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

atheism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

why do you find atheism unconvincing? why is the possibly of no God , but rather natural forces creating everything impossible?

Every belief is unconvincing.  Even Atheism can be a belief.  To believe that there is no God is a silly belief.  To believe that there is a God is also a silly belief.  Why believe this instead of th

I see what you mean now, it is a clever and intriguing point.  I feel I owe you an apology, after a trip abroad I had to quarantine for 14 days; it was driving me mad. I have been bad-temper

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Zxqn said:

why do you find atheism unconvincing? why is the possibly of no God , but rather natural forces creating everything impossible?

Every belief is unconvincing.  Even Atheism can be a belief.  To believe that there is no God is a silly belief.  To believe that there is a God is also a silly belief.  Why believe this instead of that or that instead of this?  To believe is to be limited or restricted to what you believe.  A belief is necessarily something that has boundaries, borders, limits and is defined.  So when you believe in something you are confining yourself to that particular kind of limitation.  
 

 

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Zxqn said:

why do you find atheism unconvincing? why is the possibly of no God , but rather natural forces creating everything impossible?

I can't even entertain 0 + 0 = 1. Something can't come from nothing, even more when there wasn't even such a thing as "nothing." 

' ' +  ' ' = 1 is more accurate of their claim. 

Edited by guest 2025
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Every belief is unconvincing.  Even Atheism can be a belief.  To believe that there is no God is a silly belief.  To believe that there is a God is also a silly belief.  Why believe this instead of that or that instead of this?  To believe is to be limited or restricted to what you believe.  A belief is necessarily something that has boundaries, borders, limits and is defined.  So when you believe in something you are confining yourself to that particular kind of limitation.  
 

 

As if you're enlightened by living in ambiguity for the rest of your days... 

At some point you have to reach the Truth, otherwise, what's the point in living?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Atheism is stupid because it assumes that the universe and everything in it was created through random events that just happen to make things all work together within the certain laws, also developed randomly. 

I always find it truly funny that atheists present themselves as smarter than everyone else given this. 

And in any case, very few atheists are naturalists, or even understand the philosophy. They just dislike religion for a variety of reasons, including very legitimate ones like going through religious traumatic experiences. So often you see in debates regarding atheism and theism, the atheists never have actually good arguments to make. They know how stupid their logic is, and after realizing their opponent is aware of that, they immediately go on the attack and just point out all these bad things that happen in the name of religion that somehow disproves the metaphysical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, BleedKnee said:

As if you're enlightened by living in ambiguity for the rest of your days... 

At some point you have to reach the Truth, otherwise, what's the point in living?

 

a) The individual by the name ethereal is not enlightened because no individual or person is enlightened.  

b) Being free of beliefs is really living.  Being free of restriction, just simply BEING (without being this or being that) is to be truly free.  

When you are free of beliefs you are one with the One.
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Every belief is unconvincing.  Even Atheism can be a belief.  To believe that there is no God is a silly belief.  To believe that there is a God is also a silly belief.  Why believe this instead of that or that instead of this?  To believe is to be limited or restricted to what you believe.  A belief is necessarily something that has boundaries, borders, limits and is defined.  So when you believe in something you are confining yourself to that particular kind of limitation.  
 

 

whats the alternative then? to have no knowledge on a matter and live in ignorance?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, guest 2025 said:

I can't even entertain 0 + 0 = 1. Something can't come from nothing, even more when there wasn't even such a thing as "nothing." 

' ' +  ' ' = 1 is more accurate of their claim. 

I dont have a scientific background so I may be wrong, but I dont think that they argue it was 'nothing' exactly in the traditional sense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
17 hours ago, Zxqn said:

why do you find atheism unconvincing? why is the possibly of no God , but rather natural forces creating everything impossible?

Because natural forces are beings in existence that exist and are defined by the Existence itself. Believers call this God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
3 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

Because natural forces are beings in existence that exist and are defined by the Existence itself. Believers call this God.

These beings are dependent on Pure Being for their being. Their being is not inherent to their essence because we can imagine things that do not have being but have an essence (imagine a unicorn in your head).
Consequently, these beings have to depend on Pure Being for their attributes as well, and Pure Being is thus necessarily the perfection of all attributes.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
1 minute ago, 313_Waiter said:

These beings are dependent on Pure Being for their being. Their being is not inherent to their essence because we can imagine things that do not have being but have an essence (imagine a unicorn in your head).
Consequently, these beings have to depend on Pure Being for their attributes as well, and Pure Being is thus necessarily the perfection of all attributes.
 

Pure Being is the Existence itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, BleedKnee said:

Atheism is stupid because it assumes that the universe and everything in it was created through random events that just happen to make things all work together within the certain laws, also developed randomly. 

