Diagoras,

Nice that you are so open about being an atheist. If you are happy then that is fine. I have often met atheists on my travels. Still dont understand tho' that when disaster happens anywhere in the world they are very quick to blame God!!!

Diagoras,

One of the best explanations for the lack of belief [and belief] in God is the crucial element which is: Socio-cultural environment. There are several levels that contribute to a persons "lack of faith"

1) The individual grew up in a non-religious/non-spiritual household

2) The individual lives in a secular and/non-religious environment e.g. neighborhood, school and community are not religious.

3) The individual grows up ignorant of religion thus develops a natural ignorance [or disbelief] in a spiritual reality.

4) The individual experiences a tragedy in one's life therefore holds religions whose gods are based on universal morality, in contempt.

5) The individual is taught not to believe in God(s)

Diagoras I'm sure of the above five, you are one of the several categories I've just listed. I have spoken with many atheist and actually had a recent conversation with one the other day who called himself, "areligious" meaning he has not particular preference in his dislike for religions and their gods. What I was trying to prove was that the basis of faith [or the lack thereof] are subjective truths only relevant to us. The most important thing I'm trying to say is that whether you believe or not depends upon the environment you grew up in where is may or may not foster your belief in a higher power(s).

Atheist like theist act like what they believe is so object that it can be infallible which is not the case. Although I'm a firm believer in God, I'm not ignorant in the fact that I may be wrong. Because I'm only a human being and cannot possibly know beyond my own capacity I therefore can only say that faith is the backbone of my belief in God and I cannot presume to objectively show that God physically exists. Diagoras no Muslim, Jew, Sikh, Hindu or whatever can show you God. Those of us who believe in God hold God to be incorporeal, that is, a non-material entity. "The molecules in your occular lens" will not be able to comprehend God because physical quality is substantially dependent upon other things and God is without dependencies-so to speak. These are all general beliefs Muslims have of God.

The more important thing to remember here is like yourself, we have grounded beliefs but all of our beliefs are the product of our environment. Diagoras that is why you do not believe in God. But because I grew up in a religious environment, the transition from one Abrahamic faith to another was not difficult because the belief in a higher source was always there.

Diagoras,

welcome to the forum. I have a sincere question that I always personally wanted to ask an atheist. Now while you probably been asked this question before, I would love for you to answer it because this question will help lead me to ask you further questions that may allow us to engage in an interesting discussion/ debate.

question: Take a moment and consider the world we live in, the species, planets, even down to the microscopic species, and even atoms which we can't even see! Consider that the examples named have a design which allows them to fuction. Take the atom, while so small, the atom can even be broken down(protrons, nutrons, etc)!

Wouldn't it take a creator to develop this fantastic design of life? Wouldn't it be IMPOSSIBLE for the world and everything in it just 'pop up' with out having a creator? Even if one was to say that one tiny little matter, led to the evolution and creation of other life forms and what we see around us, isn't it still a fact that one source is responsible for that ONE matter that evoluted into everything we see?

Love to here your response 

Sister layalee,

Couldn't you say a super-intelligent alien being [who acquired the ability to create life on other planets] started the cycle of life on Earth?

Diagoras wrote: layalee wrote: Even if one was to say that one tiny little matter, led to the evolution and creation of other life forms and what we see around us, isn't it still a fact that one source is responsible for that ONE matter that evoluted into everything we see? Love to here your response  Hey, thanks for the question Layalee. The answer is if we postulate a source that created that one bit of matter, what created the source? If you insist that this source always existed, why not say that this matter just came into existence so long as we are breaking the laws of reality. Israfil wrote: Diagoras I'm sure of the above five, you are one of the several categories I've just listed. Actually, I'm not. My parents were respectively Quaker and Catholic and took me to church every day (the priest was a great guy too). And my life has been fine. Generalizations are not a good thing. My point, if you go to iidb.com and read people's deconversion stories you'll find that many of them were even fervently religious. Until you have engaged in a randomly-sampled, statistically valid survey and determined that most atheist fall into that category your conclusions are all based on anecdotal evidence. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don't like being told how I think. Israfil wrote: What I was trying to prove was that the basis of faith [or the lack thereof] are subjective truths only relevant to us. I have to disagree. If you are postulating the existence of a super powerful creature which created the Universe, listens to our prayers, intervenes on occasion, and, most importantly, whose followers think that the can make laws based on this supposed God's will and kill each other over it as well, then that is not subjective. Any such God's influence on the natural Universe could be detected and their followers must prove its existence before telling us how to live our lives.

Salaamu Alaykum Diagoras,

Welcome to the forum. 

I have no problem with your atheism as that is between you and Allah, (or not as you wish).  But you're a republican!?!  Aaargh.  LOL. 

Israfil wrote: Sister layalee, Couldn't you say a super-intelligent alien being [who acquired the ability to create life on other planets] started the cycle of life on Earth?

Salaam, Israfil.

Yes, its possible to still say that. But even by doing so, we are still claiming the possibility of a creator.  I do find that Allah(swt) is super-intelligent. But I will never use the word alien. I like the label 'God'. We will never know where Allah( swt) actually reside. So, there is a POSSIBILITY Allah could reside on another planet, and created life on earth. But its difficult for my mind to grasp that idea, because I look at Allah(swt) to be in spirit format. But regardless of location Allah(swt) knows what we all do and whats in our hearts anyway.

Diagoras, you are in bold:

Actually, I'm not. My parents were respectively Quaker and Catholic and took me to church every day (the priest was a great guy too). And my life has been fine.

Ok that is acceptable. However the development of any belief whether supernatural or not is systematic. There had to be external variables that contributed to the development of your non-belief in God. I too have read on Atheistic thinkers who grew up in a highly religious environment and had, eventually fostered their disbelief in God.

Generalizations are not a good thing. My point, if you go to iidb.com and read people's deconversion stories you'll find that many of them were even fervently religious. Until you have engaged in a randomly-sampled, statistically valid survey and determined that most atheist fall into that category your conclusions are all based on anecdotal evidence.

I'm sure I'll find wonderful stories. However, I wouldn't go to that extent to do an Haphazard sampling of individuals who share a non-belief in God to prove my point. The context of my previous remark was to show within the limited confounds of our environment our beliefs are highly influenced. For instance, you may have went to college and studied a natural science and had slowly developed a disbelief in super -natural deities.

I've known friends of mine who act as if their disbeliefs are not influenced at ALL, but all beliefs whether we agree or not are influenced by our environment. It is not to offend you but to prove that your beliefs [as well as mines] are the result of the environment. I'm trying to figure out at which point did you disbelieve in God [or if you believed in God at all]? If you can show that none of your beliefs were the result of your environment, I'll be highly impressed. The only other way something is not environmental is biological and beliefs are not genetically encoded.

