Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AlayhisSalaam

  1. If worse comes, then you can always say to your father that you are an adult and you love and respect your father but you feel pain because of how he is treating you. Ask your father if he can quote when Prophet Muhammad ever treated Fatima the way he is treating you. It is very wrong for him to treat you that way. Muhammad was gentle and loving and spoke softly towards Fatima.
  2. Well said lebsyeda87 Also consider this irony. Four men, let's say they're each 40 years old for argument sake. Three of them have the same agenda, whereas the fourth is an odd-ball. The three decide that if they take control of this government and each elects the next after him, then by the time the second or third person is in control, the fourth will already be dead. Which solves the problem of even having him be in control at all. Let's say each person lives approximately 15 years after taking control... A) 40 --> 55 B) 55 --> 70 C) 70 --> 85 Most people do not live this long, especially 1400 years ago. Yet against the odds, all three of them died and made way for Ali who still took control anyways without having to force it. This is like how Prince Charles has been waiting for the Queen to die so he can assume Kingship, but lol it isn't happening, and there are all of these other people in line waiting... It is so unlikely for someone even 20 years younger than the Queen to ever have the throne let alone the third or fourth in line for the throne... More likely they will all die before they get their turn and a very young perhaps unborn child gets the throne. So do you really think that when Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman got together and were like "Abu Bakr will be first Caliph, then Omar, then Uthman... LOL then Ali... trololol" that they were ever expecting Omar, let alone Uthman, let alone Ali would take control of the Caliphate? They didn't know the future, they didn't know that they would die in such an order. It could have been that Omar died first, and then that would mean that the second caliph becomes Uthman... Or maybe Abu Bakr and Uthman die and then only Omar is the first Caliph and lives for 30 years and Ali dies and the second caliph becomes someone else entirely... Clearly they didn't have this knowledge, so the motivation for them choosing this line was clearly to maintain power and stack all odds in their favor from ever having someone else gain power. They couldn't just say "Ali you will never be caliph" because that would have started a major war worse than what already took place, since there were already the Shi'atu 'Ali in uproar over this tragedy that was the usurpation of the Caliphate from the Ulul Amr. So they decided they would say "Ali maybe in 200 years you can be Caliph, ok? lolol"
  3. "God exists" Logical deduction requires that I ask, "Who or what is God?" "God is the all-knowing, all-powerful deity that wants you to worship him and do what he commands or else you will go to hell." So I look for this god, but he is no where to be found. There is no evidence that prayers work, no evidence that any miracles have ever taken place, no evidence that God affects the world at all... The logical deduction is simple, if you tell me I must worship God, then why not worship Zeus or any other god or mythical creature that there is no evidence for? The same reason that you don't worship Zeus is the same reason I don't worship Allah. You believe in 1 more god than I do. Yet we both disbelieve in thousands of other gods and mythical creatures... So we're not so different as you may think. Zeus had a rich culture, history, books, priests, millions of believers... an entire civilization that worshiped him... and he is a mythical figure now... gave way to Christianity... If God wants me to worship him, then just as I breathe oxygen through my lungs, I should have an innate natural bodily function which acts as a worship... but there is nothing of the sort, everything that I am and exist as has absolutely nothing to do with the worship of any deity. I must get up and go work for food if I want to eat, I must go to the toilet if I don't want to make a mess of my natural waste disposal, and I must sleep when tired for my brain to function properly... These are all the pains of living as a creature that is dying. There is no god feeding me or making me go to the toilet, I must do all of these things on my own. No matter how much one believes or sits and prays, if one does not move, then nothing will happen. If you want to call that movement god, then sure, go ahead, maybe everyone is god, god is everything, that is more believable than a separate entity existing outside of time and space choosing to answer some prayers like the woman who wants to hit the lottery she wins, but the other billion of people lose, and ignore the prayers of little girls being molested for years in basements.... but accept the prayer of someone in a desert who wants water, even though millions of other people who prayed for water did not receive water... it's all coincidences.... Even if there is a god, he has shown no evidence of wanting or needing to be worshiped or believed in... It is not a personal relationship required of me as far as I can tell. If there is, he has done a terrible job of showing me. For the purely Islamic belief structure... So let's just say that I accept the Qur'an against all evidence, then what? I know nothing about Islamic fiqh, not even how to pray unless I go to the hadith... Once one goes to the Hadith they are flabbergasted by the contradictions and various accounts... Hundreds of sects, sects inside of sects.... Let's just say I pick one... What is the logical scientific reasoning that I should follow XYZ hadith but not ABC hadith... Etc.. This is just a summarized notion of all of the chaos that is in Islam, but essentially, one deduces that there is no God because there are many religions and none of them make any sense or have any ground... Even without religion, there is no evidence in the Universe for the existence of a personal, intelligent deity. Even if there was such a deity, that deity has not made it clear what he would want from us, so we would live the atheist life anyways which is to use our own reasoning to come to conclusions. Humans create laws and regulations in their governments based on what works, it is a process that has