decision of the lack of good leads to that particular action then yes it is also a lack of good. Ones ego in itself can make existant the lack of good.

Due to the fact that if one doesn't perform a good action in your case this gunshooter, the only alternative is to perform an evil one, if that person didn't lack performing that good action then the bad action would have been non existant. If not performing a good action will result in performing an evil one then in my opinion there is no difference.

Muhammed Ali, on 10 July 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Regarding the first point; can the day of judgment really exist without evil if good has nothing to be compared to? What if those being judged do not even understand the concept of evil?

Seen as the day of judgement is based on judging positive deeds also then it can exist even if good has nothing to be compared to because good deeds differentiate between certain people, maybe one has more than the other, and God is just he will reward you in accordance to the level of good you've done. Every creation will be judged based on the intelligence that God gave them, as we know Allah (sp) once spoke to intelligence saying "only you will i subject to punishment and reward". if a person honestly does not understand the concept of evil also known as legitimately not knowing right from wrong; like an animals mentality, then i don't see how their deeds can even be called bad to begin with. If you mean a different thing by what i highlighted in bold than they don't need to know the concept of evil if due to their actions it was not encountered.

[Pascal]

كريم, on 10 July 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

God placed enough food on this earth for the whole population to eat to their full,

I really don't think you understand how agriculture works... there always wasn't as much food as we have now...there was much, much less.

Indeed, for a lot of our history, we were hunters and gatherers, we definitely could not sustain that with out current population (which is why even modern hunter gatherer populations tend to be small) no matter how much we shared our food.

God didn't place enough food for the whole population to eat their fill, farmers did. It almost seems an absurd suggestion unless you're just trying to be poetic in one way or another.

كريم, on 10 July 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

what really happens is some greedy humans take the share of other humans;

In many cases its actually drought or pests (like locusts).

كريم, on 10 July 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Obesity in itself is proof of people eating more than their body needs also known as eating more than their rightly owned share of food in this world.

I'm a biologist and this is proof of absolutely nothing. Our bodies are *designed* to store fat. You need a certain amount of fat to even *live*. You store fat when food is plentiful so you can burn your fat off in times of famine (and hopefully live a bit longer). Fat also has other important functions like storage of toxins, production of hormones, etc.

In fact, the poorest people in western societies (who obviously can't afford as much food as the rich) tend to be MORE FAT than rich people. Why? It's not because they're eating lavish banquets, it's because the food is unhealthy and often, its all they can afford. So, your suggestion that obesity is just a result of eating too much is totally false.

Psychiatric (and all other kinds of medication), genetics, endocrine disorders, etc all cause weight gain as well.

كريم, on 10 July 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Blaming poverty on God is indirectly saying there isn't enough food to go around, are you serious? with all that fish in the sea? all those cows? sheeps? chickens etc that exist? come on be realistic.

I'm going to stop here, you're either not capable of understanding philosophy at this point (not to say that you never can) or not willing to behave in a civil manner. Either is not my problem. If its the first one, a lot of us are well educated in philosophy and we have significant experience. I tried to find as nice a way as possible to say this but you will really get kicked 6 ways to Sunday by some of the more philosophical members here. Let this be a learning experience, hey?

That was not my argument.

My argument was that God does not prevent natural disasters, like drought, that cause massive crop destruction.

As a scientist, one of my absolute favourite scientists of all time is Norman Borlaug. Why? I bet you haven't even heard of him. It was his work on genetics and agriculture, modifying the plants God gave us, that allowed him to save over 1 billion (with a people.

My argument was the fact that God created locusts, he does not stop droughts. If you at all understood it, you would read the semi-formal argument (the one with numbers) where i stated a good being would prevent every instance of evil, unless to do so would create even more evil or lose an even greater good. Can you honestly justify crop failures and droughts? (That question was rhetorical, don't actually answer it).

If theres one thing i cant stand for, its strawman (linked above). I felt bad though. I came back and wrote up a response in detail to show you what was wrong with your argument so you could benefit and learn, strengthening your philosophy. That is, until i saw this:

كريم, on 10 July 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Truth is only a retard would.

كريم, on 10 July 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

would it be right to question God for creating good health? only a retard would.

I can't tell if you're a 15 year old or a buffoon...