I have to disagree. If you are postulating the existence of a super powerful creature which created the Universe, listens to our prayers, intervenes on occasion, and, most importantly, whose followers think that the can make laws based on this supposed God's will and kill each other over it as well, then that is not subjective.

You are mentioning this from the perspective of the follower which in this case you are right. But this mindset is not universally applicable, as you know well that the obvious- all humans do not share the same spiritual belief. Beliefs that are not held universally and only partially are subjective. In my mind of course what Allah states in the Qur'an is universal and humans, OUGHT to believe in it but outside this frame of mind I know that what I believe is not universally held as true because there are religious divisions that believe otherwise. Nothing is outside our influence-except....God [Personal Truth].

Any such God's influence on the natural Universe could be detected and their followers must prove its existence before telling us how to live our lives.

"God exist."

If such a postulation can be made then its obvious I'm bound to prove God exist but this is also equally applicable to the atheist who makes the claim that:

God does not exist.

Unless you comence in dialogue one or the other must prove that their claim is right-this is also useful in a debate. Many atheist's claim God does not exist for the reasons of empiricism but if possibilities exist then one cannot make a solid claim on anything. I've found in my life that we are all products of nature and society. Because I grew up in a highly Christian environment [although rejecting Christianity later in my adulthood] the transition from Christianity to Islam was easier for me because of its [Islam] familiarity. This was the influence my Christian environment had on me at the time. This is obviously a contrast to how you were raised but as I mentioned in my earlier post there are "lurking external variables" that influence which way we go.

"God exist."

If such a postulation can be made then its obvious I'm bound to prove God exist but this is also equally applicable to the atheist who makes the claim that:

God does not exist.

Diagoras wrote: Ah, sorry then. I thought you were trying to cast my atheism as either rebellion against God or simple ignorance. Though individuals may have genetic predilections, I agree that belief is determined based on external inputs, generally arguments. I don't really understand what you are saying about subjective belief, are you saying that there is no such thing as objective reality? Bear with me, I'm slow to understand. "God exist." If such a postulation can be made then its obvious I'm bound to prove God exist but this is also equally applicable to the atheist who makes the claim that: God does not exist. Wow, bolding is a lot easier than quoting. Thanks. I make no claim that God does not exist, just as I make no claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. I just don't consider hypothesis true before evidence has been presented for them. Until I see good evidence for the God Hypothesis I put it in the same category as phrenology, interesting but no evidence. Indeed, both phrenology and the God Hypothesis make rather ridiculous claims.

Phrenology is ridiculous.  Do you really hold that as equal to belief in God?

---

Origins

Phrenology is the science which studies the relationships between a person's character and the morphology of the skull. It is a very ancient object of study. The first philosopher to locate mental faculties in the head was in fact Aristoteles. 
Several typologies have been defined, linking physionomy with character. The study of the face, physiognomony, has been particularly studied by the 18th century Swiss author Lavater. 

Gall and the birth of modern Phrenology

The real scientific Phrenology, which established a direct link between the morphology of the skull and the human character, was discovered by the Austrian physician Franz Josef GALL (1758-1828). Gall put the foundations for an anatomic caracteriology. He was one of the first to consider the brain as the home of all mental activities. 

In the introduction to his main work The Anatomy and Physiology of the Nervous System in General, and of the Brain in Particular, Gall makes the following statement in regard to the principles on which he based his doctrine: 
 

• That moral and intellectual faculties are innate 
• That their exercise or manifestation depends on organisation 
• That the brain is the organ of all the propensities, sentiments and faculties 
• That the brain is composed of many particular organs as there are propensities, sentiments and faculties which differ essentially from each other. 
• That the form of the head or cranium represents the form of the brain, and thus reflects the relative development of the brain organs. 

These statements can be considered as the basic laws on which the science of Phrenology has been built. 
Through careful observation and extensive experimental measurements, Gall was able to link aspects of character, called faculties, to precise brain localisations. 
The most important collaborator of Gall was Johann SPURZHEIM (1776-1832), who successfully disseminated Phrenology in the UK and the USA. 
 

Other important authors on the subject in the last century include the Scottish brothers George COMBE (1788-1858) and Andrew COMBE (1797-1847). George Combe was the author of some of the most popular works on Phrenology and the hygiene of the mind, like The Consitution of Man or http://www.phrenology.org/biblioold.html#combe - Elements of Phrenology .  The picture right shows a daguerrotype of George Combe. (Thanks to Miguel Angel Cuarterolo from Argentina for this image). 
 
 

The American brothers Lorenzo Niles FOWLER (1811-1896) and Orson S. FOWLER (1809-1887) were the leading Phrenologists of their time. Lorenzo spend much of his life in England where he set up the famous Phrenological publishing house of L.N Fowler & Co.  

Victorian Phrenology

In the early 19th century, Phrenology gained a rapidly growing interest. Some scrupless people did however abuse the science for commercial purposes, and the Victorian period saw the emergence of Phrenological parlours which were closer to astrology, chiromancy, and the like, than to real scientific characterology. Unfortunately, those con-men have done a lot to stain the image of Phrenology as a real science, and their bad influence lives up to today. 

Diagoras you said:

I make no claim that God does not exist

If you call yourself an atheist you are making a claim in of itself.

 just as I make no claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. I just don't consider hypothesis true before evidence has been presented for them.

How do you deny something before the claim is stated? Unless you have preconceived notions you cannot deny something before it is stated or unless I may be mistaken here. Also what hypothesis are you referring ? Perhaps I was confused.

Until I see good evidence for the God Hypothesis

It appears that you are coming here asking for proof when nobody has even made a claim to you in dialogue. Any postulation of any kind one must prove themselves. Now you made the indication of comparing the belief in God to that of phrenology. You didn't clarify how those two correlate and I'm surprise Herjihad didn't diassociate the two in detail in her previous post. In dialogue I've made no such claim that "God exist" I've simply responded to your inquiry in this post. You are the one that asked the question in the beginning (See your first post) so you provide evidence that God does not exist. Simply stating "I compare God to that of the Sphegetti monster and Phrenology" is not a good argument. Nor can you come to a website asking for proof when you have not presented none yourself.

If you start a thread with a weak hypothesis [in the form of a question] you must be prepare to defend it and so far the hypothesis is quite weak. I'd like for you to solidify your claim before I indulge myself.

Just to clarify [because I am a philosopher] an agnostic-atheist is a contradiction in terminology. You are either or and not both in between. You say that you are a "weak atheist" I'd like for you in addition to your claim [on why you disbelieve in God] define that clearly.

Lastly, you said:

I don't really understand what you are saying about subjective belief, are you saying that there is no such thing as objective reality?