evolved over thousands of years... Nobody is being told by god what is the best thing we should do. If God exists purely to be worshiped and send all non-worshipers to hell, then what a miserable existence we have considering no two people can agree on what god wants. Get Ayatollah Khamenei together with Ayatollah Sistani and you will not have two 100% agreement on what God wants. This nitpicking and confusion exists because god either does not exist or has not made it clear what he wants, until then the logical deduction is that this is a mess no rational human wants to get involved in. Either they would be forcing themselves to believe in something which most likely doesn't exist, or they would be assuming to follow what may or may not be what that god wants anyways. Walking around the Ka'aba throwing rocks at Satan has no basis in science or the logical deductions of a rational human being. I could be wrong of course, but this is logical deduction. God did not make it clear to me. And one should not have to make excuses for an all powerful, all knowing god... such a god would have been more than competent to place his own strong arguments for himself in his works, but there are no such arguments, rather philosophers and scholars of religion have tried their entire lives to invent new arguments for god... humans are working on god's behalf... There is no successor, no imam... why not just say in the Qur'an that Ali is the Imam and after him 11 more? That is one sentence, no problem just include it and you save millions of lives from being lost due to violence over this argument. I could go on for a very long time about example after example, and surely you could refute them all based on your stance and stern belief. But the fact of the matter is that these are all real problems, without real solutions, or else they would not be real problems for century after century. One would logically deduce that an omniscient being would have a better system in place, would not have to rely on hadith or scholars or abrogations... Would get it all right the first time, with Judaism... If Allah can protect the Qur'an then surely he could've protected it for the Jews, after all, Allah is all powerful. Some Muslims even believe in Tahreef and then the Qur'an that is supposed to be a miracle is not even the true Qur'an anyways... so that even further complicates matters. The list of roadblocks and logical fallacies is virtually endless, enough to step back and say whoa wait this can't be right, God are you serious? Well if you want to send me to hell for not wasting my time 80 years researching and not reaching a conclusion, rather than 80 years contributing to society and family and enjoying life peacefully....
  4. I will look for it... To respond to your bullet points... I consider it appropriate to respond that what we perceive as "organized" and "chaotic" is not evidence for a creator, it is evidence for what it is. It sounds like the standard "watchmaker" argument for God's existence, which is that The Universe is orderly and complex, watches are orderly and complex, the Universe is like a watch, watches have a creator, the Universe must have a creator... But this argument has obviously been mentioned for a very long time and atheists have not yielded to it due to it having logical flaws... once again, logic and evidence based beliefs are the structure of the atheist worldview... not creative analogies or wishful thinking, not books with claims to deity, etc... A shadow is evidence of the absence of light. Ice is evidence of the absence of heat Flu is evidence of the presence of a virus. Intellect is evidence of the presence of life. None of these aforementioned evidences are evidence for God... Evidence for God would be miracles, something against the laws of nature happening, being spoken to by God and told the winning lottery numbers accurately every day for a year... things like that happening would be evidences for God... Or finding an alternate Universe where we can see angels running around trying to hide from our telescopes... something obviously "Godly" in nature.... There is nothing in the observable Universe currently that alludes to the existence of God... A man flips a pancake and the face of Jesus appears on the pancake... that is a coincidence or a hoax, not a miracle from God...... Or do you want to be a Christian now? These are not evidences for God's existence. Planets, species, everything you see today, is full of flaws, the ones that persist for any period of time is due to their being in the right place at the right time. Our Earth just so happens to be in a position that life exists on it. Billions of other planets that we observe without life just so happen to not be in such a position. Creatures which evolved over time persisted due to evolutionary advantages they had over other creatures. Just as humans today fight for money and food, the poor and desolate simply die and their offspring die... The humans with the better circumstances can continue producing offspring and dominate the globe. I don't see any evidence for the existence of god when a baby is born with a faulty heart, or terminal illness of any kind, or down syndrome, etc... That is the work of genetics failing because life is not flawless and organized. When an entire galaxy is consumed by a black star, that is chaotic and destructive, the Universe has many great beautiful qualities, but plenty of horrible destructive ones as well. Whether the universe existed for eternity, or keeps popping in and out of existence like breathing, inhaling and exhaling... I do not know. Maybe there are multiple universes, another theory. We do not know for certain the exact origins or destination of our universe, but there are many theories which are scientifically deduced. However, to fill these questions with "God did it" is not suitable, not scientifically accurate, not evidence based, and not going to answer these questions... It is a stagnate approach... With that said, if God really did do it, then science may yet discover God's existence. And even if they do discover God's existence, there has not been any evidence that God is a personal God who cares about humans or answers prayers or causes homosexuals to turn into pigs, or causes hurricanes to destroy Asian cities... This is a cold, dark, massive universe we live in... It is indeed spectacular, glorious, full of questions...