Usually i try be as relatively kind as possible but really, this is totally disgraceful behavior. You should be ashamed. You are clearly not yet up to the task. It is my sincere hope you learn though. If i was a Muslim i wouldn't even try to convince people with a lack of grounding, because it can reflect badly on your own faith.

Please don't feed the trolls, Ali.

كريم, on 10 July 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

God placed enough food on this earth for the whole population to eat to their full, just because there are hungry people in so many countries that doesn't mean the creator is to blame - for verily he placed enough food on this earth for us all, what really happens is some greedy humans take the share of other humans; which as a result leaves many people in starvation. Obesity in itself is proof of people eating more than their body needs also known as eating more than their rightly owned share of food in this world. Blaming poverty on God is indirectly saying there isn't enough food to go around, are you serious? with all that fish in the sea? all those cows? sheeps? chickens etc that exist? come on be realistic.



If God were to stop every un-just act a human does in this world then what would be the point of free-will? what would be the purpose of life in itself? There is a day of judgement where every human will be held accountable for their deeds whether good or bad, where this rape victim you refer to will be given her right, where the rape criminal will be brought to account for his actions.

Evil comes from the lack of good, just like darkness comes from the lack of light - so the logical thing to say is that God created good, but from the lack of good that most people do; evil came into existence. Will you question God or say hes wrong for creating good in the first place? seen as evil comes from the lack of good? Truth is only a retard would.

Disease comes from the lack of good health - again would it be right to question God for creating good health? only a retard would.

Some common causes of Miscarriages can be linked to conditions concerning the mother's health i.e. misuse of drugs, smoking while pregnant, alcohol consumption etc, also it can be linked to an uneven amount of chromosomes coming from both parents - again links to a lack of good health.

If you're going to question why God watches evil deeds occurring then question the purpose of life in itself, free will,  and the day of judgement.

I wonder at a person who denies the second life when he has already seen the first - Ali Ibn Abi Talib.

Edited by kingpomba, 10 July 2012 - 08:46 PM.

[ßÑíã]

kingpomba, on 10 July 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

I really don't think you understand how agriculture works... there always wasn't as much food as we have now...there was much, much less.

Indeed, for a lot of our history, we were hunters and gatherers, we definitely could not sustain that with out current population (which is why even modern hunter gatherer populations tend to be small) no matter how much we shared our food.

God didn't place enough food for the whole population to eat their fill, farmers did. It almost seems an absurd suggestion unless you're just trying to be poetic in one way or another.

I don't think you understood my point. Firstly I think you are forgetting that in comparison to now, the world's population was less, therefore not as much food was required to feed everybody than current current times. I'm not talking about hunters or gatherers, i'm discussing whether there are enough animals on earth for sustenance regardless them being hunted and prepared for purchase or not; thats another issue. Fact is there is enough animals on earth to feed the entire population, your just basing your answering on the amount of hunters existing to make them ready for purchase which is a totally different issue. Hunters did not put the food there, they simply hunted the animals that God created and made them ready for purchase - your mentality is off-point.

kingpomba, on 10 July 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

I'm a biologist and this is proof of absolutely nothing. Our bodies are *designed* to store fat. You need a certain amount of fat to even *live*. You store fat when food is plentiful so you can burn your fat off in times of famine (and hopefully live a bit longer). Fat also has other important functions like storage of toxins, production of hormones, etc.

In fact, the poorest people in western societies (who obviously can't afford as much food as the rich) tend to be MORE FAT than rich people. Why? It's not because they're eating lavish banquets, it's because the food is unhealthy and often, its all they can afford. So, your suggestion that obesity is just a result of eating too much is totally false.

Psychiatric (and all other kinds of medication), genetics, endocrine disorders, etc all cause weight gain as well.

I think it is undeniable that if we all consume our recommended 5 a day portions we won't become obese. Yes our bodies store fat and need it to function properly i agree, however the point being made here is storing excessive fat - linking to obesity, which in reality is storing more than the body needs. Unhealthy can be interpreted as consuming too much of that particular food i.e. fast food, thus connecting to my point of consuming more than their rightly owned share on this earth.
It's not a matter of lavish banquets or unhealthy food, its a matter of proportion, you misunderstood my point. Medication, genetics etc are irrelevant in this issue as they are not as much of a main cause for obesity as excessive eating.

kingpomba, on 10 July 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

I'm going to stop here, you're either not capable of understanding philosophy at this point (not to say that you never can) or not willing to behave in a civil manner. Either is not my problem. If its the first one, a lot of us are well educated in philosophy and we have significant experience. I tried to find as nice a way as possible to say this but you will really get kicked 6 ways to Sunday by some of the more philosophical members here. Let this be a learning experience, hey?

