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

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Atheism'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Religion Forums
    • General Islamic Discussion
    • Shia/Sunni Dialogue
    • Christianity/Judaism Dialogue
    • Atheism/Other Religions
    • Other Shia Sects
    • Jurisprudence/Laws
  • Other Forums
    • Politics/Current Events
    • Social/Family/Personal
    • Science/Health/Economics
    • Education/Careers
    • Off-Topic
    • Poetry and Art
    • Travel/Local Community
    • Guest Forum
  • Language Specific
    • Arabic / العَرَبِية
    • Farsi / فارسی
    • Urdu / اُردُو‎
    • Other languages [French / français, Spanish / español, Chinese / 汉语, Hindi / हिन्दी, etc.. ]
  • Site Support
    • Site Support/Feedback
    • Site FAQs
  • The Hadith Club's Topics
  • Food Club's Topics
  • Sports Club's Topics
  • Reverts to Islam's Topics
  • Travel Club's Topics
  • Mental Health/Psych Club's Topics
  • Arts, Crafts, DIY Club's Topics
  • The Premier League Club's Topics
  • Quit Smoking's Topics

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Facebook


Website URL


Yahoo


Skype


Location


Religion


Mood


Favorite Subjects

Found 48 results

  1. Salam, I hope to find you all in good health. I have tried to find information about the concept of soul/"being alive v/s being dead" in atheism. I have been largely unsuccessful. Background- The following is my perspective and/or what i am aware of- When a 'being' is being born, various molecules are processed in a manner which become relevant cells. The supply of the relevant molecules is provided by the 'mother' or taken directly from nature. The body mass of the 'being' keeps on increasing and at a certain point of time, it becomes an 'entity', separate from the mother, to the extent that, in some cases, if separated prematurely it will continue to survive, with sufficient 'outside' care. During this process, the 'being' is said to have received a 'soul', as per the theists. After the 'being' passes away, the 'brain consciousness'/soul is no more with the body. Scenario Now, it may seem repulsive, but- For example, if someone is strangulated in a manner that the body is not hurt, and only the supply of air is stopped, the person 'dies'. My questions are- Why does the body not gain consciousness when the air supply is restored? Does the brain decide that the body should 'die'? If so, why? My contention is (I may be wrong) that- If a body does not have a 'soul', it is like an intelligent machine. And if it is a machine, then shouldn't the supply of resources should bring the 'dead' body back to 'life'?
  2. I came across this the other day on my Facebook feed. I hadn't the pleasure to actually attend—that evening I had a prior engagement with Miss Fisher and Earl Grey. But it really is an elegant thing. May it stimulate discussion and provoke much thought! I F'ing Freely, by Albert Newton Bell. ^_^
  3. Let's help a few brothers and sisters strengthen their iman. It is quite hard to hold onto religion in our time, especially in the west as all finds explanation through science. All while divine books are explained as part of the evolution of our intelligence/knowledge (God of the gaps). Even the moral lessons and actions are no longer viewed as divine but barbaric or simply ancient. Rather than arguing which religion speaks the truth, let's start with the origin of it- the Almighty. My proof is fitra, though for many this isn't proof enough. Even for myself at times my feelings sway, though thankfully my rope to God never snaps. Some claim it is caused by indoctrination/condition from a young age. However, if so, why do many members of non-religious families turn to religion? Then comes the idea of cultures and our way of thinking. Anyhow, what is yours?
  4. This is one of the oldest theological questions around, but I'm not a fan of any of the solutions I've heard. Assuming there is a God, is an omniscient, omnipotent, and good God consistent with a world where innocent people suffer? Since indisputably innocent people are hurt, get sick, and are killed, (like babies and children), we know that God doesn't stop bad things from happening to good/innocent people. Below are some of the explanations I've heard, but I'd any others that you might have. There are a number of simple ways to explain this: -a) God could be omniscient and good, but be unable to act because he isn't omnipotent. -b) God could be omnipotent and good, but doesn't know all the bad things that happen because he isn't omnipotent. -c) God could be omniscient and omnipotent, but at best just not care what happens to people (because God isn't good). All of these scenarios are incompatible with the theology of abrahamic religions, and the main way I've heard people attempt to resolve this is by justifying/modifying scenario c). For example: -d) Heaven is so amazing it makes up for the suffering good people experience. -e) God cannot intervene because it would interfere with free will. -f) Everything that happens for a reason because it is part of Gods plan, and is better overall. -g) God is by definition good, so everything that happens is good. -h) Without bad things we wouldn't have any reference point for what is good. I have issue with all of these: d) this doesn't explain why there had to be the suffering in the first place, or why it's better to have some suffering. e) It isn't clear why having free will and atrocities is better than no free will and no atrocities f) It is unclear how children dying from cholera makes anything better. g) This implies that bad things are good, which is illogical. h) it isn't clear why we need a reference point for good, and even if why do why the bad has to be so horrific. Anyone have any explanations that are logically sound and fit the world?