  5. SaintlyJinn23, well said. 1) But is there evidence for the Islamic God, Allah, and the Qur'an being divinely inspired? 2) You are obviously of the peaceful section of Islam, the Sufi side, mysticism and good nature, liberal thought, all is one sort of philosophy in a deeper sense. But the majority of Muslims and scholars have derived insidious conclusions which have led to terrible crimes against humanity even today. For all of the light and love and glory that you mention of God, there are episodes in the Qur'an where it is claimed that God turned people into apes and pigs, cursed various tribes, caused pain and death, and sends to hellfire the majority of humans for not believing in him. 3) Obviously one cannot currently prove the existence of werewolves, vampires, unicorns, the flying spaghetti Monster, nor God through the Scientific Method. Although one could prove them through whimsical thinking and dreams, "signs", and other mystical means which are of course beyond the fringes of science. But then that opens the door for any and all beliefs, not just Islam, therefore one could not accurately filter which of these pseudo-proven theories are true and which are not using this method because it has loopholes. I digress. I'm simply of the opinion that "faith" and "Imaan" are two different things, but that "Faith" is required to believe in Islam just as it is to believe in any religion which is not evidence based (ie "There is a moon rotating around our planet", this statement is evidence based, whereas "There is a god who wants women to cover everything except their face and hands", which is not evidence based)
  6. syeda24, (salam) Just be careful whatever you decide. I hope you two love each other and can make it work out, but know that Pakistan is very dangerous and people are intolerant of different views. I would hate to see either of you hurt or stoned to death, beheaded, or something ridiculous all because you're Shi'a or he is Sunni. Religion is very damaging to people and society, it has caused so much hatred, intolerance, rape, torture, war, and stunted the growth of nations and culture. Please don't let go of your education under any circumstance... I think it is very hard for females to get educated in Pakistan especially once they're married. You seem very nice and intelligent, you are very lucky to be in America... I don't know how to help you but I just hope you are safe and whatever is best happens.
  7. Scientists who propose those sorts of theories are working meticulously to prove them using the scientific method, because it is the best method we have. Until they're proven to be factual, they are not accepted as such. No the Qur'an cannot be used scientifically to prove something is true which cannot be observed to be true using the scientific method. No, it's a fair analogy because it proves a point in this discussion regarding the definition of belief and the suspension of belief based on the lack of evidence for said belief. You do not have "faith" that there are no vampires or unicorns... you simply suspend the belief that these creatures exist because there is no evidence to suggest their existence. That is not dishonest nor is it faith, that is simply accepting the reality as you perceive it through logical deduction, on a mass consensus at that. Which is precisely the same conclusion that the agnostic atheist arrives at when they state that they have suspended their belief in the existence of a deity due to the lack of evidence to support the claims of religions to having been born of said deity. It is quite logical, fair, and honest of them to seat such a position. If we remove this from the realms of logic then why are you not a Christian or a Hindu? They also have books and prophets and their own pseudo-sciences to support them. The answer is because you used your logic and research to conclude that Islam was the Theistic religion which made the most sense to you. Similarly, atheists conclude through logic and research that none of the theistic religions make much sense to them. The difference between an Atheist and a Muslim is that while the Muslim disbelieves in 1999 religions, the Atheist disbelieves in 2000. I hope that makes sense.