I'm not saying there is no objective reality. I'm saying no statement claimed by anyone is objective. If I say:

"There is One God"

That is a subjective statement. Any personal claim can be manipulated based on the perception of the one postulating the claim. In addition, claims made personally are not universal, therefore, any claim made is therefore in context subjective in its own right and can be disproven. I am even fishy on associating attributes with God because I hold God for the most part, to be incomprehensible in any fashion but even saying that is also subjective and subject to change over time by me. Let me make it clear that even claims that are subjective does not necessitate them being invalid, it just means that they are not outside the influence of human perception.

Who says spiritual beings don't exist?

Diagoras wrote: I make no claim that God does not exist, just as I make no claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. I just don't consider hypothesis true before evidence has been presented for them. Until I see good evidence for the God Hypothesis I put it in the same category as phrenology, interesting but no evidence. Indeed, both phrenology and the God Hypothesis make rather ridiculous claims.

I have heard several different forms of God Hypothesis, but I think it's truly impossible to develop any hypothesis that will use any  scientific, solid,  or factual method that will explain the concept of God. We as humans do not  have the knowledge of knowing exactly how God came into development and HOW God created us- unless God decides to grant man that power, for what God decides to do has no limit. But if we are not on God level, then one should not expect to ever run into such a solid hypothesis.

Even though we may never have the knowledge of developing a solid hypthosis that can explain the functioning of God and his makeup, their is not a need for a hypothesis to know that THERE IS a God. In my opinion we can see it with our own eyes. I know that I was created, and in basic terms I  know that something can not come from nothing. There was a original creator (creation) and I look at the original creator as someone that should be worshipped, but of course that is a personal choice.

Regardless of the possibilty that the original source is here for infidity, or if the original source had happen to 'pop up' we still can not deny the simple fact that there was an original creator (creation).

Because of the original creator (creation) that has happen, there was the development of the Holy Quran, which I feel is perfect in every way for the guidance it contains, if it was not for the original creator (creation) I could not have had the chance to witness the wisdom from this book.

Diagoras wrote: Yup. Both have no evidence in their favor. Also unicorns, leprechauns, and evil ninja cyborgs from Proxima Centauri B.

Peace,

Upon reflection I consider that your topic is incorrectly posted in the Interfatih section, as you have no faith.  Are you allowed to post in general?  That would be more appropriate.

Also to your topic heading:  Ask an atheist.  Isn't it correct that this implies that you have only presented yourself to be questioned, but have little interest in asking Muslims why we have faith in Allah and why we believe what we do?  For that is the true purpose of this section.  Or for a compartive analysis of faiths, and atheism is not a faith, it is lack of one.

Honestly, it is foolish on many levels to equate belief in the All-Powerful, Loving, Creator to belief in spaghetti monsters.  It's disrespectful, rude, and completely arrogant and unneccessary.

When I look at the beauty and Glory of this world, I see the presence of Allah.  Now, obviously, you don't.  You see a mix of chemicals and weather patterns.  I understand that.  What we call spiritual, you call call superstitious.

Really either you have faith that our Loving Lord created this world or not.  There is not and will not be evidence as you have asked for someone to present to you.  For the evidence is there for those of us who see it, and for those who don't, it is a figment of our imagination.

And frankly, Scarlett, I don't give . .  Allah, The Evolver, opens the hearts of those whom Allah wishes.  Maybe you could just learn what we believe, how we are all different yet we have a common bond of faith.

Peace

Diagoras wrote: Upon reflection I consider that your topic is incorrectly posted in the Interfatih section, as you have no faith.  Are you allowed to post in general?  That would be more appropriate. It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. (Emphasis mine). However, if you feel that this topic belongs in general feel free to move it there. Also to your topic heading:  Ask an atheist.  Isn't it correct that this implies that you have only presented yourself to be questioned, but have little interest in asking Muslims why we have faith in Allah and why we believe what we do?  For that is the true purpose of this section.  Or for a compartive analysis of faiths, and atheism is not a faith, it is lack of one. I believe this section is for non-Muslim/Muslim discussion, and why my lack of faith should prevent my posting I fail to understand. Honestly, it is foolish on many levels to equate belief in the All-Powerful, Loving, Creator to belief in spaghetti monsters.  It's disrespectful, rude, and completely arrogant and unneccessary. It is a common answer to the claim that atheist must prove the non-existence of a deity. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster - Flying Spaghetti Monster , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot - Russel's Teapot . And frankly, Scarlett, I don't give . .  Allah, The Evolver, opens the hearts of those whom Allah wishes.  Maybe you could just learn what we believe, how we are all different yet we have a common bond of faith. I was PMed by a member curious about my atheism and I created a topic for those curious about it. I fail to see the harm in this.

Salaams,

I am not a moderator, so my statement was basically directed towards those who move things.  I move the laundry basket around and that's about it. 

I see the harm, and I see that you don't.  However, here is my opinion, as you have given yours.

FYI, People of Faith find offense in comparing our Exalted Lord to spaghetti monsters, whatever the reference is.  In other words, if others started such a disrespectful practice, you are able to stop it if you choose.

Then we can talk!  Your atheism is your choice, whereas my faith is mine.  Now, let's work on important issues like world warfare, poverty, and the need for us all to advance our behavior to a much higher level in order to protect the precious human dignity that we are imbued with.

And you can learn about all the different kinds of muslims there are in this world.

Peace.

Hi Diagoras,

I guess it is futile to ask for the proof of the existense/non-existense of God. This is simply because both are based upon faith. If I can't provide the proof of existense, the same goes for proving non-esistense. Isn't it? So, I call the aethiests also as the people of faith. There is no science in it. So no aethiests should consider themselves as the sole 'champions' of science. Rather, if I am not wrong, most of the scientists in the present world are not athiest. Kindly correct me if you have any statistics against this claim. Anyhow,beside this numerology, what point I am trying to highlight is about the good/bad points of having one faith better over the other.

For me, the faith in God is much superior concept than the faith in no God, both morally as well as ethically.

 People having faith in God have some moral principles (good or bad is not the issue here though they are debtable within various religions) on which they base their whole life. These are the principles on which societies come in existence and humans are differentiated from the animal kingdom. Without such a concept of God, I have real difficulty in defining what is morally 'right' and what is 'wrong', the very basic building blocks of any society.

In the same way, existence of God enable humans to work selfless service to fellow human beings (for the reward in the hereafter) whereas on the contrary, the non-existence of God doesn't provide impetus for such a service.

Hopefully, this line of reasoning in this discussion shall find greater interest.

Peace.

Diagoras I personally do not care for Wikipedia as it is not a scholarly source. Anyone can create terms and create "scientific" definitions for them but that does not necessitate validity.

An atheist-agnostic acknowledges the possibility of a God's existence, but does not believe in one. Everyone is inherently atheist-agnostic to all claims

This is the result of someone with no knowledge of what they are creating definitions for confused people. Atheist I've come across are athesit for the exact same reasons: things which can be measured, exist, and things that cannot be measured do not exist. there are atheist who acknowledge "possibility" in the sense, but do not believe that such possibilities do not [in essence of argument] postulate the existence of super-natural things. What this means is that it is not logical for God to exist and thus is a fabrication of man's mind. A prime is example is your continuance of using Flying Sphegetti monsters. It is obvious that you hold the belief in God to be logical so you use delusional imagry to describe how something so extravegant cannot exist.