  5. Hi. I'm going through a period of skepticism and would like to ask any ex-Muslims on here why they chose to leave Islam. What specifics were the final straw that broke the camel's back? In particular, since this is a Shia forum, I'd be interested in how your view of the following changed once you'd left Islam compared to when you were a Muslim: 1. The sacrifice of Imam Hussain at Karbala along with 72 of his followers. 2. The infallibility of the Prophet and His Miracles and 3. how do you interpret the lives of Sufi saints such as Rumi, Hallaj and Bulleh Shah after leaving Islam? These answers from you I hope will help me to elucidate my own thoughts and questions. (Moderators: perhaps this could go in the Thinkers' Discourse section; secondly, is there a way of changing one's username without making a new account?)
  6. Salam 'Alaykum. Hi, guys. I was wondering if any of you have read Karen Armstrong's "The Case for God". I really admire Ms.Armstrong's work and think this book is a good defense of theism in the traditional sense. However, there are a couple of points I can't seem to agree with her on. For the sake of a productive discussion I'd like to limit this conversation to those who've read the book. She says that the physical world cannot tell us anything about God. While I don't have a problem with this per se, I do think this type of doctrine can become a problem. If this is the case, then how can we conclusively say that the good tings that happen to us in life are actually the product of God's mercy. How can someone cultivate an attitude of gratitude towards their creator if concrete reality can tell us nothing about Him. Problem number two arises when she gets to discussing the divinity of Christ. Throughout her book, she makes it clear that religious doctrines cannot be taken literally for that would be anthropomorphic. Ergo, Christian doctrine cannot be taken literally. She illustrates the teachings of Eastern mystics like Denys and the Cappadocians to show that this has generally been the educated Christian's stance. To paraphrase Ms.Armstrong: The trinity was not a rationale doctrine--that was the whole point behind it. By realizing the futility of reason to apprehend the Divine, we would enter a state of transcendence. But Allah(swt) clearly condemns the Trinity in the Holy Qur'an. Therefore, the logical conclusion that us Muslims must draw from this in relation to Armstrong's explanation is that the Trinity DID NOT lead to transcendence. The Qur'an condemns the Trinity on rational grounds, and yet Armstrong says that an irrational doctrine can lead to transcendence. It is quite clear that Armstrong's case is made very weak by the Qur'anic attack on the Trinity since it implies that reason must be present in the contemplation of any doctrine. What do you think? Are these points problematic for Karen Armstrong's polemic? Is there a way around it?
  7. Here is an interesting, short, and simplified answer that Shaykh Hamid Waqar gives to a question posed by an Atheist university professor who tried to insinuate that the God in Islam is taken from the Jewish concept of God. Allah...Jewish?
  8. Please watch the whole video since his discussion on Mahdi A.S comes a few minutes later. (wasalam)
  9. Why is Islam the best religion? What is our position as humans? Whats the purpose of life? Why do I have problems? Why doesnt my prayers get answered? Why does Imam Hussain's sacrifice matter? Why is karbala so important? Why cant I see God? (wasalam)
  10. (bismillah) Im posting directly from http://www.youtube.com/user/WISELEARN1 Some Lectures are missing but inshAllah, they will add them. Please Please Please! Watch these lectures, they are magnificent, surreal, and eye opening. Parallels In History - A Great Lesson Muharram 2013 Night 1 The Cause of Problems - Muharram 2013 Night 3 Being Aware of Your Power - Muharram 2013 Night 4 (wasalam)
  11. Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm” The biologist and author described the sexual abuse that occurred among his former classmates as "mild touching up" EnlargeRichard Dawkins (Credit: Reuters/Andrew Winning) In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called “mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes “lasting harm.” Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts,” and that to condemn this “mild touching up” as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair. “I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said. Plus, he added, though his other classmates also experienced abuse at the hands of this teacher, “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.” Child welfare experts responded to Dawkins’ remarks with outrage — and concern over their effect on survivors of abuse. As noted by the Religion News Service, Peter Watt, director of child protection at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, called Dawkins’ defense of sexual assault “a terrible slight” to victims of such abuse. “Mr. Dawkins seems to think that because a crime was committed a long time ago we should judge it in a different way,” Watt continued. “But we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the same effects whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday.” http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/