  8. Well think about it like this. If Muhammad said "I leave behind Qur'an and Ahl ul Bayt" And the people ignore the Qur'an and kill the Ahl ul Bayt.... 1400 years later you ask me where the Ahl ul Bayt are? They were killed. Whatever guidance they had for us to keep us on the straight path was mostly lost. Shia's, also I think all Muslims, believe that the Mahdi will bring the true religion... Right now there are many sects and division and confusion, no one is practicing the way Muhammad practiced, according to numerous traditions anyways. Like I said before, I'm not fighting or defending any particular belief, I'm just here for facts and historical evidences.
  9. Then why do we need prophets? Abu Bakr had anyone killed who refused to give Bayat (pledge allegiance) to him... They even stormed Ali's house, in which Fatima sustained injuries that shortly after killed her. She cursed Abu Bakr and Omar for this even unto her death. They lit the match that burned down the ummah. Nahj al Balagah is thought to be fabricated, it's nice stories at best. Irrelevant though. Do you know Harun and Musa?
  10. And, for the record, I do not argue whether any sect is right or wrong... I am just pointing out facts that electing a successor is not to be found in Islam. What conclusion you arrive from accepting this fact is your own journey bro. What Abu Bakr did was not in the teachings of Islam, that is the bottom line. He usurped something that did not belong to him which resulted in civil war for the next 1400 years. This lecture will hopefully shed light on your question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNf_SUwn-UA
  11. Assuming the Sunni perspective, there is none, just elect a leader to fix the problem. Assuming the Shi'a perspective, Sabr (patience), which is talked about a lot in the Qur'an. Theoretically, they're both equally worthless assuming the hidden leader is not actually influencing the world. Conversely, if the hidden leader is influencing the world then it is better than no leader at all. Also, there is the hypothetical scenario that Abu Bakr never was elected, an alternate history... If Ali were to take over from the beginning, perhaps we would not be in the same world we are right now, things would be different, better.
  12. I'm not debating Shi'ism. I'm just saying that in Islam there is no evidence to elect a successor. Therefore what Abu Bakr did was un-Islamic. What topics we discuss after that is another matter.
  13. "I can't marry you because I believe in a different record of history and creation of the world theory that may or may not be true than your record of history and creation of the world theory which may or may not be true." That is sad.
  14. Do you believe in any of the following examples of mythical creatures? Unicorns Dragons Orcs Elves Faeries Griffons Ogres Werewolves Vampires If you do believe in any of them, do you have any evidence? If you don't believe in any of them, then you are in agreement with me regarding the suspension of belief due to the lack of evidence, where the burden of proof is on the claimant and not the one suspending belief in the claim.
  15. Sunni Islam proposes that Allah and Muhammad left the Ummah without any guidance or successor after his death. They believe they must take matters into their own hands and decide on leadership. Look at where that got them! Civil war, fitnah, only FOUR "Rightly Guided Caliphs" all of whom were alive at the time Muhammad died, so it's not even like a proper dynasty... So your Ijma and consensus worked really well for Islam, that's why all of the Caliphs after Ali were a bunch of corrupt lying pagans. So Ijma works so well that all of the Muslim countries are torn with strife and civil unrest, confusion, fitnah, various sects... Abu Bakr did a great job! Would you elect him and do all of this all over again? Or maybe, JUST MAYBE, if the 'Ulul Amr, Ali ibn abu Talib were to take over and Abu Bakr just sit aside and not mess things up like a bull in a china shop, JUST MAYBE things would be different and people wouldn't make cartoons making fun of Muhammad, and terrorists wouldn't kill school children in the name of Islam? MAYBE. But definitely if we elect Abu Bakr all over again then all of this will just repeat itself. So you're defending one of the greatest trainwrecks in the history of the world...