The Muslim argument here is that God is not in the same category as flying sphegetti monsters because God is necessary whereas these images are not [of course this is another argument].

I used phrenology to show that I have the same opinion towards the God Hypothesis (ie. a god exists) that I do towards phrenology, it might be true, but I see no evidence for it.

The only way you know phrenology is not true is because it has been shown to not be true. You did not devise this thought on your own or else you would be in the field of neuropsychology with me. So the fact that you find phrenology to be moot is because you were taught that it has been disporven whereas God has not been disproven. the only reason phrenology has been disproven is because the skull is too solid to show protrusion of an enlarged brain [which Gall believed was an indication of how intelligent one was]. In comparison to the cranimum skiull, the brain is too soft to create indentations in the skull thus, phrenology was disproved.

You probably hold the same view towards many things. I am pretty sure that you would describe yourself as a a-leprechaunist. Sure, leprechauns could exist, but you have seen no evidence for it and thus do not believe in them. Same with me and any postulated deity.

The leprechaun argument is quite ridiculous really. Your interpretation that leprechauns are in the same category as God is ridiculous, you still have the burden of proving why God are in these categories.

I quote from the article, "Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven

I know about negative proof but you are isunderstanding the context of what I was previously saying. YOU are the one that created the thread of "ask an atheist" not "ask an agnostic -atheist" so YOU are the one that initated the claims not us. Therefore, YOU must initiate why you disbelieve. Don't simply say "explain why God exist in A or B" you must provide why you don't believe and allow us to respond in defense. In most forums where organize debate occurs one must not proceed in asking evidence if a thesis of some sort has not been adequately presented. YOU are in Muslim territory and asking us to provide evidence for you is down right ignorance. It would be ignorant of me as a philosopher to initiate a claim on an atheist website without initiating a thesis on why I believe in God. That is like me saying: God exist, prove me wrong.

Those claims are arbitrary because they explain nothing of why we do not believe in them. The leprechaun thing is a nice try but it explains absolutely nothing about disbelieving in God. All your telling me is that you put the two in the same categories which does nothing to defend your claim.

On the subjectivity point, if I go "nothing travels faster than the speed of light" I am making an objective claim, based on observation of the empirical universe and confirmation of that observation

Another foolish statement. That is a scientific claim [very different from an average claim] but of course from empirical study, claims of that sort have been exmained and studied by physicist. But of course no scientist has never said "nothing travels faster than light." That is ridiculous because you are leaving out possibility. There could be some super-intelligent being who has devised a way to travel faster than light. all scientist leave some sort of possibility and some margin of error. All perceptions of some kind even universally agreed are subjective claims. Now, claims that go from subjective to objective are those claims that have been verified systematically and proven universally. But even then, those claims are not universally accepted.

Also, if none can make a subjective claim then morality as we know it is meaningless. All "do not murder" is is a claim.

What did I say in my last post? Just because something is subjective does not make it NOT true. Murder becomes wrong when [in the sociological definition] violates societal law. Murder, if not done in defense, becomes a violation of societal law when it is not done in defense and done for "other reasons."

Diagoras you said in bold:

Please don't stereotype us, we are a diverse group

Agnostic-Atheist is a new concept for me. Personal convictions are one of those concepts where it is written in black and white. Perhaps the burden is on you to identify yourself clearly. If you notice, the title "Ask an Atheist" is quite misleading considering the systematic approach you took to help clarify your personal convictions.

There are also logical attempted disproofs of particular concepts of God, however, the burden of proof argument is not one of them

I disagree. The burden of proof is definitely one of the main themes atheist use to debate theist on the existence of God. The atheist believe that, in order for disbelief to occur, a thing conceptually [whether proved to exist or not] must exist. In other words in order for an atheist to disbelieve in God a concept of some sort is to exist and with this in mind, many atheist believe that since, theist have made postulating claims over the ages and if atheism is the result, then it is up to theist to prove their claims.

Let's drop the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it's not getting us anywhere. Let's use Russel's Teapot.

Ok.

Replace leprechauns with anything. The point is, you are an atheist to leprechauns for the same reason that I am atheist to God. Lack of evidence. Now, if someone captured a leprechaun and showed him to you you might change your mind.

INo you just don't replace leprachauns with anything, you need to explain their [and and leprachauns] association. God to me, is of a different category of being that is why it is hard forme to comprehend your idea on why there is a correlation between leprachauns and God, the Creator.

I was trying to make a point about burden of proof, namely that I do not need to prove the nonexistence of X, X must be proved to be true.

Ok...

In my opening post I specified that I was a weak atheist and defined the term.

For a weak atheist you have made some interesting claims about God...

 I was actually interested in continuing my conversation about life, the Universe, and everything I was having via PM. However, I was sucked into an Internet debate. I'm not asking for evidence, certain individuals wished to discuss the existence of a God with me. I'm the skeptic, asking "prove it."

Ok....

God exists is a positive claim, I don't believe in God is not a negative claim

Your point here was?

Let me state it clearly: I do not believe in God because I fail to observe evidence of its existence. This is the default position towards any given idea. Until an idea possess evidence for it, we don't believe in it.

That is a perfectly valid claim, but that is not an atheistic claim. But it is clear nonetheless.

So does that mean that if a society stated that murder was alright, it would be?

Society does have such laws. If someone murders someone in the context of defense their behavior is permissible in a court of law. Defending oneself is a necessary, and natural trait humans have to survive. We all have the biochemical reactions to certain threatneing situations which your brain interepretates as an event that may bring about one's own extinction. Societal laws basically builds around this biological concept to control behavior. Acts that are excessive and go beyond the norm of defense are seen as immoral whereas acts of defense are seen as justifiable and moral because it is a natural reaction to a threatening situation. Societal laws support this very much.

If someone was going to slice your head off, would you simply allow them to? Or would you fight to maintain your life?

Ok let's get beyond the semantics of things.

What exactly do you want to discuss?

 I was astonished and curious to know as how can a person lead a life without believing in God? That made me to question Diagoras and we thought it to discuss on boards.

Insha-Allah, {If Allah wills}, i shall post my views today. Was tightened with my schedule. But shall try my best to post it, today or tomorrow, Insha-Allah.

Diagoras what you inquire is more political (something I hate to discuss) and because I fear the moderators may censor further subjects not aligned with the current thread what I'll say is brief, but let us stay aligned with the current topic. As far as clash of civilizations I believe its a heirarchal symbol to devalue cultures "other than the West" Muslims comprise not as a civilization of its own, but multi-ethnic groups that have different social and political views of things. The Muslim disgust of the West is not at all universal, but it is overwhelming and the reason this is such is because of skewed political beliefs/actions by world powers.