Forget philosophy, that's what you choose to adopt and you still fail in applying to logic and reason. All i need is intelligence, common sense, logic and reason, i don't need a laboratory to understand right from wrong, so think again.

kingpomba, on 10 July 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

That was not my argument.

My argument was that God does not prevent natural disasters, like drought, that cause massive crop destruction.

If theres one thing i cant stand for, its strawman (linked above). I felt bad though. I came back and wrote up a response in detail to show you what was wrong with your argument so you could benefit and learn, strengthening your philosophy. That is, until i saw this:

I can't tell if you're a 15 year old or a buffoon...

Usually i try be as relatively kind as possible but really, this is totally disgraceful behavior. You should be ashamed. You are clearly not yet up to the task. It is my sincere hope you learn though. If i was a Muslim i wouldn't even try to convince people with a lack of grounding, because it can reflect badly on your own faith.

Please don't feed the trolls, Ali.

Oh please, I should be ashamed of using the word retard? that's shameful behaviour? lack of grounding? thats a bit unrealistic mr scientist. It seems as though you would prefer debating those terrorists that scream infidel in your face? maybe you can reason with them more. It seems as though you just took attention off the fact that you couldn't come back with a justifiable response to my final points.

And btw i suggest you keep your nowhere near unjustifiable comments to yourself like "please dont feed the trolls Ali" and "we should put God on trial" because it just reflects back to show your lack of maturity and now honestly, I'm the one who can't tell whether you're a 15 year old or a buffoon.

Just so you know, I wasn't only talking to you in that post, I partially addressed you, it was directed to pretty much everyone on the thread who had questions on poverty otherwise I would have quoted you before every point i made. The fact that you don't even give meaning to your own existence (as an athiest) is enough for me to cut this debate with you short, because if we can't even agree upon common sense then forget even attempting to agree upon anything further, I'm done here.

Edited by ßÑíã, 11 July 2012 - 09:48 AM.

[Belial]

Miladiator, on 08 July 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Belial: You make a good point, I guess it is quite a poor example I provided. But even though the example I provided was not very good the point itself is still quite convincing in my opinion. You see I don't believe ANYONE has NO good in them. Even Satan was initially good. Sometimes it's the fault of our environment, upbringing, or whatever the case but I don't believe any human/ jinn/ living thing is born without at least a fractionally small amount of good inside of them.

We all have opinions about many things.  And thats fine by me.

[Lanatin]

For us folks arguing for God's justice in the next world, let's remember we also have to argue in favor of the soul's existence.

[Belial]

كريم, on 11 July 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

I don't think you understood my point. Firstly I think you are forgetting that in comparison to now, the world's population was less, therefore not as much food was required to feed everybody than current current times. I'm not talking about hunters or gatherers, i'm discussing whether there are enough animals on earth for sustenance regardless them being hunted and prepared for purchase or not; thats another issue. Fact is there is enough animals on earth to feed the entire population, your just basing your answering on the amount of hunters existing to make them ready for purchase which is a totally different issue. Hunters did not put the food there, they simply hunted the animals that God created and made them ready for purchase - your mentality is off-point.




I
Forget philosophy, that's what you choose to adopt and you still fail in applying to logic and reason. All i need is intelligence, common sense, logic and reason, i don't need a laboratory to understand right from wrong, so think again.

If God let everybody into paradise staight away, then they wouldn't know its worth due to the fact that they would have never experienced struggle before gain and they wouldn't have had to earn it.

There is quite a bit of text here.

Your world view is based off of...something clearly different than what I've used to build mine.

Its interesting how you think animals were put here on this earth to feed us.  Or atleast thats what it sounds like you believe.  I think thats just absurd.  Especially when we have to farm animals themselves to feed us all.  That also ignores...well you know.  The origins of mankind and animals being from a generally similar lineage.

You say that all you need is common sense and logic.  You know, I used to say that too.  Then I realised that common sense, doesnt work so well without a particular...knowledge.  My version of common sense would not be the same as...a high grade philosophers.  Nor would it be the same as a highschool students.