  16. No, Ijma does not exist in the Qur'an, there is not one reference in the Qur'an that tells us to elect a successor or to change Shariah or to alter Usool. Even if 100% of the Ummah got together in Ijma and say "We will only do Salat once per year" that is unIslamic. If 100% of the Ummah got together and say "Abu BAkr is successor" that is Ijma and unIslamic. Ijma, in this sense of course, does not exist in Islam. I'm not saying that humans cannot get together to talk, obviously there is no magical barrier preventing Abu Bakr from talking privately with Omar, but the validity of their Ijma in this scenario is un-Islamic. It is the same as if I say there is no evidence for the validity of Shirk in Islam... and you say but shirk is mentioned in the Qur'an... It doesn't matter if it is mentioned, the context has nothing to do with the statement regarding the validity of Shirk in Islam. Just because Shirk is mentioned in Islam, does not mean that Islam allows polytheism or shirk of any kind. Similarly, the context of Ijma in our discussion has been the successorship, and there is no evidence that Ijma is allowed or Islamic in any way with this. You can do Ijma and decide whether you want to have steak or fish for dinner, that is fine, that has nothing to do with Islam. But you cannot do Ijma to decide on salat, successor, Qiblah, prophets, or anything of the sort. If you say that you can, then the burden of proof is on you. That is why I asked you to show me where the Qur'an allows the Ummah to do Ijma to alter Islam.
  17. Well it is an analogy, but it is not rational. "God exists" 1) There is no evidence to prove that God exists a) Theist believes that God exists based on faith b) Atheist accept that God does not exist based on lack of evidence Theist is hoping/wishing/desiring/blindly believing without evidence Atheist is accepting reality, which currently does not conclude the existence of God. I hope you can see the difference now... If an Atheist says "There is a flying spaghetti monster" Do you have faith that the flying spaghetti monster is not real or do you deny the existence of the flying spaghetti monster based on lack of evidence? In reality, any sane and logical individual would conclude that the FSM does not exist based on lack of evidence to support such ludicrous claim. Faith/belief has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter about East/West or which religion is in question. Islam posits that there is a God (Allah) who sent prophets and books to guide humanity. There is no evidence to support these claims, therefore it is a faith-based religion.
  18. So you think that Allah and Muhammad were forgetful to appoint a successor, or to tell us to appoint successors in the Qur'an?
  19. Okay, but that is an incorrect analogy. "God exists" Which god exists? "Allah, the God of the Qur'an" Where is your evidence? I would like to believe, but I need to have an evidence based reason to. "Well look at the universe, it is complex, there must be a creator." That is not evidence, there are other possibilities. Even if it were evidence that there is a deity, it is not evidence that Allah of Islam is the deity instead of other proposed deities. "Yes because the Qur'an says..." But the Bible says, and the Vedas say... There are plenty of books claiming to be from God, I could write one right now and claim it is from God, that doesn't make it true. Where is the evidence? The atheist is not "believing" or "wishing" that Allah doesn't exist, the atheist is existing and accepting his existence in the reality which lacks evidence for the existence of Allah. If you are in a pool full of water, you are not "believing" that you're surrounded by water, but the evidence is there to give you a logically deduced reason to accept that you are in a pool of water. If you tell me that there is a shark in the water, I am not having faith that there is not a shark in the water, I will observe, perhaps flee the water first, but look for evidence to support your claims. When I notice that there is no shark in the water, I am not wishing or believing that there is no shark in the water, I am accepting the reality of my observations. For the one who believes that there is a shark in the water, refusing to enter the pool, even though everyone else is swimming in it unharmed, that is their belief, in this case that person who believes something without evidence is having faith and wishing that there is a shark in the water. The two are completely different conclusions, one is based on evidence whereas the other is not.