  12. Find More Lectures Here: http://ahlulbayt.tv/ondemand/lectures/Ayatullah+Sayed+Fadhil+Al-Milani/page/2/
  13. A short clip by a revert Shia scholar on how to lead a dialogue with non-Muslims and how to bring them to Islam.
  14. Asalaaamulikum ArRahmatullahi Wabarakatuhu Created a website for debate & general discussion. http://open4discussion.the-talk.net/ This is not a spam or troll related thing. I wanted to create a dialouge website for quite sometime.. and I see many websites and forums... But most turns ugly and users start attacking each other... which I can not stand for.. Relgion is a beautiful.. and it is part of the human society.. I would like to have the Shia Brothers and Sisters to join also.. I am a muslim, sunni by label I guess, but I do know pletty and have high respect for Ahlul-Byht... i DO highly, respect the Exoteric & Esoteric view too, though not everyting is fully except either in my mind and or heart.. Would like to hear the brothers respond.. Saalaamulikum..
  15. Salaam Alaykum Bismillah. Now days it's quite normal for people to ask question regarding the existence of God. I wanted to ask, for example, can you ever base a truth on half of knowledge, the example is, Charles Darwin was never quite sure about his theory of evolution and some perhaps many have pointed his mistakes, if he was never sure, how can he spread a knowledge in which himself has a contradiction? If you know that your brother was hungry, he ate some food, and you started telling people he ate 12 plates,but in which reality he at 2, so how may you spread a wrong 'information' and people believe you, why do people want not to believe in God, what makes them arrogant, I believe if there is a God which he must be (exist) he must be a very justful God ,i.e Adalah (see...Usul-e-Din) but yet some people are blacks, some are different color, why is it so? they never knew they will be born in such way, (A poem I love to reference is [Life bought I came, death took me I go]) poverty,richness,knowledge,etc...I have read the hadith of Imam Ali (a.s) about "The one who has higher taqwa among you, is most beloved to Allah, than let him be of any sect,cast etc..." But the spiritual world is influence by the physical, if your born black, and people hate you, ultimately (it's a human physiological development) you will think Allah hates you,isn't so? Which I know he doesn't but, how does one not let physical influence spiritual, Please guide my ignorance and take a lesson from my knowledge.
  16. Russell's teapot argument and its many variants are oft repeated arguments championed by many athiests who claim that they prove that belief in God is irrational. The teapot argument goes something like this: If someone were to claim that there was a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars, but this teapot was undetectable by any telescope, then we would react with incredulity. There is no evidence for such a teapot, so we would believe that there is no such teapot, and therefore we should believe that there is no God as there is no evidence for God.The point of the argument is to show that lack of evidence for God entitles use to believe that that He doesn't exist. Mark Sharlow in his new paper The End of the Teapot Argument for Atheism (and All its Tawdry Imitators) quite rightly argues that these arguments are 'shockingly weak'. The reason that we react with disbelief is not because we lack evidence for such a teapot (because it's undetecable), but rather because such a teapot is intrinsically improbable. In order for a teapot to be orbiting the Sun between the Earth and Mars, humans would probably have to put it there. But we know that it's very unlikely that humans put a teapot there. The alternative is that the teapot formed by chance which is even more improbable. So belief in such teapot is implausible. Suppose that instead of a teapot, we are told that an oblong rock with 2 craters that is undetectable with telescopes is orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. Would we react with disbelief? No, because such an object isn't intrinsically improbable, eventhough it is undetectable and we have no evidence that such an object exists. The difference between the oblong rock and the teapot is that we have independent reasons to doubt the existence of the latter. So in order for the teapot to be analogous to the existence of God, the athiest would have to present us with independent arguments against the existence of God. Without these arguments, the teapot argument is worthless. Suppose the athiest succeeds in presenting us arguments, the teapot argument would still be evidentially impotent, as any strength whatsoever that it has is solely from these independent arguments. Its the independent arguments that would be doing all of the work, so the teapot argument adds nothing to the atheist's case. Sharlow goes through the variants of the teapot argument: the invisible pink unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster, faires, Santa etc. and shows that they are all likewise intrinsically improbable. He then offers another argument for the improbability of the orbiting teapot et al. based on arbitrariness. The moral is that if you want to argue that something doesn't exist then you need an argument. Appealing to orbiting teapots and invisible unicorns isn't going to help you.
