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

Study - Atheists Are Smarter


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

 

 

Faith is no longer faith if there is real observable evidence for it, then it becomes fact, and belief in facts is called accepting reality, which is not akin to faith which is hoping or believing in an alternate reality than the one we observe.

What about sum of factual (and logical too) evidence that the conclusion of the sum factual evidence is faith (belief)? Also i really understand your whole point here and you are right about the empirical evidence of God existence. It is impossible because God is not subject of Empirical Evidence  (limited definitions that seek only particular answer of universe)  like his creations is.   

Edited by Dhulfikar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

What about sum of factual (and logical too) evidence that the conclusion of the sum factual evidence is faith (belief)? Also i really understand your whole point here and you are right about the empirical evidence of God existence. It is impossible because God is not subject of Empirical Evidence  (limited definitions that seek only particular answer of nature)  like his creations is.   

 

Well my point is simply that in order to be a "Theist" one must have faith, due to a lack of evidence, hence the existence of atheists who do not accept propositions based on faith or lack of evidence.

 

I'm unaware of any sum of factual evidence which concludes faith in any religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

I'm unaware of any sum of factual evidence which concludes faith in any religion.

 

It is called an belief that have very factual evidence to support it. But it does not necessary make it an fact (Rather it is an Inductive reasoning), only a belief that have strong logical or factual based support.

 

 

Well my point is simply that in order to be a "Theist" one must have faith, due to a lack of evidence, hence the existence of atheists who do not accept propositions based on faith or lack of evidence.

 

For Atheist too must have of faith for God non-existence.

Edited by Dhulfikar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

In the most developped country, where education is of high quality, religion decreases with education.

Religion is more powerful in poor countries.

Why?

 

When people don't have what they want in this life, they hope for compensation in the next life.

 

But that isn't a case against religion of course, it is just the statistical analysis of the masses.

It is called an belief that have very factual evidence to support it. But it does not necessary make it an fact (Rather it is an Inductive reasoning), only a belief that have strong logical or factual based support.

 

For Atheist too must have of faith for God non-existence.

 

Sorry bro I couldn't understand your first sentence's point.

 

But I disagree that atheists have faith for God's non-existence.

 

They are not saying "We believe that God does not exist"

 

They say "We believe that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude the existence of the God that you propose exists."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

In the most developped country, where education is of high quality, religion decreases with education.

Religion is more powerful in poor countries.

Why?

 

Society doubts the absolute concept in this current era. Perhaps this era hasn't reached poor countries yet, due to the cultural standstill that occurs because of conflicts.

 

Another theory would be that people who have nothing left in material means still have God and their religion, as opposed to the extremely wealthy people who think they no longer need God because of their wealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

When people don't have what they want in this life, they hope for compensation in the next life.

 

But that isn't a case against religion of course, it is just the statistical analysis of the masses.

 

Sorry bro I couldn't understand your first sentence's point.

 

But I disagree that atheists have faith for God's non-existence.

 

They are not saying "We believe that God does not exist"

 

They say "We believe that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude the existence of the God that you propose exists."

What i mean in my first sentence is that we can have strong belief (not fact) that is supported trough Logic, Science etc, it does not matter is it belief from Religion or from Science (like theories).

 

 

 

They say "We believe that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude the existence of the God that you propose exists."

Atheist goes so far to conclude that God "Does not" exist. proof like lack of Empirical evidence is not an proof for God non-existence. Saying i don't believe in God means i have an belief that such a object like God does not exist. 

Edited by Dhulfikar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

What i mean in my first sentence is that we can have strong belief (not fact) that is supported trough Logic, Science etc, it does not matter is it belief from Religion or from Science (like theories).

 

No, only agnostic says such a statement. Atheist goes so far to conclude that God "Does not" exist. proof like lack of Empirical evidence is not an proof for God non-existence. Saying i don't believe in God means i have an belief that such a object like God does not exist. 

 

Oh, okay. 

 

Well yes we can have strong beliefs supported by facts, but the belief itself is not fact unless it is in of itself a fact, naturally.

 

Atheist has to do with belief, agnostic has to do with knowledge.

 

They're different.

 

Agnostic is the opposite of Gnostic

Atheist is the opposite of Theist

 

Thus, you can be a:

Gnostic Theist

Gnostic Atheist

Agnostic Theist

Agnostic Atheist

 

Do you see?

 

The typical Atheist, who is educated, is an Agnostic Atheist, they simply say they do not have sufficient evidence to believe in the existence of the proposed god or religion.