Common sense is relative.

But anyway.  I would recommend you look into the theory of evolution.  Recognize life history, and then work on explaining how it is that animals were placed here on earth for us to consume.

And in regards to the quantity of food as well.  There are just so many questions about your statement.  God also gave us reproductive abilities so that we could grow in population.  So did he put enough food on earth to feed our post grown population?  The answer is no.  Which would mean that he hasnt put enough food on earth for all of us.

That whole topic and discussion between you and pomba is just...its full of holes.  I wont even bother taking that discussion any further.

And with the final statement there.  People can be hypothetically enlightened without having to physically experience something.

I could be enlightened by God on the fact that hunger is painful.  I wouldnt necessarily need to experience hunger to appreciate food.

Edited by Belial, 11 July 2012 - 07:17 PM.

[Lanatin]

Belial, on 11 July 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

There is quite a bit of text here.

Your world view is based off of...something clearly different than what I've used to build mine.

Its interesting how you think animals were put here on this earth to feed us.  Or atleast thats what it sounds like you believe.  I think thats just absurd.  Especially when we have to farm animals themselves to feed us all.  That also ignores...well you know.  The origins of mankind and animals being from a generally similar lineage.

You say that all you need is common sense and logic.  You know, I used to say that too.  Then I realised that common sense, doesnt work so well without a particular...knowledge.  My version of common sense would not be the same as...a high grade philosophers.  Nor would it be the same as a highschool students.

Common sense is relative.

But anyway.  I would recommend you look into the theory of evolution.  Recognize life history, and then work on explaining how it is that animals were placed here on earth for us to consume.

People in the past would let animals freely pasture the lands iDevonian, and they'd still be fit for food at the end of the season. Contemplate on the fact that they accede to our lordship over them. More instinctive, less creative and always prone to submission by our abilities would certainly justify why animals are to be seen as created for us.

[Belial]

La, on 11 July 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

People in the past would let animals freely pasture the lands iDevonian, and they'd still be fit for food at the end of the season. Contemplate on the fact that they accede to our lordship over them. More instinctive, less creative and always prone to submission by our abilities would certainly justify why animals are to be seen as created for us.

La Nat, we used to be those same animals that you are speaking of.  You can grab the bones of our ancestors, they were hunted just as we later hunted them.  Even in todays time, in the jungle, something like a tiger is king.  Not us.  In the jungle, its as if we were placed there, to serve the tigers appetite.  Not the other way around.

Our view of the world is...its relative to us.  Its like the saying, history is rewritten by the victors of war.  It is not that the history we speak of is truth.  It is only truth, because we have survived to write it as such.

And this is why it is hard to use "common sense" with these questions.

I had professors, or I will say one professor in particular.  And in his class, we would discuss, what the purpose of the environment was.  Some say, the environment is here to serve us.  Others say, we are part of it, we must take care of it.  etc etc.

And in a room of purely scientists, it has always been this consensus.  The world is not here for us.  We cannot abuse it as if its a gift.  Because it is what has birthed us, and the tables can very easily turn, as they have in the past.

The animals (other animals aside from people), can and most likely will in the future, come to dominate the world.  Then they will be the writers of new history.  And this has happened 6, 7, maybe 8 major times in the past atleast.  One family rules the world.  Tables turn, and the new breed comes to dominate.

Mankind was not the first to dominate, and we wont be the last.  Those animals out there, will most likely have their chance, just as we are now.

I am sorry.

Do you agree with me?  Maybe you are just explaining why people would believe what they believe.  Rather than saying whether it is correct or not.

I would agree, if I didnt know of the past.  And I had a pet dog or sheep or horses.  They are so docile, its as if they are here to serve us.  And if I didnt know where they had come from, I would agree.  It would seem like common sense that they were created to serve us.

Edited by Belial, 11 July 2012 - 07:28 PM.

[Lanatin]

Belial, on 11 July 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

La Nat, we used to be those same animals that you are speaking of.  You can grab the bones of our ancestors, they were hunted just as we later hunted them.  Even in todays time, in the jungle, something like a tiger is king.  Not us.  In the jungle, its as if we were placed there, to serve the tigers appetite.  Not the other way around.