  20. Well okay there is a lot to address in what you said. No one is altering reality when they "change" the definition or use a different definition of a word. Reality remains. No matter what humans say or do, the reality of the Universe is unchanged. Thus, it is only our perception of reality which changes. You believe in jinn, as a Muslim, but there is no scientific evidence for Jinn's existence. That is faith. You believe in historical events inclusive of miracles for which there is no evidence for, that is also faith. Why is it faith? Because you do not have evidence to support the claims or beliefs. Call it whatever you want, the definition remains the same. You X that Y without evidence. It is as simple as that. That is not to say that you are wrong, just that in light of the evidence you are not correct. If you bring a man to trial and say "We found this gun at the crime scene, this woman had a bullet hole in her head, blood was everywhere, his fingerprints were all over the gun and the crime scene, and an eye witness described watching him shoot the woman and leave the crime scene!" Then that sounds very compelling! Until the judge says, "Bring forth your evidence and witnesses" And then you say "Well we don't have a gun." The judge responds "Okay well how about the photos and fingerprints?" "No we don't have any of that." How about the eye witness? "No we don't have the eye witness" Then the judge will dismiss this case, not because of prejudice or religious fervor, but because of rational, observable, evidence based deduction. Anyone who disagrees would be either insane or in possession of evidence they're withholding from the court, which is a crime. So clearly from this example you can see that this is not a matter of definition, but observable facts, evidence, truth, sincerity, logic, rationality... I can claim that there is an angel visiting me telling me to kill little children, but if I cannot prove that there is such an angel in existence telling me these things, then I will rightly be locked away in an insane asylum. If you think it is fair and just for me to kill based on my faith then do not let me be sent to the insane asylum, and hopefully your family will not be victim to my belief system based without evidence. But that is absurd, no one would allow such a man to run around killing senselessly like that, why? Because of evidence based rationality... As for feeling like "idiots", I doubt the majority of the scientific community want to make religious people feel like idiots, rather they want them to use evidence based logic and rationale to form their worldviews as opposed to wishful thinking or lack of evidence based conclusions.
  21. Well it is a sunnah to give him your daughter to prevent him from performing sodomy. Right?
  22. Okay I don't see where in Chapter 42 it says that some people can get together and vote on Islamic rulings and decide how to change Islam. Bottom line is that there is no evidence in Islam for what Abu Bakr and his followers did. Don't you think if Allah were all knowing and in control and wanted Abu Bakr to be the leader that he would've said so at Ghadeer Khum or any other multiple occasions? But Abu Bakr was not even allowed to marry Fatima, everyone wanted to marry Fatima but why not let Abu Bakr marry her if Abu Bakr is the best man? Oh wait it must be because Abu Bakr isn't good enough for Fatima, and he isn't good enough to lead the muslims, and he isn't knowledgeable enough. He must have lacked qualifications which is why he had a fight with Ali and other groups of people who disagreed with him having a secret election. Jesus didn't have an election... There is no election for prophets, no body gets up and elects the next prophet... So what you're telling me is that either Muhammad or Allah are forgetful and didn't realize they forgot to choose a successor... Or that Muhammad or Allah are forgetful and forgot to tell us to elect our own successor. In any case, proposing that Ijma is the method of choosing a successor is un-Islamic and insulting to an omniscient being.
  23. Just the Truth, I accept that ijma is not a part of Islam, I don't follow Khamenei or ayatollahs. Do you accept that Ijma is not part of Islam?
  24. There is currently no evidence for the existence of God. One who accepts in an evidence-based worldview cannot conclude that God exists, due to lack of evidence for such a claim. If you're using the term belief as accepting something without evidence, then I disagree. If you're using the term belief as a "rational conclusion" then I agree. Fantasy, belief, faith, fiction, these are all concepts without evidence for their actual existence in the Universe as we know it. If there is evidence then accepting that evidence as part of your worldview does not mean you have blind faith or belief in something without evidence, rather you are accepting a logical deduction based on evidence and tested hypothesis. An agnostic atheist simply has no evidence to conclude that God exists, because of lack of evidence. If you tell me that there is a yellow creature shaped like a triangle with two laser beam guns in each of its gelatin like hands descending from the skies, then I would look at the sky and not see anything, and tell you that I don't see it.. you insist that it is there, so scientists look for it and cannot find it, nobody can find any evidence of this yellow creature's existence... Therefore we conclude that this creature does not exist, based on the lack of evidence for its existence. No matter how many times you repeat its name or write it in a book, it doesn't make it any more true. Everyone who accepts the lack of evidence as evidence for its non-existence is not "believing" it doesn't exist, they're accepting the facts, and that is what an agnostic atheist is. The "belief" is with the person claiming this creature exists without evidence, choosing to not "believe" is not being a faithful follower of the non-existent-yellow-creature sect, it is simply being an honest agnostic atheist who builds their worldview on observable, evidence based reasoning. I hope this clarifies.
  25. No. If someone says "There is no God" they are a Gnostic Atheist... "There is no evidence but there is no God" implies that there is evidence that there is a God, but there is no evidence that there is a God.
  • Create New...