 

While I agree with this, who is to say things can’t happens spontaneously? Like are galaxies/stars merging right now as we speak far into the universe, how does one prove there is a intelligent cause behind that?

Conversely, the one thing that always me is how on earth could existence spring from non existence? This is the one things that stops me from accepting atheism 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

These beings are dependent on Pure Being for their being. Their being is not inherent to their essence because we can imagine things that do not have being but have an essence (imagine a unicorn in your head).
Consequently, these beings have to depend on Pure Being for their attributes as well, and Pure Being is thus necessarily the perfection of all attributes.
 

How do you prove they are dependent on a “pure being” though?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
7 minutes ago, Zxqn said:

How do you prove they are dependent on a “pure being” though?

Because that which is Being by its very essence is Pure Being. All else is manifestations of this Unique reality because its very essence is not being. The chair that you’re sitting on did not have to exist.

Edited by 313_Waiter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
1 minute ago, 313_Waiter said:

Because that which is Being by its very essence is Pure Being. All else is manifestations of this Unique reality because its very essence is not being. The chair that you’re sitting on did not have to exist.

No, being essence is not same as Pure Being Essence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
6 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

Because that which is Being by its very essence is Pure Being. All else is manifestations of this Unique reality because its very essence is not being. The chair that you’re sitting on did not have to exist.

Sorry, I think I understand what you mean by this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Zxqn said:

whats the alternative then? to have no knowledge on a matter and live in ignorance?

Ignorance is belief.  You only believe in something if you ignore the Truth of Being (if you lack gnosis of Being).  The "alternative" is to just BE as you already are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Zxqn said:

While I agree with this, who is to say things can’t happens spontaneously?

Our existence is both spontaneous and orderly.  You can only witness order if there is disorder and disorder if there is order.  

Quote

Like are galaxies/stars merging right now as we speak far into the universe, how does one prove there is a intelligent cause behind that?

God is not a cause and the Universe is not an effect

LAM YALID (He begets not)

WA LAM YULAD (nor is He begotten).

Quote

Conversely, the one thing that always me is how on earth could existence spring from non existence? This is the one things that stops me from accepting atheism 

Just curious:

If it is conceivable for God to make something out of nothing, why is it inconceivable for something to come out of nothing? 

Indeed, how CAN existence come from non-existence?  Doesn't make sense, I agree.

But how do theists posit the impossible, namely, that God brought in existence from non-existence??

Both of the following don't make sense.

a) existence comes from non-existence. 

b) God brought in existence from non-existence.   

It makes more sense to say following:

c) There is always existence as existence simply is.  Non-existence never has been, never is, and never will be.  

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, eThErEaL said:

LAM YALID (He begets not)

WA LAM YULAD (nor is He begotten).

Im confused im sure youre atheist so why do you quote quran?

1 minute ago, eThErEaL said:

If it is conceivable for God to make something out of nothing, why is it inconceivable for something to come out of nothing?

because applying logic; its inconceivable that non-existence gives rise to existence on its own. You and I were both brought into existence from our parents and so on and so forth. There is always some point which facilities existence. 

If you have a closed off empty room that is practically impossible to get into,  is it logical to say that a baby could simply pop into existence in it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Zxqn said:

Im confused im sure youre atheist so why do you quote quran?

because applying logic; its inconceivable that non-existence gives rise to existence on its own. You and I were both brought into existence from our parents and so on and so forth. There is always some point which facilities existence. 

If you have a closed off empty room that is practically impossible to get into,  is it logical to say that a baby could simply pop into existence in it?

Just curious:

If it is conceivable for God to make something out of nothing, why is it inconceivable for something to come out of nothing? 

Indeed, how CAN existence come from non-existence?  Doesn't make sense, I agree.

But how do theists posit the impossible, namely, that God brought in existence from non-existence??

Both of the following don't make sense.

a) existence comes from non-existence. 

b) God brought in existence from non-existence.   

It makes more sense to say following:

c) There is always existence as existence simply is.  Non-existence never has been, never is, and never will be.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Zxqn said:

Im confused im sure youre atheist so why do you quote quran?

I happen to find Truth in that verse I quoted.

You see, God neither begets nor is He begotten.  God = Ultimate Reality.  Ultimate Reality simply IS and cannot not be.

3 minutes ago, Zxqn said:

because applying logic; its inconceivable that non-existence gives rise to existence on its own. You and I were both brought into existence from our parents and so on and so forth. There is always some point which facilities existence. 

If you have a closed off empty room that is practically impossible to get into,  is it logical to say that a baby could simply pop into existence in it?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, eThErEaL said:

Not sure how you are inferring that.

