Jump to content
Nirvana

Strong proposition raised by an atheist

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam, this is my first post on this website inshaallah everyone reading this  is doing well.

i came across an atheist who made the following statement 

"All religions are man made, the concept of a greater being only came about in parallel to the evolution of the human brain, it's only the outer cortex or rationale section that allows modern humans to conceptualise there be a higher power, or God. At no time before this modern human development did anything such as God ever exist. If the earth is millions of years old then why is it 'God' only came in the last moment of human history, and not only that, pretty much coincided with the development of language and more importantly writing. So the ability to conceive an idea (of God) through evolution of the brain, and the ability to write it down, doesn't mean it is true. The brain conceptualises vision, sound and light in a way that makes it palatable to us. Who can prove other wise the idea of God isent another concept of the brain to make life palatable in essence to bolster our egos, and not admit to the truth when we die, that's it?"

I would really appreciate it if someone can refute this ideology since I must admit it has raised some doubts. Especially the last bit about the innate idea of making life palatable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, religions(islam,christianity,judisim) arent man made but prophets introduced them and they are humans, this person is the same as these mentioned in the quran: وَقَالُوا أَسَاطِيرُ الْأَوَّلِينَ اكْتَتَبَهَا فَهِيَ تُمْلَىٰ عَلَيْهِ بُكْرَةً وَأَصِيلًا surat furqan  5-8

5. And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon."

6. Say: "It (this Qur'an) has been sent down by Him (Allah) (the Real Lord of the heavens and earth) Who knows the secret of the heavens and the earth. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

7. And they say: "Why does this Messenger (Muhammad saws.gif) eat food, and walk about in the markets (like ourselves). Why is not an angel sent down to him to be a warner with him?

8. "Or (why) has not a treasure been granted to him, or why has he not a garden whereof he may eat?" And the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers, etc.) say: "You follow none but a man bewitched."

 

Also, for the quran, if you understand arabic you will be sure that it is impossible for a human to make a quran, so our  book alone is evidence of the existence of good, the quran holds many secrets and you can type in google: miracles of the quran, and read

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nirvana said:

Salam, this is my first post on this website inshaallah everyone reading this  is doing well.

i came across an atheist who made the following statement 

"All religions are man made, the concept of a greater being only came about in parallel to the evolution of the human brain, it's only the outer cortex or rationale section that allows modern humans to conceptualise there be a higher power, or God. At no time before this modern human development did anything such as God ever exist. If the earth is millions of years old then why is it 'God' only came in the last moment of human history, and not only that, pretty much coincided with the development of language and more importantly writing. So the ability to conceive an idea (of God) through evolution of the brain, and the ability to write it down, doesn't mean it is true. The brain conceptualises vision, sound and light in a way that makes it palatable to us. Who can prove other wise the idea of God isent another concept of the brain to make life palatable in essence to bolster our egos, and not admit to the truth when we die, that's it?"

I would really appreciate it if someone can refute this ideology since I must admit it has raised some doubts. Especially the last bit about the innate idea of making life palatable. 

What evidence does he has to support this conjecture ? Theories have no importance without credible evidence. We have Quran, Bible and Torah all of them backing each other on the issue of existence of God and all prophets were exceptional human beings which came to us and known among their people as honest and truthful. What evidence that Atheist has for his theory, whom will he put as his source of knowledge ? Will he put lying Atheist scientists who gave "Failed Scientific Theories" that were dubbed as wrongs by the later discoveries such as that of Fred Hoyle. 

Islam does not believe in conjectures. 

Edited by Sindbad05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the caves of ancient humans there were drawings of things archaeologists believe are "gods" and of course it would seem as if god came in at the last part of human existence because humans back then were too busy to be drawing and leaving evidence of worship, when they were hunting for food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, Nirvana said:

Salam, this is my first post on this website inshaallah everyone reading this  is doing well.

i came across an atheist who made the following statement 

"All religions are man made, the concept of a greater being only came about in parallel to the evolution of the human brain, it's only the outer cortex or rationale section that allows modern humans to conceptualise there be a higher power, or God. At no time before this modern human development did anything such as God ever exist. If the earth is millions of years old then why is it 'God' only came in the last moment of human history, and not only that, pretty much coincided with the development of language and more importantly writing. So the ability to conceive an idea (of God) through evolution of the brain, and the ability to write it down, doesn't mean it is true. The brain conceptualises vision, sound and light in a way that makes it palatable to us. Who can prove other wise the idea of God isent another concept of the brain to make life palatable in essence to bolster our egos, and not admit to the truth when we die, that's it?"

I would really appreciate it if someone can refute this ideology since I must admit it has raised some doubts. Especially the last bit about the innate idea of making life palatable. 

Tell him to get his facts right. 