  17. http://godandphilosophy.wordpress.com/ Collects useful papers on the philosophy of religion arguing for the rationality of belief and the existence of God, refuting atheistic arguments and materialism, and exposing the shallowness of many of the anti-God brigade
  18. Salam Brother and sisters, Tohfa Ya Ali Madad, i need some answers, The Questions are: 1: what would you say if, i as a scientist, proved there was a sentient being living on the planet Saturn, and I found a way to communicate with it, and he told me he was the real god, and offered me a wealth of information and data proving such? I then take that data, and show it to the world and give them means to communicate with this being. one god absolutely proven, and its not yours, what would you do? 2: if you think god is unseen, than how has anyone translated what he deems correct human behavior? if humans cannot comprehend a god's presence, how has your 'prophets' done so? doesn't it seem a tad bias to claim "god talks to me, and only I can hear his words." well some atheist guy asked me these questions,, and obv am not a scholar, nor i have enuff knowledge to answer his questions... so i kinda looking for help... Please reply :) thanks
  19. Someone here asked me awhile ago why i don't believe in God and in Islam and i sent them some reasons through the messenger system here. They encouraged me to share them, i didn't because they weren't up to my standard and various other reasons with things like this but i decided to share some of them. They are far from finished though, so excuse any imperfections. Usually in these kind of arguments the burden of proof is on the person to prove something *does* exist if it is not apparently obvious, instead of comming from the default state that it doesn't exist. However, i guess i will do just that. Also note, even if you come up with arguments proving that God exists, it still doesn't negate my arguments that he doesn't. Whereas, if i come up with arguments proving he doesn't exist, it does kind of negate the arguments that he does. To start off with though, i am not very well trained in philosophy. I have only taken a handful of classes. I'd like to mention something rather profound my professor told me though... If you accept the premises of an argument(these are the things that lead to a conclusion) as logical and yet you reject the conclusion or the argument, as a whole, there is something wrong with your reasoning. You need to step back and reexamine your views. Even if one and only one of these arguments still seems logical to you (i have put a lot of thought into them as well, it does seem almost all muslims would accept my premises) then you still have a little reexamining to do. In my case here, every numbered item, except the last is a premise. If you accept each of these individually and yet, reject my conclusion, that is not logical. You must step back and reexamine what you think, with all respect intended of course. If you wish to accept this as a prerequisite for continuing then please, do read on. I have put a decent amount of time into this. As promised in the thread i will outline some of my reasons: Category A: Arguments against God The properties of God are hard to list and vary wildly. Most religions however agree that God is all loving. Reason 1: The problem of evil. If god is loving why would he allow evil to exist? I realise the Islamic view point (as far as I'm aware) is that free will is a greater gift or of greater benefit to humanity than evil. I have formulated my own counter argument however. 1)God is all loving. 2)Evil exists. 3)An all loving God would not allow evil to exist at all or would not allow it to exist without an excusing reason. 4)God allows evil to exist because to allow free will is the greater gift(the excusing reason). 5)An evil doers free will however can negate and cancel out another persons free will. 6)Allowing evil to exist negates free will in a large proportion of the time. 7)There is no great benefit to be derived in allowing evil/free will to exist. 8)Why does a loving God allow evil to exist then? 9)An all loving God does not exist. An example - People often say even if God enacts bad or evil upon us (being robbed, raped, mugged, having our house burn down) it is just a test for us in life, to judge our resolve and faith to determine where we go in the next life. It is also often said God allows evil to exist because to allow free will, rather than deny, is a greater gift. The capacity to do evil comes along with the gift of free will. Example: A little girl is walking on her way to school one day. A convicted murderer and rapist abudcts, horribly rapes and later murders this girl after several days of suffering. It is logically inconsistent to inflict such a thing upon the girl to test her faith and resolve, she is not at an age capable of logical reasoning or her deeds admitting her to heaven or hell. Some people have told me that this poor girl was treated in such a horrible fashion to test her parents, i however, find this extremely disgusting that God would create the little girl and use her as a pawn to simply test the parents. I do not want to believe in such a God and i do not think many others would. God knows all that will happen. God lets us into this earthly life so we