 

For Agnostic Atheist see this 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

 

Agnostic Theist ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

 

The people who claim to be Gnostic Atheists are dishonest with science, and they are a typical ignorant teenager who has not studied and is confused.

 

As for "Gnostic Atheists"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_atheism

 

" a few prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins avoid it. In The God Delusion, Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between "very high" and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong atheist" for those who claim to know there is no God. He categorizes himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "strong atheist" on this scale.[6] Within negative atheism, philosopher Anthony Kenny further distinguishes between agnostics, who find the claim "God exists" uncertain, and theological noncognitivists, who consider all talk of gods to be meaningless.[7]"

 

 

So hopefully you can see from this that we cannot just class all non-religious people simply as atheist... or even agnostic... because there are many different branches of beliefs and classifications for non-religious people based on their own personal views.

 

But of course atheism is not a religion, it is just a way of describing one's preference for evidence based worldviews as opposed to faith-based ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

What you call an person who says there does not exist God or Gods?

 

 

 

So hopefully you can see from this that we cannot just class all non-religious people simply as atheist... 

True. Not my point actually. My point is that there exist human beings who believe in non-existence of God. You can give whatever terms you want for such a people.

Why believe? Because they cant give proof for their claims that God does not exist. They believe because of their subjectical  expirence of their life. Like If God exist there shall not be this much Evil, but this much Evil exist, so it must be that God does not exist. This "must be" is just an belief.

Edited by Dhulfikar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

"There is no God" = Gnostic Atheist

 

"There is no evidence that your proposed religion or god exists" = Agnostic Atheist

 

"There is a God" = Gnostic Theist/Deist

 

"There is no evidence but I believe that there is some sort of God" = Agnostic Theist/Deist

 

There are many types of theists, and many types of atheists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I do believe in general atheists are smarter because they are not attached to scriptures/religion - there is no influence, hence their analytic process is independent and unbiased. There are going to be exceptions to the rule.

 

Having a detached mindset from scriptures/religion will definitely give a person a more 'out of the box' thinking capability which results in a diverse/dynamic unbiased independent mental process. Religious folks mostly tend to think within the realm of their scripture/religion - inside the box (ex. "how can I align this with my belief"), hence limit themselves in the mental process.

Edited by Ugly Jinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

"There is no evidence but I believe that there is some sort of God" = Agnostic Theist/Deist

 
"There is no evidence that your proposed religion or god exists" = Agnostic Atheist

Should it not be like

There is no evidence but I believe that there is no sort of God" = Agnostic Atheist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

 

"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.

The meaning of " There is no evidence but I believe that there is no sort of God" is that there is no actual evidence for the claim that God does exist or does not exist, but from my experience of life and my current knowledge and reflection, i come to conclusion that god does not exist. Such a conclusion is subjective, based on personal judgement that God does not exist. Thus it is an belief. Because he hold such a premise or conjecture or claim that is unproven (This is why he says no evidence) as an truth.

 

Anyway, i rest my case here. Sorry if i went off topic.

 

Edited by Dhulfikar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The meaning of " There is no evidence but I believe that there is no sort of God" is that there is no evidence for the claim that God does exist or does not exist, but from my experience of life and my current knowledge and reflection, i come to conclusion that god does not exist. Such a conclusion is subjective, based on personal judgement that God does not exist. Thus it is an belief. Because he hold such a premise or conjecture or claim that is unproven (This is why he says no evidence) as an truth.

 

Anyway, i rest my case here. Sorry if i went off topic.

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

The problem with this thread is that people are discussing the concepts of "faith," "beliefs," and "facts" from the modernist Western standpoint of how these concepts are to be defined.

 

In Islam, "faith" or "imaan" is the act of trust in the certainty that is His Majesty, the Most Merciful, NOT the act of thinking things are true in spite of a lack of evidence, but seeing the evidence and accepting it, even in the face of those who try to cast doubts on that which one knows to be true because they themselves are in denial or trapped in a bubble of ignorance. This is how Islam defines "faith." Modernists have redefined these concepts for us in their ambitions to destroy what's left of religion and replace it with the worship of modern science and humanism by making anyone with an ounce of faith feel like idiots and doubt their own real experiences.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

If you're using the term belief as accepting something without evidence, then I disagree.

I'm trying to make this following distinction;

 

There exist an claim X that which is Scientifically or any different method of proof that such a claim is unproven. The theist comes to the conclusion from the Information or Knowledge of A that claim X is True. Atheist in other hand comes to conclusion from information or knowledge of B that claim X is not true. Notice that Atheist knowledge of B does not necessary try to refute A. 