Personally, I don't care much about subjective politics. A baby can understand and discuss politics. I'd much rather discuss complex topics.

This:

c is the speed of light v is the speed of the object in question

the formula for the meaurable effects of relativity.....Of course this is joke. This formula is beyond the scope of this website.

Tell me systematically why you don't believe in God? Let us start there. What event, situation, thought lead to this? Where were you when you first acknowledge you didn't believe in God? Or didn't know God existed? Of course the latter is a different kind of question of the other two, but you get the point.

Good question.

To give you an honest opinion I'm still trying to figure that out myself. In contrast to yourself, you can say I was raised in a "God conscious" household. My family both immediate and extended, always prayed during thanksgiving and celebrated Christmas (at this time I was Christian) and I simply was immersed in this environment and was simply following what my family followed. This didn't really lead me to God or to be conscious of a higher being. When I first began to become aware of God was when in the eighth grade after falling and breaking my wrist I layed in a hospital bed practically dying from demoral, a painkiller which I became allergic to and almost died. Put it this way, the demoral messed up my cardiovascular system so much from the allergic reaction that my physician said I had the "heart of an 80-year old man."

I didn't take medication to get rid of this condition I simply got better. So, frmo that moment I realized that God perhaps was there with me, at my bedside and was, with my mother, praying for me. since then I have dedicated my life to God. Although the road has been imperfect, I at least owe God that much. Around this time I was still Christian so eventually as I grew older and studied Islam throughout High school and post-high school I became more involved in Islam and eventually converted. I felt, when I was Christian, Christians made God to distant because I had to go through the middle man and Islam offered the option of going directly to the boss. So from here I came to Islam.......

Hi Diiagoras,

I had an eye over this thread. I could not totally understand your posts {Both of yours and Israfil}. Anyways, here is my point of view over the topic  being discussed. My post is very simple perhaps may sound childish, but these are my points----

Life means an activity and activities brings problems. These problems may be Immediate or Ultimate. Immediate problems are practical which every human faces daily. The manner in which they are faced  and the efficiency and practical common sence which is shown in connection with their solutions forms the measure of human success.

As regards the ultimate problems, every human being who takes life seriously finds himself face to face with them as soon as he attains the age of maturity and feels intricacies of life. Many questions do rise in him.
Like "What am i? This simple question opens a whole field of questions which shoot off in a continuos chain and whose links are forged with unbreakable bond of necessity. Consideration of the first question leads to next , "From where have the human beings come?' , "What is the nature of human life?" and then "What is the purpose and end of human life?"

All these questions are so to say personal. But, then. no human being lives in a vaccum. He lives in a world, which is  infinetly   and immeasurably vaster than his physically - infiniteesimal personality, and this world influences his life and his actions at every step. His fortuens, infact his very life is interlinked with and dependant upon the world around him. For instance, if sun were to stop its function , the entire related physical environment would be shattered to pieces. Or, if the heat of sin rises above or falls below average to certain levels , the very existence  of human beings on earth would have been impossible.

As discussed earlier above, that many questions do rise in his mind. Similarly, a question that rises in his mind is "How did the world come into being". If this world came by itself, how is it that conceivable? i.e on what ground?  These questions are ultimate questions. The questions are so vital that every thinking  human being is bound to face  them one time or the other during his life and they have such a close bearing on the immediate questions of life that anyone who has any knowledge of human beings will admit that they cannot be shirked.

But, Diagoras u may admit that these ultimate questions may not after all be as important as they are said to be. Indeed, the modern secular civilisation  is, for all practical purposes ,based on the notion that these ultimate questions have  nothing to do with the immediate practical problems of mankind. In other words, these questions are meant  only for philosophers and no practical person shud waste  his time and energy  on them. But if we go deep into the matter , we are bound to conclude  on the basis of our common sence itself that the ultimate questions are   infinitely more important than  the immediate questions.

Taking up disbelief in the existence of God first: If there is no God and the world came into  being by itself, it means that it came into being by CHANCE. In other words, it is a world of CHANCE in which everything and every event emerges by CHANCE.

If we consider the nature of  "chance" itself, we find that it always indicates an event which has no pre- conceived cause. In any case, it cannot be said to be a planned event. Again , if there is no plan in an event, there can be no purpose , because all purpose activity is planned, whether planning is conscious  {namely based on intellectual appreciation} or merely instinctive. Resuming the argument, if  the world came into being by CHANCE, it is a blind and lawless world. Indeed the very word "CHANCE"  means absence of law.

Now, if the world is lawless in its inherent constitution and if everything which is born out of it is also in its nature without law, it means  that the formulation of any laws by human beings, whether those laws are scientific or ethical or political or economic, would be violation  of human nature and nature of the world itself. But human beings cannot exists without law. Therefore, they are bound to give up the athesitic hypothesis  of the existence of the world  inorder to live. If they don't  and if they carry the atheistic hypothesis  to its logical  consequences, the only law which they can establish for themselves would be law of jungle in political administration and rule of expediencey in moral life.

Whereas, when we speak affirming the existence of God, if we believe  God exists and HE is the Creator, it means the world came  into being thru planned Creation, is fucntioning  under a system of law and is moving towards a purpose. In other words, plan, purpose, and law are inherent in the very constitution of the world. This, in turn provides the ground for every branch of human law.

Hope u shall ponder over it.

Hi Diagoras, Thanks for your reply.

Diagoras wrote: AhmadJoyia you are in bold. I guess it is futile to ask for the proof of the existense/non-existense of God. This is simply because both are based upon faith. If I can't provide the proof of existense, the same goes for proving non-esistense. Isn't it? So, I call the aethiests also as the people of faith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_teapot - Russel's Teapot If I postulated a teapot floating out somewhere between Earth and the Andromeda Galaxy, and then asked you to prove it was not there you could not. If I then tried to claim that since you could not prove it didn't exist it existed, I would be incorrect. The burden of proof is on the presenter of a claim.

My dear, it is really hard to say who is the 'presenter of a claim'. To me, athiest faith is the challenger to the already existing religious faiths. Hence the burdon of proof is on them for presenting this new idea. However, as I said, in order to avoid this futile discussion, I don�t argue on who has the burden and have gone beyond this rudimentary argument. 

Diagoras wrote: There is no science in it. So no aethiests should consider themselves as the sole 'champions' of science. Rather, if I am not wrong, most of the scientists in the present world are not athiest. Kindly correct me if you have any statistics against this claim. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html 70% of scientist lack belief in God. Keep in mind that atheist are 5% of the American public and thus this is proportionally huge.

Kindly note my remarks "scientists in the present world ". I don't think America represents whole world scientific community. Isn�t it? Therefore, statistics on the selected sample are not true representative of the population. Secondly, the percentages shown on your referred website for some of the years don�t add up to 100%. Either there is a typo or something actually missing in the data.