might be judged for the next. Why create this little girl, to judge her, with full knowledge she will die before she is able to be judged. Why allow this little girl to suffer, if it is not even capable of judging her. Why bring her into the world in the first place if you know full well this will happen? Onto the free will argument for the existence of evil. People say evil exists because free will exists and free will is a great gift. Indeed it is. However, in almost all cases, the evil people exercise as a result of having the trait of free will, restricts or totally denies others the same right to exercise their free will. This is logically inconsistent. Why would God allow evil as a result of the gift of free will, when evil is used most of the time to deny another's free will. That girl was raped and murdered *against* her free will. God allowed one being to deny her free will. This is not a good enough reason for the existence of evil, when evil in itself, negates free will most of the time. That girl was killed and subsequently, her free will extinguished by the free will of another. This does not make logical or theological sense in the light of an all loving, all powerful God. Reason 2: The natural problem of evil. Ok, even if you manage to accept God allows evil to exist because free will is a great gift, this raises another problem. The natural problem of evil. Evil caused by one human onto another isn't the only kind of bad thing that exists in this world. Evil exists in nature. For example: In Africa there is a young boy who grew up in very very poor and horrible conditions, he is not yet of an age to be judged by God (according to islam). This boy, by nature of living in such horrible conditions, drinks water that is infected with a parasite. There is no other source of water in the village and no one was previously aware this water was infected. He contracts a horrible parasitic worm. This worm slowly bores into the eye of the boy. Causing extreme pain and suffering over the course of many months, followed by blindness and finally the relief of Death. 1)God is all loving and all powerful. (Premise 1) 2)Free will exists. (Premise 2) 3)Evil exists. (Premise 3) 4)Evil exists to allow free will to exist. (Premise 4) 5)A parasitic worm that bores into childrens eye sockets exists. (Premise 5) 6)This worm does not need to exist to allow free will. (Premise 6) 7)It does a bad or evil action. (Premise 7) 8)This action is not a necessary prerequisite to allow the existence of free will or the judgement by God of the child. (Premise 8) 9)Yet, God still allows such a parasite to exist. (Premise 9) 10)God either does not exist or is not all loving or all powerful. (Conclusion 1) As someone who studies biology and will go on to do a PhD i'd just like to point out the entire ecosystem wouldn't collapse if parasites didn't exist in the same way everything would fall apart if we suddenly removed plants. Parasites don't really need to exist. Even if they did (which they don't), an all powerful and loving God would be able to design an ecosystem without these creatures in the first place. All parasites invariably cause suffering to their hosts. Suffering is not a good thing. People may say parasites aren't evil, they are just natural but again, this raises the question, why did God put them here in the first place? He could of designed a world without them. Less animals and humans would of suffered because there were no parasites and yet, parasites still exist. Example 2: Another example not even entirely related to humans is thus - A baby deer wanders in a Forrest, frolicking in all its innocent wonder. Animals are not capable of being judged. Lighting strikes a tree, causing a fire and the burning tree topples over striking the deer. The deer is horribly burnt and suffers in agony for 5 days until death finally relieves it of its pain. God being an all powerful being could have control over lightning if he so wished. There is no good reason for such a thing to happen to an innocent creature who is not capable of being judged. Yet, it still does occur. Why would a good God allow such an innocent animal to suffer such horrendous pain? He could of surely prevented this horrible suffering as an all powerful and all loving being. You might say that only proves God isn't wholly (100%) good. I for one do not wish to believe that God is not wholly good or in other words, God is at least partially evil. You may believe such a thing and that is fine, i personally find such a notion abhorrent. So, in this case, we either have a God who does not care or not willing to do anything about the suffering of the deer (who is not 100% loving) OR can't do anything about it (not all powerful) OR doesn't exist/interfere in earthly life *at all* ever (why even believe/worship then). Reason 3: Poor Design As someone trained in human anatomy and biology in general this is of special interest to me. If God was all powerful, surely, he would do the best he could at designing things, the first time around as well. Humans exhibit poor design. Most other animals for example have the ability to synthesize Vitamin C whilst humans lack this trait. Lack of vitamin C causes scurvy and eventual death. There is no good theological reasoning for making humans able to synthesis so many other things (we synthesis the many building blocks needed to make hair and we can synthesise many of the building blocks for proteins crucial to health for instance) and yet, not Vitamin C. Flightless birds still have wings, this is another argument of poor design. Human females go through an external menstural cycle, that is, waste from such a process is released externally. Most other mammals do this internally (called covert menstruation - https://secure.wikim...rt_menstruation ) with relatively few health effects that human females suffer from during menstruation such as headaches or cramps. There are many other examples but i think mine shall suffice. 