Our view of the world is...its relative to us.  Its like the saying, history is rewritten by the victors of war.  It is not that the history we speak of is truth.  It is only truth, because we have survived to write it as such.

The view of the world is from our perspective evidently, but we take that extra leap in intellect and subdue and exploit all our surroundings (including sentient creatures from the animal kingdom).  You're presupposing the validity of the theory of evolution here; i'll leave aside the issue of the cambrian explosion and our self-containing anatomy for now and say that my above post was merely showing the validity of the belief that animals are created for us.

Oh and tigers dont acquire lordship over us prior to receiving us in their canines, it's not always the case where tigers are unconditionally hostile to humans. No exploitation and subjugation on their part.

Edited by La'nat Ma Man, 11 July 2012 - 07:29 PM.

[Belial]

The guy with the squigly line for his name...I assume its arabic.

He said

With all the fish in the sea? all those cows? sheeps? chickens etc that exist? Come on be realistic"

But, these animals are only here because we have taken the natural life forms, and we have...artificially evolved them to be our food.  And we are using our natural "God given" gifts to reproduce ourselves.  We have artificially created them into our food so that we can slaughter tens of millions of them every day to eat. And they could do it to us too. There is no leader in this world.  No truly dominant species.

And he says that, God has placed enough food out here to provide for us all if we eat our fair share.

But, if you think about it, in what world is he referring to when he says "fair share"?  As if we arent...as if we arent human.  It is human to consume and to dominate other animals. And yes it is human to share too, but when it comes to other animals...it is very human, within us, created as such, to destroy others and to horde the benefits of what we destroy.  Not to share it with some dehumanized foreigners.

It is a god given right to blow other people up, just as it is to share food with them.

And thats what I dont like about his post.  It is bias and relative to his outlook.  Its not necessarily truth.

La, on 11 July 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

The view of the world is from our perspective evidently, but we take that extra leap in intellect and subdue and exploit all our surroundings (including sentient creatures from the animal kingdom).  You're presupposing the validity of the theory of evolution here; i'll leave aside the issue of the cambrian explosion and our self-containing anatomy for now and say that my above post was merely showing the validity of the belief that animals are created for us.

Oh and tigers dont acquire lordship over us prior to receiving us in their canines, it's not always the case where tigers are unconditionally hostile to humans. No exploitation and subjugation on their part.

Oh you know I love to discuss evolution, so anytime you would like to...you know.  I will be here. I rarely try to pick fights with the topic, but I love partaking in them.

But I agree, our points have bias. Each side.

Tigers I would say, would exploit the abilities we have, if they had them.  It is only natural. And yes we do take an extra intellectual leap in dominating this world.  But that doesnt make us somehow greater than all other animals.  Intellectually maybe.  But that just doesnt make us truly better.  It makes us different, not superior.  A virus can bring us to our knees fairly easily.  But I wouldnt consider a virus a dominant lifeform just because it can take control of us and can use our body and can destroy us at will.

I wouldnt say mankind has been placed on earth, just to suit the needs of things that dominate us. And I wouldnt ignore our origins.   It was only yesterday that we were in their positions. The underdogs. Back then, who could be said to dominate the world?  Does the guy with the squigly name believe that the world was created for dinosaurs? Synapsids? Tetrapods?

His beliefs do not make sense in the world of science.

And you really dont even have to be a scientist to see this.  Clearly the animal kingdom isnt here to serve us, aside from the fact that we are a part of it...majority of animals out here, we cant even benefit from.  A large number of them will kill us. Anything bigger than us and that eats meat, does not serve us.

We have larger horses. we have smaller dogs and cats.  But we dont have large wolves. We dont have lions and tigers.  Yes there are special cases, but they are rarities and often go wrong.

These animals are not placed on earth to serve us, we have simply transformed them, artificially from their natural state.

Well, there is no need to defend this position anymore.  I think most people realize, his world view, may not be true.  And as long as we all understand that, I could care less about what he says.

La, on 11 July 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

People in the past would let animals freely pasture the lands iDevonian, and they'd still be fit for food at the end of the season.

Also, ill add,  Animals often overgraze lands even under human control and everyone starves. Especially in central africa.  They have a problem over there with overgrazing among other things.

Edited by Belial, 11 July 2012 - 08:26 PM.