Diagoras wrote: People having faith in God have some moral principles (good or bad is not the issue here though they are debtable within various religions) on which they base their whole life. These are the principles on which societies come in existence and humans are differentiated from the animal kingdom. Without such a concept of God, I have real difficulty in defining what is morally 'right' and what is 'wrong', the very basic building blocks of any society. http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm Atheist make up a minority of the prison population.

 Your reply misses the point of the argument. The question was how to define what is good and bad without the concept of God and not who is more or less law abiding.

Diagoras wrote: Personally, I think morality both arises from some basic genetic impulses (ie. Don't kill other humans unless you are threatened) and are social constructs.

Again, both of them doesn't provide any distinction of humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. So your reply again misses the mark. Many animal species live in societies with their own set of rules. I don�t think they are based on any moral codified ethics but through evolutionary program of �survival of the fittest�.

Diagoras wrote: A common challenge to the idea that God is required to dictate morality is the following scenario: If God commanded you to kill a baby, saying that it was moral, would you? I hope the answer is no. Yet, if God defines morality then if he said killing babies was good it would be good. Hence, I conclude that we draw our morality from something within ourselves.

 Your conclusion from your own examples is not logically linked up. If for someone, God defines morality, how can you conclude that it was drawn within himself? Secondly, the very basic question of discussing what is right or wrong comes under the perview of religions debating whose teachings are more closer to serving the humanity and thus universal than the others. For that, discussion are made within these religious faiths. But I don�t see on which basis an atheist can put forward his moral/ethical laws etc?

Diagoras wrote: In the same way, existence of God enable humans to work selfless service to fellow human beings (for the reward in the hereafter) whereas on the contrary, the non-existence of God doesn't provide impetus for such a service. No, but natural human altruism does compel us too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism

Thanks for your reference to wikipedia. There are two issues with your reply. Firstly, kindly note the words �selfless service� in my post where as according to evolutionary biology �reciprocal altuism� is not un-conditional. Therefore it is hard to equate the two. Secondly, the evolutionary sciences dealing with social behaviors of homo-sepians has been unable to delink / decouple religious faith based behaviors/attitudes from those purely based upon the process of natural selection. This is simply because history has been predominantly baised towards religious influences. There is hardly any society discovered as yet which was purly aetheist in their beliefs. Hence, all studies carried out on the behavioral evolutionary processes of homospeians, the baises of some sort of religious faith always exists. Here is a small example that I found interesting from your own references. While discussing Setting up altruistic partnerships the author quotes very famous religious text �do unto others as you would have them do unto you� as a favourable approach. Now it is really hard to prove that this approach towards others  is based purely on evolutionary processes or through religious teachings indoctrinated throughout the history of mankind.

Personally speaking, even if it is through the science of evolutionary process, the credit must be given to the people of that religion who first applied it in times when there was no such science known per se. Isn�t it? But the question remains, who told them to do follow it and why it remained hidden from the people of other faiths, espcially from the aethiests of that time (if there were any).

Salaams,

Diagoras,

You have cleared something up for me, thanks.  You intended this thread for people who are curious as to how you can live as an atheist, not as a discussion on why we believe don't "believe" in atheism. 

But you haven't gone into that, have you?  This idea seems to be more visceral and emotional rather than intellectually based.  What are the motivations in life for an atheist?  Also, you say you are a weak atheist. 

I studied a bit about agnosticism, and it's not as simple as "believing in a superior power".  I had the wrong idea about it for many years also. 

But if your point is that you believe in a power that created us rather than the idea that we were created by chance, then these recent discussions are merely for the sake of argument and not touching on your sincere, true feelings about the nature of the world.  Why don't you start a topic based on your belief because that would lead in a different direction entirely.

I could guess about what you mean by "weak atheism", but why do that when you could explain it yourself. 

Thanks

 Yes, discussion could be more useful if Diagoras explained the nature of  belief in plain words. Otherwise it is is no use wandering in the randomland. Let us have some concrete base to go on or off, please.

 Is it the problem about the belief in the creator?? Then there will be a definite question about the belief in the creation too. Diagoras please explain your belief in some easy detail so that we can understand it better.

Do you have a problem about the existence of God?

Do you feel that there is no God, (The Creator) ?

Thanks.

Hi to my athiest new friend (hopefully)

As far as I know there are 3 basic principals that all human would view and hold as correct and these are:

1- Nothing can not create a thing,

2- the act is a mirror of the capacity of the doer and of some of his/her characteristics, and

3- S/he who hasn't got something (say object ''A'') cannot give that thing (the object''A'')

Now my question is: do you accept these 3 principals?

Kind regards

Zakaria

Thanks for your reference to wikipedia. There are two issues with your reply. Firstly, kindly note the words �selfless service� in my post where as according to evolutionary biology �reciprocal altuism� is not un-conditional. Therefore it is hard to equate the two. Secondly, the evolutionary sciences dealing with social behaviors of homo-sepians has been unable to delink / decouple religious faith based behaviors/attitudes from those purely based upon the process of natural selection. This is simply because history has been predominantly baised towards religious influences. There is hardly any society discovered as yet which was purly aetheist in their beliefs. Hence, all studies carried out on the behavioral evolutionary processes of homospeians, the baises of some sort of religious faith always exists. Here is a small example that I found interesting from your own references. While discussing Setting up altruistic partnerships the author quotes very famous religious text �do unto others as you would have them do unto you� as a favourable approach. Now it is really hard to prove that this approach towards others  is based purely on evolutionary processes or through religious teachings indoctrinated throughout the history of mankind.

Personally speaking, even if it is through the science of evolutionary process, the credit must be given to the people of that religion who first applied it in times when there was no such science known per se. Isn�t it? But the question remains, who told them to do follow it and why it remained hidden from the people of other faiths, espcially from the aethiests of that time (if there were any).

You have cleared something up for me, thanks.  You intended this thread for people who are curious as to how you can live as an atheist, not as a discussion on why we believe don't "believe" in atheism. 

But you haven't gone into that, have you?  This idea seems to be more visceral and emotional rather than intellectually based.  What are the motivations in life for an atheist?  Also, you say you are a weak atheist.

Weak atheist lack belief in God, because they do not see enough evidence for His existence. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 Is it the problem about the belief in the creator?? Then there will be a definite question about the belief in the creation too. Diagoras please explain your belief in some easy detail so that we can understand it better.

Do you have a problem about the existence of God?

Do you feel that there is no God, (The Creator) ?

Thanks.

Hi to my athiest new friend (hopefully)

As far as I know there are 3 basic principals that all human would view and hold as correct and these are:

1- Nothing can not create a thing,

2- the act is a mirror of the capacity of the doer and of some of his/her characteristics, and

I disagree. Picking up a pencil is a minor actions, no reflection of my capacity. And picking up a pencil doesn't mirror any of my characteristics.