1)A perfectly powerful God would logically exhibit very Good design. (Premise 1) 2)Things do not exhibit very good design (Premise 2) 3)This raises problems about an all powerful God or such a God does not exist.(Conclusion) Some of our poor design plays into my second argument about natural evil. I mentioned scurvy and Vitamin C, why would an all loving God allow children to die from Vitamin C deficiency when he could of simply allowed our bodies to make it like most other animals? Why make innocent and good people suffer by simply not designing us to produce Vitamin C like most other animals do? Scurvy isn't a nice disease to have, at all, feel free to look up the symptoms and pictures if you wish. Another example of poor design is diseases. Most will say diseases are created by God to inflict upon us to test us. In muhammeds time pretty much any serious bacterial infection would of killed you, if you had any kind of cancer, you would or most likely died. The plague killed so many people. You know what would happen today if you got the plague? You would be prescribed some antibiotics and you would most likely live. Not the death sentence it used to be. So, why bother creating diseases to "test" us when we can cure such diseases anyway? Does that mean i should never take any medicine so i should be fully tested by a disease? If i do take medicine aren't i giving up on my test? I believe there will be a day where we can find proper pharmacological targets for any disease and cure them. There will be a day where most people will no longer suffer from disease. Why bother inflicting such horrible things on early humans only to have humanity now start to cure them? Why bother creating disease we will cure one day anyway? Reason 4: Contradictory Free Will God gave me free will and God is all knowing. Could i use my free will to deny God's plan, it would make me in effect, in one way, almost have power over God. Let me elaborate. IT is said that only God knows when jugement will happen and this date is set. There will be all the signs, the madhi will come, ect... all at certain set times. What if i were to construct a 5,000 very large nuclear warheads, mad scientist style. I would then take them into space and then launch them at earth. I would kill all humanity before judgement time, i would kill all humanity before the madhi arrives. I would make a liar out of the holy books. There are two options here, either, God stops me from launching these nuclear warheads but that negates my free will and if you are able to negate free will, it isn't free after all. That suggests that our free will isn't entirely free. The second option is i ended the world and stopped the god given prophecies from ever happening, even though it is clearly written they would. These events would not take place anymore. I know i do not have access to that many nuclear warheads obviously but it still is a logical argument. It is not impossible to suppose with enough initative, money and manpower that i will not be able one day to construct such a thing. You could replace it with anything really, an extremely deadly virus i engineered, ect, anything with the same philosophical nature. Category B: Arguments against Islamic conceptions Reason 1: Heaven and Hell 1)God is all loving, all fair and all just (according to Quran) [Premise 1] 2)Heaven and Hell exist according to the Quran. [Premise 2] 3)Good people would logically go to heaven and Bad people would logically go to hell. 4)A loving God would not punish someone who has done good deeds. 5)Either: A)God denied unbelievers entry into heaven but allows the believers only. This is not 100% just and not 100% loving. So, God is partially unjust and partially unloving/ partially not good, so, partially evil. B )God allows all into heaven eventually. What is the point of following Islam and not every other religion or no religion? 6)Both can not be simultaneously true. 7)Either God is unjust or unloving or there is no point in following Islam. [Conclusion] Reason 2: Heaven and Hell - Shirk 1)God(Allah) is all loving and all powerful.(Premise 1) 2)Shirk is the one sin that God can not or will not forgive ever, according to the quran.