Both conclusion leads to belief. Because even when the claim is unproved, these two makes an conclusion.

 

 

If you're using the term belief as a "rational conclusion" then I agree.

Yes something like this. But it is not only rational.

 

 

 

The problem with this thread is that people are discussing the concepts of "faith," "beliefs," and "facts" from the modernist Western standpoint of how these concepts are to be defined.

 

In Islam, "faith" or "imaan" is the act of trust in the certainty that is His Majesty, the Most Merciful, NOT the act of thinking things are true in spite of a lack of evidence, but seeing the evidence and accepting it, even in the face of those who try to cast doubts on that which one knows to be true because they are in denial or trapped in a bubble of ignorance. This is how Islam defines "faith." Modernists have redefined these concepts for us in their ambitions to destroy what's left of religion and replace it with the worship of modern science and humanism by making anyone with an ounce of faith feel like idiots.

Totally agreed. 

Edited by Dhulfikar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The problem with this thread is that people are discussing the concepts of "faith," "beliefs," and "facts" from the modernist Western standpoint of how these concepts are to be defined.

 

In Islam, "faith" or "imaan" is the act of trust in the certainty that is His Majesty, the Most Merciful, NOT the act of thinking things are true in spite of a lack of evidence, but seeing the evidence and accepting it, even in the face of those who try to cast doubts on that which one knows to be true because they are in denial or trapped in a bubble of ignorance. This is how Islam defines "faith." Modernists have redefined these concepts for us in their ambitions to destroy what's left of religion and replace it with the worship of modern science and humanism by making anyone with an ounce of faith feel like idiots.

 

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.

Edited by AlayhisSalaam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I'm trying to make this following distinction;

 

There exist an claim X that which is Scientifically or any different method of proof that such a claim is unproven. The theist comes to the conclusion from the Information or Knowledge of A that claim X is True. Atheist in other hand comes to conclusion from information or knowledge of B that claim X is not true. Notice that Atheist knowledge of B does not necessary try to refute A.  

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The problem with this thread is that people are discussing the concepts of "faith," "beliefs," and "facts" from the modernist Western standpoint of how these concepts are to be defined.

 

In Islam, "faith" or "imaan" is the act of trust in the certainty that is His Majesty, the Most Merciful, NOT the act of thinking things are true in spite of a lack of evidence, but seeing the evidence and accepting it, even in the face of those who try to cast doubts on that which one knows to be true because they themselves are in denial or trapped in a bubble of ignorance. This is how Islam defines "faith." Modernists have redefined these concepts for us in their ambitions to destroy what's left of religion and replace it with the worship of modern science and humanism by making anyone with an ounce of faith feel like idiots and doubt their own real experiences.

 

The West is more familiar with Christianity, and in Christianity, faith means believing even against evidence.

Edited by Robin Hood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

It is an rational analogy. Both have knowledge that conclude unproven claim to be X or Y. Thus both have belief. If claim X is proven, then we have evidence for such an claim.

 

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.

The West is more familiar with Christianity, and in Christianity, faith means believing even against evidence.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

 

Atheist accept that God does not exist based on lack of evidence

Lack of Evidence does not give any valid conclusion to Accept that X is true.There is many good example for example in mathematics that even negative of statement can be proved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Lack of Evidence does not give any valid conclusion to Accept that X is true.There is many good example for example in mathematics that even negative of statement can be proved. 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
You believe in jinn, as a Muslim, but there is no scientific evidence for Jinn's existence.  That is faith.

 

How about the other dimensions that is mentioned by scientist, are they proven scientifically?

 

Also just like the first person who theorized the atom existence, naturally he did not see what an atom look like.

 

So if I say that the Jinns are like us but residing in different dimension what would be the reaction?.

Should we prove it first to be acceptable, or can we use the Qur'an as the basis that there are extra dimension in existence?

Edited by iamnobody
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

 

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.

My statement is still valid.

 

 

Do you believe in any of the following examples of mythical creatures?

 

The biggest mistake what atheist can do is compare such an analogy with concept of God that is beyond of creations.

Edited by Dhulfikar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

How about the other dimensions that is mentioned by scientist, are they proven scientifically?

 

Also just like the first person who theorized the atom existence, naturally he did not see what an atom look like.

 

So if I say that the Jinns are like us but residing in different dimension what would be the reaction?.