3- S/he who hasn't got something (say object ''A'') cannot give that thing (the object''A'')

Sure.

Now my question is: do you accept these 3 principals?

Kinda

Sorry if any of my replies seem inadequate, but Thanksgiving + massive posts is quite a combinations.

Hmm... Maybe I should bring some friends over here?

Diagoras,

After reading the post by you and several others, I'm under the assumption that you need solid proof to believe in God. Am I correct?

Hello again

Sure. Just don't burn me at a stake, or stone me to death and we'll get along fine.
No i will not and I can tell you by now (for now) that you wouldn't of said that if you knew the full story however that's why we are here I guess so this part to be elaborated on more later.

2- the act is a mirror of the capacity of the doer and of some of his/her characteristics, and

I disagree. Picking up a pencil is a minor actions, no reflection of my capacity. And picking up a pencil doesn't mirror any of my characteristics.
I disagree with your disagreement because what i meant was and using your example: you picking up the pencil is indeed a reflection of your capacity but with this example NOT ALL of your capacity because you can pick up heavier things than that however it does tell that yuor capacity is AT LEAST to the level of picking up a pencil and if we want to know the strech of your capacity we will have to go bit by bit until some level then we would say that your capacity of picking up stops here that's one and

Two likewise it does reflect some of your characteristics in that to pick up a pencil, and among other things, 1 you have to locate it 2 direct you your hand towards it 3 ...... and all these are characteristics or qualities that you do have except that in this case 'pencil example' it doesn't reflect ALL of your qualities and not the span of each and every quality you have.

Now your verdict please?

A coouple of things please:

thanks for your nice reply  ,

all the best with your tasks,

Please jsut take your time to reply/interact with my posting(s) and

with re gard to "Hmm... Maybe I should bring some friends over here?
" My view is: I would like that however please do as you wish and at your own leisure and Good bye for now

with Kind regards

Zakaria

Hello again

I wanted absolutely to start from somewhere where we have a common understanding and shared agreement as well.

Also -and this one for my self as well as you- that HUMANS MUST have some common accepted things among them that they all agree about and if any fruitful discussion/debate is to take place then that discussion/debate probably should start from there hence:

1- If/when, and while on the discussion road, disagreement arises then we can easily track it back to its origin,

2- Know that the different roads or ways of life (sometimes referred to as religion but to me this word/concept is too narrow -we can discuss it further later if you wish) get separated from there i.e. point of disagreement (though they might intersect here and there which I think/see they do). From this it's pointless to discuss the differences located say at level 8 when their origin is level 5 because if you were to differ at level 5 then -I would say- whatever comes after level 5 was meant to be different and it will be different because the input at level 5 was different.

This is exactly why and how the differences came about (after some study and investigation) between say Muslims, Christians, Jews�. Please note here that I�m saying Muslims not Islam, Christians not Christianity Jews not Judaism.

Now from my side and what I plan to do is this: I will try and read all of your writings so far on this forum and get back to you, what do you think about this?

In the mean time if you want to raise some specific issue(s) or whatever please go ahead.

Kind Regards

Zakaria

One thing Layalee wrote:

"Diagoras,

After reading the post by you and several others, I'm under the assumption that you need solid proof to believe in God. Am I correct?"

to which you replied:

"Exactly!"

One way of seeing this is: trying to believe in God but needs some convincing is it the case? if so why?

A friend of mine as a matter of fact MY BEST friend (Westener) was an atheist (though the defintion is not clear) but later on I found out that he was never an atheist as are those who refer to temsleves as such (I'm finding out this bit by bit) so if you can please define your position in sentences/phrases rather than words such atheist agnostic that would be great.

Kind Regards

If strength of belief is any indication, atheism is as strong as an atheistic belief system since, the former is a response to the latter. The current responses are really redundant in nature especially when a lot of them repeately are asking the same questions saying the same things.

Diagoras here is a news flash for you.

Nobody here cannot show you God, nor prove God exist. I can prove God exist dialetically, but it such a discussion is not equal to the physical evidence.

Because I see no evidence for His existence.

On what conclusive evidence did you examine that lead up to this?

An atheist-agnostic acknowledges the possibility of a God's existence, but does not believe in one. Everyone is inherently atheist-agnostic to all claims."

Like I said earlier, an athiest-agnostic is a confused term implying two contradictory elements. Athiesm implies conclusivesly the non-existence of a god while agnostic implies the notion that metaphysical entities [and the possibility of them existing] are unknown. Someone who is caught in between these two concepts are either 1) mentally defective or 2) confused. Children are definitely not agnostic-atheist since, the neurological faculties are not developed to be cognizant of the future (which the word possible implies) therefore they cannot know anything accept what is present and usually it is some biological satisfaction [such as food, water, etc].

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what that means.

This means if athiest believe God does not exist the strength of their argument is equal to religionist since, without physical evidence of both believe their claims are true both are equal. this was a random comment of mine actually.

Had to look up "dialectically," quite a word. So, what would a dialectic proof be?

Are you serious?

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Figure this out and we can talk.. 

Are you serious?

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Figure this out and we can talk..

you said "An atheist-agnostic acknowledges the possibility of a God's existence, but does not believe in one. Everyone is inherently atheist-agnostic to all claims."

if I understood well the 1st part then it should also mean that there are 3 kinds:

1- who totally denies the existance of Creator

2- they are not sure

3- firm believe of existance of creator

and you are 2nd group

the second part "Everyone is inherently atheist-agnostic to all claims"

is that all claims of existance of creator or what claims? once yu answer this i think i can provide you (hopefully) with some insights -as a Muslim- about what Islam has to say about this

Kind Regards

Zakaria

note: all my postings are meant to Diagoras unless stated otherwise.

ok got it

well actually as a MUSLIM seeing things or trying to see things through Islam (complete and holistic way of life) I can understand your position even further I can say that you are right-with the knowledge you have got- (same verdict regarding few of your eirleir postings that I had the chance to read though did not finish all of them yet), honest and to the point as well but most importantly you are rationale and I hope that you would keep up these qualities in your search for the truth.

so let me start then by saying that in Islam there are two concepts that are very important one is Godship and two is Lordship (translated straight from arabic though on the way it lost a lot of meanings i will deal with them seperately when needed)