(Premise 2) 3)If God does not forgive shirk he is not all loving. (Premise 3) 4)If God can not forgive shirk he is not all powerful. (Premise 4) 5)Shirk is unforgiveable according to the quran. (Premise 5) 6)Either God is not all loving or not all powerful. (Concluson 1) That is an argument in itself. I present a totally different thing below as well. I am not 100% sure on the Islamic theology regarding this so i am not using it as an argument on its own. I am using it as an additional note to the one above. It no way superceeds or replaces or conflicts with the above. It is thus - If i grow up a Hindu polytheist, doing only Good deeds for my entire life, what is my fate? Surely it is hell for all eternity, because i comitted shirk. Yet, i only did good deeds. Why would God punish a good man, additionally, it was not my fault i was born in india into a hindu family. I had no control over it and yet God did. Why is God punishing me for the very thing he instituted upon me? I realise some say that regardless of where you are, you should still naturally find Islam. I reject this assertion. The same argument could be used for any religion. What if i monothestically worshiped Satan or a pagan God, why is that still not as bad as being a polytheist? This seems grossly unjust and unloving. Why are my good deeds as a polytheist worthless than those of a monotheistic pagan or indeed anyone else. Say i was born into a remote tribe? What of me then? This isnt the crux of my argument though, the above numbered list is. Reason 3: Argument from incompleteness 1)The quran is the complete (Qur'an 6:11-116; 7:52) and perfect document of God 2)The quran is incomplete (EG. Doesn't detail the correct method of prayer, even though you are expected to pray.) 3)The quran is Authored by God 4)God asserts the Quran is complete 5)The Quran is incomplete 6)Either God is a liar, not all powerful or the quran was not authored by God. Reason 4: The contradiction inherent in abrogation. 1)God is omnipotent (all powerful) and all perfect. 2)The quran is the literal document of God. 3)The quran is perfect, since it is designed by a perfect being. 4)The quran states verses may need to be aborogated. 5)This implies the quran wasn't written to the absolute highest, complete and perfect standard in the first place. 6)Either God is imperfect, not all powerful or the Quran is not the literal, innerant document of God. I believe you accept all these assertions as a muslim. If you accept all these assertions and yet reject the conclusion i drew from it there is some kind of problem with your reasoning and you need to step back and think. Same holds for all my other arguments. Category C: Miscellanea These aren't what i consider absolutely good or proper, flawless, arguments. They are some of my favourite though and do raise interesting questions about knowledge (epistemology), i consider them more "fun" arguments than "serious" arguments. Reason 1: Argument from Incosistent Revelations As it says over to the side, i am agnostic. 1)I and many others currently hold no beliefs with regard to religion or lack there of. 2)There must be a true religion or true idea of God out there. 3)There is a huge number of exclusively different belief systems/religions out there(Hinduism, Paganism, Wicca, Buddhism, Taoism, ect). 4)Only one or a particular group of beliefs can be true. The rest can not. 5)All religions just seem as equally as true. There is no reason to suppose hinduism or paganism look any less true or logical to an outsider choosing a religion. They all claim to be true. There is no way to establish conclusively which one is true. 6)The probability of any particular belief system being the truth is exceedinly small and a risky gamble. The probability your religion is false is much higher than the probability that it is true. See the following link for more Info - https://secure.wikim...ent_revelations There are two more miscelanous arguments which i didn't have the time to type up but you can read them here(taken from wiki): 1) "The "historical induction" argument concludes that since most theistic religions throughout history (e.g. ancient Egyptian religion, ancient Greek religion) and their gods ultimately come to be regarded as untrue or incorrect, all theistic religions, including contemporary ones, are therefore most likely untrue/incorrect by induction. It is implied as part of Stephen F. Roberts' popular quotation: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” 2) https://secure.wikim...heist%27s_Wager I have many more arguments, some are better than these but these are easier to present and i lack a lot of time to present them all. I think this provides a reasonable sample of my reasons why though. These last ones were just for fun. Again, remmeber what i said in the opening, if you accept all the premises but reject the conclusion you really need to consider what exactly you do believe. It's alright to have differing interpretations and be liberal if you so wish, its alright to believe in the literal interpretation if you so wish, long as you can find logical reasons for it. If you cant or unwilling...its a bit hard if you want to go against logic but thats up to you. I realise some of these questions might be hard or distressing to think about for some people, this is one of the reasons why i did not wish to post them, so i am sorry if i upset anyone in advance. It was not my intention. I hope you take the time to read them and consider them. I consider the first 2, the ones about evil, to be some of my very best arguments against the existence of God. They seem near bulletproof to me in a philosophical sense. Thanks for your time reading, -kingpomba
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...