"there is always existence as existence simply is.  Non-existence never has been, never is, and never will be"  are you trying to say non-existence cant occur?

Edited by Zxqn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, eThErEaL said:

because applying logic; its inconceivable that non-existence gives rise to existence on its own.

Yes.

1 minute ago, eThErEaL said:

You and I were both brought into existence from our parents and so on and so forth.

From the point of view of physics, there is always energy but its manifestation is constantly changing.   

1 minute ago, eThErEaL said:

If you have a closed off empty room that is practically impossible to get into,  is it logical to say that a baby could simply pop into existence in it?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, Zxqn said:

right so then what are the implications of this on humans? and everything i guess?

The reason why I started off saying it is silly to believe there is a God and it is equally silly to believe there is no God is because in both cases the person is in doubt.

A person who has ma'rifa does not doubt, but has yaqeen.  When you use your thinking, you necessarily doubt.  Thinking is a process.  But yaqeen (certitude) is not a process.  It is a direct knowing.  One who has ma'rifa doesn't believe in God, because he knows God.  

Now, you need to ask yourself what is it you have certitude of.  What you have certitude of is that there something real.  There is a fundamental reality.  There is something which is ultimately real.  You experience whatever it is that you are experiencing and there is something real about your experience.  Ask yourself what that is.  

If you can discern what is real about your experience and what is not real about your experience then you will be able to discover your inner certitude of God.

 

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Zxqn said:

I dont have a scientific background so I may be wrong, but I dont think that they argue it was 'nothing' exactly in the traditional sense. 

That just tells us what the next step is, what we want to know is what put that infinite stairway there in the first place. If it's it's not truly nothing, it's something, and if it's something then that brings us back to square one ("Where did that come from?"). The only way to make progress in this discussion is to consider a force that isn't bound by any rules, rather this force made the rules. 

Because of this, the position of the atheist for thousands of years was that the universe was simply always there, that it had no beginning and it will have no end. So they shot themselves in the foot when they decided to adopt the big bang as a proof against religion. Reminds me of how they considered the lack of evidence of a great flood to be proof against religion, and now that the evidence has surfaced, turns out, it's actually a proof that religion is wrong! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
35 minutes ago, guest 2025 said:

So they shot themselves in the foot when they decided to adopt the big bang as a proof against religion.

I don't know where you get your information from, the following is what many atheists think:

The first law of thermodynamics states that matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed.  The Big Bang is an event that happened to existing matter/energy.

It is no more a "beginning" than any arbitrary selected point on any line is a "beginning." It is a point in a line of changes; variations on existing energy and matter.
It is where the universe became as it is now, not the point where energy /matter began.

Therefore a "more 'virtuous' argument is the one that says because matter and energy are eternal, never ceasing to be one or the other, they cannot have a cause, but must always have had 'Being'. In other words, the existence of matter and energy is the 'default' of existence. 'Something' must always have existed, because to say 'nothingness once existed' is a contradiction". 

wslm.

*
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, Quisant said:

I don't know where you get your information from, the following is what many atheists think:

The first law of thermodynamics states that matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed.  The Big Bang is an event that happened to existing matter/energy.

It is no more a "beginning" than any arbitrary selected point on any line is a "beginning." It is a point in a line of changes; variations on existing energy and matter.
It is where the universe became as it is now, not the point where energy /matter began.

Therefore a "more 'virtuous' argument is the one that says because matter and energy are eternal, never ceasing to be one or the other, they cannot have a cause, but must always have had 'Being'. In other words, the existence of matter and energy is the 'default' of existence. 'Something' must always have existed, because to say 'nothingness once existed' is a contradiction". 

wslm.

*
 

 

I don't think what you've said is relevant to what's quoted or my post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
19 hours ago, eThErEaL said:


b) Being free of beliefs is really living.  Being free of restriction, just simply BEING (without being this or being that) is to be truly free.  

When you are free of beliefs you are one with the One.

No you're really not. You're just lost but assume that's intelligence. Hell I used to do that when I had my atheist phase throughout my teens. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Juniper

Atheism is a belief like any other belief. this is because they believe there is no God and claim to have evidence for it. Believers also claim to have evidence there is a God. Many atheists would probably not like to hear this but this claim vs counter claim has been raging for thousands of years, i.e. not something new that everyone must now follow because atheism "follows modern discoveries in science".

Following this you would think agnosticism is the better way to go, and it probably is - it says it's impossible to know or have no belief about whether God exists or not. But then who says that is true? What if God can be known or proof of God's existence can be proven? I personally wouldn't be satisfied with "i don't know therefore i'll be an agnostic and leave it at that".

It is for these reasons that I would say atheism/agnosticism is unconvincing.

Link to post
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...