Should we prove it first to be acceptable, or can we use the Qur'an as the basis that there are extra dimension in existence?

 

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.

 

 

My statement is still valid.

 

The biggest mistake what atheist can do is compare such an analogy with concept of God that is beyond of creations.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

^ ^ ^

 

Even the most radical atheist must at the very least have "faith" in his or her own ability to perceive that which is real and successfully distinguish it from that which is not.

 

 

The Islamic concept of faith as it is embodied in the term "iman," doesn't just refer to belief in the metaphysical realities of the universe, but belief in man's own ability to perceive these realities and in one's own ability to experience reality "beyond the veil," that is faith in one's own ability to perceive the truth, experience the truth, and know the truth. And in Islam, truth is beauty, and God is beauty.

 

 

 

No one is altering reality when they "change" the definition or use a different definition of a word.

 

 

I never said they did. My point was that Islam defines the concept of "faith" in a different manner than how modernism, as the West understands it, attempts to define it for us. In Islam, faith is not belief in things for which there exists no evidence or things for which no evidence can be obtained, rather Islam encourages faith IN the evidence and in one's ability to consciously experience and accept and embrace the evidence.

 

 

 

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.

 

No, I have seen plenty of evidence, which is why I have faith. Just because whatever evidence has convinced me is not enough to convince you doesn't mean evidence does not exist. After all, surely you agree that plenty of people can live in denial of the plain and obvious, or at least what seems to be plain and obvious to you, and prefer their ideas of what reality is or what they wish it to be over what it actually is. Some people's illusions are just harder to break than others is all.

 

 

 

So clearly from this example you can see that this is not a matter of definition, but observable facts, evidence, truth, sincerity, logic, rationality...

 

 

All of which Islam embraces. God, according to Islam, exists because that is the only logical conclusion. God exists as one and there exists only one true god, not because this is one out of a range of possibilities that could be true and it just so happens to be the one that is, but because this is the only possibility that can be true. Even if there existed other universes in which other possibilities we might imagine for this or that were realized or in which other beings have developed and reside, all the universes/dimensions and that which they contain would still have to exist within a single reality. And in Islam, God is that very reality.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 As far as I'm concerned, and as far as my religion is concerned, the Bible and the Vedas are also inspired by the same God who sent the Qu'ran, in spite of whatever contradictions they may have with the Qu'ran or each other.

 

Also, if I sat down and wrote a book, even if I intended it to be seen as fictional, that book is as much inspired by God as I took the time to search within myself and draw wisdom and inspiration from the light of God, of Truth, which dwells within me and as much as I sought to use that book, even as a work of fiction, to reveal what was illuminated by that light. Even if a book is completely meant to be fiction or is meant to be an actual historical document but is rife with what I feel to be inaccuracies due to misinformation, tampering over the years or the imagination of the author, it is as much from God as it preaches the conquering of one's own self and his or her lower instincts, the humbling of one's self before the Divine, the love of Truth and Beauty and the rewarding of the righteous over the evil, which are the fundamental truths and ethics espoused in the Holy Qu'ran.

 

 

 

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.

 

Suspension of belief does not require outright denial. I have not investigated the phenomenon known as lycanthropy enough to say with any certainty that werewolves exist, but simply because I have not seen or investigated any evidence to say that indeed there exists people who can literally change into some kind of feral creature does not mean I say with any certainty that they do not exist, unless I have sufficient evidence to the contrary of the idea of them existing. I do believe such tales must come from somewhere though and even if men do not grow larger fangs and more hair and prowl around on all fours looking for victims to feast on their flesh, human beings do have a strange knack for behaving like ravenous wolves and devouring one another, so perhaps there's more truth to stories like those of werewolves than we'd like to admit.

 

And I definitely believe that the many tales of the ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian pantheon could very well be based on real beings or people that our ancient ancestors loved or feared and thus christened as their gods or demigods because they felt they were worthy of these titles, but I as a Muslim only worship His Majesty because he is the only one who truly deserves the title of "god," and I accept no pretenders, be they men, djinn, or something else I have yet to see or hear of.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Brother alayhisalam I have posted in this topic please find my post. It is faulty to rely on only what one can get from five senses especially since empirical science already has the premise of metaphysical concepts. One very basic argument is

1: if universe created by chance the probability for it being organized would be one in a million or more

2: if by chance then why has chance not repeated

3: the universe shows us that it is organized

4: chance cannot create except chaos organization is sign of a design

therefore there has to be an intellectual designer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...