[ßÑíã]

Belial, on 11 July 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

And in regards to the quantity of food as well.  There are just so many questions about your statement.  God also gave us reproductive abilities so that we could grow in population.  So did he put enough food on earth to feed our post grown population?  The answer is no.  Which would mean that he hasnt put enough food on earth for all of us.

Us having re-productive abilities does not justify your claim, due to the simple fact of our post grown population being smaller in size, connecting to not as much sustenance being needed as currently.. And by my statement i didn't mean animals were solely created for our sustenance, as there are many animals that are considered forbidden to eat from an islamic perspective, however I meant animals like chicken, cows, certain types of fish etc were pretty much mainly created for us to feed on.

Farming certain animals does not justify them not being placed here for our sustenance, as farming them to i.e. grow in a certain manner (meaty or skinny) is a preference to some farmers - linking not to the meaning of their existence.

[ßÑíã]

Belial, on 11 July 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

The guy with the squigly line for his name...I assume its arabic.

He said

With all the fish in the sea? all those cows? sheeps? chickens etc that exist? Come on be realistic"

But, these animals are only here because we have taken the natural life forms, and we have...artificially evolved them to be our food.  And we are using our natural "God given" gifts to reproduce ourselves.  We have artificially created them into our food so that we can slaughter tens of millions of them every day to eat. And they could do it to us too. There is no leader in this world.  No truly dominant species.

You didn't create them into your food, some were created for food, stop trying to take the credit for creation, because it's nonsense.

Belial, on 11 July 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

And he says that, God has placed enough food out here to provide for us all if we eat our fair share.

But, if you think about it, in what world is he referring to when he says "fair share"?  As if we arent...as if we arent human.  It is human to consume and to dominate other animals. And yes it is human to share too, but when it comes to other animals...it is very human, within us, created as such, to destroy others and to horde the benefits of what we destroy.  Not to share it with some dehumanized foreigners.

Just because greed is within us, that does not mean its moral to abide by. horde the benefits of what we destroy? not to share it with some dehumanized foreigners? Your statements lack moral principle, it's people with your mentality that cause starvation - making yourself the priority. My point still stands undisputed whether you like it or not: if food was devided appropriately then there would be no starvation!

Belial, on 11 July 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

It is a god given right to blow other people up, just as it is to share food with them.

It definitely is not a God given right to blow innocent people up - thats not true Islam; you may want to educate yourself and stop being hypnotised by the media.

Edited by ßÑíã, 12 July 2012 - 03:53 PM.

[Belial]

كريم, on 12 July 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

Us having re-productive abilities does not justify your claim, due to the simple fact of our post grown population being smaller in size, connecting to not as much sustenance being needed as currently.. And by my statement i didn't mean animals were solely created for our sustenance, as there are many animals that are considered forbidden to eat from an islamic perspective, however I meant animals like chicken, cows, certain types of fish etc were pretty much mainly created for us to feed on.

Farming certain animals does not justify them not being placed here for our sustenance, as farming them to i.e. grow in a certain manner (meaty or skinny) is a preference to some farmers - linking not to the meaning of their existence.

We are bigger in size actually, depending on what origins you are referring to.  I agree with your second point though, however, what is important isnt necisserily that we are farming them.  Its the fact that we are manipulating something in order to farm them.  What we manipulate them from, does not appear to be a system designed to serve man.

You do not see the bigger picture that I am painting.

كريم, on 12 July 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

You didn't create them into your food, some were created for food, stop trying to take the credit for creation, because it's nonsense.



Just because greed is within us, that does not mean its moral to abide by. horde the benefits of what we destroy? not to share it with some dehumanized foreigners? Your statements lack moral principle, it's people with your mentality that cause starvation - making yourself the priority. My point still stands undisputed whether you like it or not: if food was devided appropriately then there would be no starvation!



It definitely is not a God given right to blow innocent people up - thats not true Islam; you may want to educate yourself and stop being hypnotised by the media.

We may not have created them from nothing.  But we transformed them into our food. They were not always. In the old days, we were their food.

And dont say it is people like me who cause starvation.  I would say it is people like you who cause starvation, not knowing what really causes it to begin with.  You dont know...about the world you live in.

You do not understand...you just dont know what we are. It is not of my interest to show you. Perhaps Pomba will.