Quote

 

4.6 billion years ago The origin of the Earth
65 million years ago Dinosaurs and ammonites become extinct
14 million years ago The first great apes appear
2.5 million years ago Genus Homo evolves
200 thousand years ago      Our species, Homo sapiens evolves

 

So if you just compare homo sapiens with earth we are like toddlers. we are pretty young. so you say that there was no concept of god 1 billion years ago. because there was no humans Duh! And people have been practicing religion for a long time. Also history is like a future we cannot be certain about anything. we could predict we can't be 100% sure. Theories come and go. so we cannot rely only on science or what someone tells us. we just don't have enough evidence yet. 

Quote

The use of symbolism in religion is a universal established phenomenon. Archeologist Steven Mithen contends that it is common for religious practices to involve the creation of images and symbols to represent supernatural beings and ideas. Because supernatural beings violate the principles of the natural world, there will always be difficulty in communicating and sharing supernatural concepts with others. This problem can be overcome by anchoring these supernatural beings in material form through representational art. When translated into material form, supernatural concepts become easier to communicate and understand.[41] Due to the association of art and religion, evidence of symbolism in the fossil record is indicative of a mind capable of religious thoughts. Art and symbolism demonstrates a capacity for abstract thought and imagination necessary to construct religious ideas. Wentzel van Huyssteen states that the translation of the non-visible through symbolism enabled early human ancestors to hold beliefs in abstract terms.[42]

Some of the earliest evidence of symbolic behavior is associated with Middle Stone Age sites in Africa. From at least 100,000 years ago, there is evidence of the use of pigments such as red ochre. Pigments are of little practical use to hunter gatherers, thus evidence of their use is interpreted as symbolic or for ritual purposes. Among extant hunter gatherer populations around the world, red ochre is still used extensively for ritual purposes. It has been argued that it is universal among human cultures for the color red to represent blood, sex, life and death

Concept of God/Deity/Supreme being/creator was always there. we just don't have enough evidence yet. 

Now you could ask him what was there before big bang? and what caused big bang? does he think this world is eternal? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2017 at 2:20 AM, Nirvana said:

"All religions are man made, the concept of a greater being only came about in parallel to the evolution of the human brain, it's only the outer cortex or rationale section that allows modern humans to conceptualise there be a higher power, or God. 

But doesn't that prove the existence of a creator? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Did someone miss that Russia actually made a deal with Saudi Arabia and sold them S-400 air defense missile? Don't you get it, these people are playing with the resistance and it is sadness that we buy and ask help from the enemy of Islam. It is us that gonna lose every war that they create, because that is how they make easy money.
    • I live in a burb of Chicago. Population of the Metro Chicago area and it’s surrounding areas = 9.5 mil
    • actually, one such effort done is: (1) Whosoever is an adherent to one of the four Sunni schools (Mathahib) of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali), the two Shi’i schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Ja`fari and Zaydi), the Ibadi school of Islamic jurisprudence and the Thahiri school of Islamic jurisprudence, is a Muslim. http://ammanmessage.com/the-three-points-of-the-amman-message-v-1/ but extreme wahhabis reject this. let's not be extremists like them. i remember, during 2003 invasion of iraq, thousands of gi joes died. today, the modern jihadists are their foot soldiers. how to prevent this (being foot soldiers for US or some other entities) from repeating itself in future? 1. spread the fact that shiism is not majoosi/jewish creation. 2. while not belittling others, shiism has strong evidence to be the islam  propagated by the Prophet, preserved through His Ahu Bayt as. 3. let's race towards good deeds - you don't have time to throw stones during a 100m dash, do you?
    • Looking at anyone who is not your partner in marriage - with lust - is haram.
    • Al-Salamu Alaykum This is what you should do if you found a lost item: Question: Suppose that Muslim, residing in a non-Muslim country finds a suitcase (full of clothes) with or without the owner’s nametag on it. What should he do with it? Answer: A suitcase of personal belongings normally has the nametag through which the owner can be contacted. If he knows that it belongs to a Muslim or a non-Muslim whose property is sacrosanct (or even if there is a likelihood —a considerable likelihood— [that it belongs to a non-Muslim whose property is sacrosanct]), it is necessary for him to announce it for one whole year that he has found that item [so that the owner can come forward and claim it]. If he cannot find the owner [even after the lapse of one year], he should, based on obligatory precaution, give it in charity. However, if he knows that it belongs to a non-Muslim, it is permissible for him to keep it provided that he is not legally bound to announce what he finds in that country or to hand it over to the authorities, etc. (1) In the latter case, he is not allowed to take possession of it; rather it is compulsory on him to act in accordance with the legal undertaking. Question: If I find an item in a European country without any distinctive sign on it [identifying the owner], is it permissible for me to keep it? Answer: If it has no distinctive sign by which one can contact the owner, it is permissible for you to keep it except in the case [of the legal undertaking] mentioned earlier. Source:  http://www.sistani.org/english/book/46/2057/
×