Go read about the origins of man.  Understand why we have evolved to become what we are.  Once you understand what we are, and why we are this way...then we can hold this conversation.  It is not of my interest to teach you of our origins.  If you do understand them, I would be more than happy to discuss them with you, if you can show me that you do. Take this understanding, and relate it to the animal kingdom.  Understand their origins as well.  Then ask yourself the same questions again.

You must believe that we were created through Adam and Eve or something.  With animals pre domesticated and bred into forms that serve us well.  As if cute puppies werent ravenous wolves. As if chickens werent 10 foot long raptors that would shred your body in two.  As if people werent 3 foot snacks for the wild. Nor were we nothing but rats prior to that.

You must believe that we were some divinely created being, with our great minds wrapped in gift wrap.  As if it isnt a combined version of a reptile/fish/mammal brain.  As if our backs become sore with old age, not because we used to walk on all fours, but because the sin of some evil demon somewhere makes them go bad.  As if the tail bone you have isnt actually there because you used to have a tail.

You must live in this world, where we are not animals ourselves, and that we have not evolved along side of all others.

And that is a world that...well, it is not likely to be true.

How could anyone judge the purpose of life, when they dont know of the origins nor history of life?  Its like trying to judge a person, without knowing the history of that person and their actions.  And yet, you consider me to be the one who is wrong...as if I am not the one who has been out there every day for the past 5 years, studying it.

That is why I cannot have this conversation, with someone who assumes I am wrong without knowing why I am saying what I am.

But knowing pomba, he will speak.  And I will just add small commentary. That will be that.

Edited by Belial, 12 July 2012 - 08:06 PM.

[ßÑíã]

I could say the same to you, you know not of the origins and history of life, nor do you know of the origins and history of mankind neither furthermore the animal kingdom, rather to be realistic it is simply your view, and the view of the likes of you that you are basing your belief on, it is not necesserily the truth, so it interests me not to be honest. You have your faith i have mine, that is that. Pomba can have a conversation with himself, as i already said prior to this, I'm done here.

[Belial]

كريم, on 13 July 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

I could say the same to you, you know not of the origins and history of life, nor do you know of the origins and history of mankind neither furthermore the animal kingdom, rather to be realistic it is simply your view, and the view of the likes of you that you are basing your belief on, it is not necesserily the truth, so it interests me not to be honest. You have your faith i have mine, that is that. Pomba can have a conversation with himself, as i already said prior to this, I'm done here.

Thankfully we are the ones with the degrees in natural science, otherwise id question the situation. Granted, I am sure there are imperfections in both of our views.  Though, even your religious beliefs bend as we go out and provide you with the science that helps you interpret them.

One day, I believe we will come together though.  In time.

Adios.

Edited by Belial, 13 July 2012 - 02:52 PM.

[alialiali]

Miladiator, on 22 June 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

Salaam Allaykum,

One of the questions I feel unable to answer and a question that very many atheists ask is:
"Why did God create poverty, disease, miscarriage etc."

I'm sure theres a perfectly reasonable answer, especially considering that this is a question all religious people, of all faiths may come across however I was wondering what your answers are.

By the way, I am aware that sometimes atheists tend to ask about issues such as death, mild illnesses and such trivial things that we all undergo at one point or another and when these questions are asked I have no difficulty in providing an answer. It's the really serious and unfortunate problems that only very few people may undergo that I have no answer for.

Thanks for taking your time to read (and respond).

our imams (saw) tell us that the children of man would not become ill if hath the father and mother not sinned, nor would any living man become ill if man had not sinned... Every illness and disease is due to sins of a man...........

Edited by alialiali, 13 July 2012 - 03:49 PM.

[Shia_Debater]

alialiali, on 13 July 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

our imams (saw) tell us that the children of man would not become ill if hath the father and mother not sinned, nor would any living man become ill if man had not sinned... Every illness and disease is due to sins of a man...........

Doesn't make sense. What about the story of Imams Hassan [as] and Hussain [as] becoming ill and then [I think Imam Ali [as] and Lady Fatima [sa]] took a vow to fast for 3 days so they get healed [or something along those lines] and each night when it came to the time of them breaking their fast someone came to their house asking for food and so they broke their fast with only water and then this verse was revealed [there may have been more verses revealed with this at that time but im not sure but I know this one was]

Surah 76 Verse 8 [Translation by Ali Quli Qara'i]

They give food, for the love of Him, to the needy, the orphan and the prisoner,