Lord ship means that the creator/ALLAH/God... created things ALL things and these things have no choice but to submit to the creator such as moon sun animals all things that have NO CHOICE/WILL it was created that way and it will never have a will but also it includes Humans, more precisely, the part in humans that over which they have no control/no choice but just to submit things like: to kill the hunger I must feed myself (in one for/wayor another) if i don't then I will simply die hence: submit with regard to this aspect=live don't submit(don't eat)= die and I have nothing to say about this and i cannot change nor you or anybody else. to kill the thirst, to breath oxygen.... so under this categories there is no choice and that is why science of chemestry, biology all of these hard sciences, can pleople all people succed in them regardless of their faith and that is why also differtn civilisations have contributed and still and will contribute to the developlement of science: chinese, persian, arabas, indians, europeans......because the laws that govern them are fixed all you need to do is discover them and they they will produce results for yuo regardless of your faith. in ISLAM we say ALLAH created them that way and they are stay that way submitting themselves to those laws if they wer to change or if they had a will then they of gone (I would say astray as men did/does/will do) then life probably will be impossible jsut imagine if the sun was to move away just by few (cm or metres not sure which one) from earth then earth would freeze and it was to move closer then earth would burn. and this is also a source of agreemtn among people regardless of their faith though initially they had no hand in it

just before i go on with the 2nd concept you said:

"For example, if I claimed that a teapot was orbiting between the Earth and Mars, would you believe me? No, you'd ask for evidence. Now, you wouldn't say a teapot can't orbit there, you'd just state that until you saw evidence you wouldn't see one."

I think I wouldn't say NO to you I might belive you actually but not becaus of the concrete evidence as that might not be possible. I might believe you in this way: say i come to know (as children come to know their parents from birth) after some time say years and from experience I come to construct a view a firm view a believe that you are not going to say that "a teapot was orbiting between the Earth and Mars," unless you your self you were convinced about it that it was true because asking you to prove everything concretley is just impossible -you will have to do that everytime you cannot BUT I have enough infrmation from dealing with you that you ar trustworthy a person so I take (as childrena are with their trustworthy parents). the evidnece here is a different one _and I still think it is evidence- in that my evidence steems from my first evidence that is YOU ARE RELIABLE TRUSTWORTHY PERSON

as for the GOdship this is where things are diffeernt and all these differences can only be explained under this category. but why? in ISLAM we say because the creator himslef (masculinity here not in the sense of male female rather is just language as in ISLAM creator is neither male nor female) let it be this way: people have got wills total will to chose freely which way of life to adhere to while they are in this life and their wills steems from his will (his decision) does is why in ISLAM during the accounting day people are to answer only about teh parts over which they had control not the parts over which they had no control such: male/female-black/white-arab/nonarab.... as people had no choice over these, these things are under the category of LORDSHIP not GODSHIP

further every one has a way of life regardless of which one and no one can claim to be with none. in ISLAM tthis is called DEEN in arabic or DEN (just prononciation) some time s translated as i said before as religion but religion is really poor word or at least because of the way it has been used especially here in teh west over the years it gained some specific meaning so far as to say separation between state and religion or between sience and religion or bewteen church and state... in ISLAM this is not the case simply because DEEN IS NOT RELIGION DEEN is a way of life that covers every thing that you can imagine that is why the last prophet Mohammed (ALLAH's peace and blessings be upon him) said that (some poor translatiion sorry) ALKUFRU MIL-LATUN WA-HIDATUN i.e. disbelief is one all one way of life in that regardless of which one it is just a way of life like ISLAM is but differnt in ISLAM not right

i will stop here though there is heaps more left so just have a read and let me know if it is clear or no please then I will go on later insha-ALLAH (if the creator wills. part of this is under the lordship category for example if i die i cannot keep going and the decision about what time i shall die is none of my business). and i have to say it you don't jsut like (ALLAH's peace and blessings be upon him).

Kind Regards

Zakaria

Skimmed through several religious works, talked to priests, imams, and rabbis, and failed to observe a God.

That is fine. But what works did you skim through and exactly what in those works did not satisfy your curiousity? Was your search extensive or did you just "skim" through them without sustaining knowledge? I find this important because it's easy to not believe in something with little to no knowledge. It's also to disbelieve something if, in your pre-existing mindset you already formed an opinion so reading a book is nothing but emoty words to the reader so this is why I'm asking these questions.  Also, talking to priests, Imams, and Rabbis may not be always helpful, since, many of them are not experienced at explaining to those who do not believe. For instance, if 90% of the people around your mosque are Muslims how are you prepared to discuss with non-muslims especially if most of what you teach corresponds to the believers. So dialogue is also important.

Get it?

I got it the first time you mentioned it. I find it note worthy that the terms do not make sense. Because in reality, there is no such thing as an agnostic-atheist with the exception of Wikipedia. But this concept is not a solid philosophy like Muslim or athiest or agnostic the fusion of these two terms are inherently contradictory and most atheist I know do not subscribe to these views. Since you subscribe to these views I'll respect that, that is what you consider yourself to be.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem this means

 "All entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"

It's something from Occam's Razor. It's food for thought.

A dialectical argument is usually a discussion where one proves something systematically through verbal [and physical] demonstration.

Example:

Dismissal can be overruled

Always behaved good as an emplyee (A)

Pressing ground for dismissal (B)

In this brief example it is possibal an employee of a job (whatever that job is) can avoid being dismissed if one proves that the employee was good. The same can be said vis-a-vis. Basically, you are making a demonstration of proof.

Diagoras, if possible go thru this article {thread}

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10746&PN=1&TPN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10746&am p;PN=1&TPN=1

Dialectical arguments seem like logical proofs, am I correct on this?

Pretty much yes.

Oh, and back to the question and answer routine. What are your feelings on Muslim extremism (9/11, Al Qaeda) and the appropriate response to it from America/the West? Or is that too political?

I told you I don't like politics. As for my beliefs about the terrorist on 9/11 I believe that their behaviors are the reflections of ignorance and extremist philosophies. With the right manipulation, all of us are susceptible to teachings we can become fervently attached to. Although the levels of extremism very the actions of the terrorist on 9/11 were simply thoe who took their personal philosophies to the extreme. Islamic philosophy in comparison to those terrorist actions is "luke warm."

As for the response of my country against Afghanistan if in fact there is evidence showing that Al-Qaeda is directly responsible for terrorism then they should be brought to justice either in the court of law or on the battlefield. If a country habros such a group for whatever reason they are basically condoning their behavior. Regardless whether supports (or doesn't support) a groups behavior is irrelevant what matters if you harbor criminals in your house/country. If the individual is cognizant of what the perpetrator has done in the eyes of those who know secular law, you are accountable if you do not turn the culprit over.

Now as far as the reasons why we invaded Iraq that is another issue. Frankly, I'm sick of the United States being the world police. I'd like the military to help local authorities out for change. That is my view.

Diagoras wrote: seekshidayath, Woah! That's a big article. I got past the first post and then my eyeballs burst into flames. Could you recap the major points of it in about a paragraph for lazy ol' me?

Not at all. Am not going to recap. But want u to read whole. Take your own time , but do read it, without any lame excuses

I don't think I'd object to logical proofs of God's existence. What would be an example.

I have tons of sources we can choose from to start with the logical proofs of God's existence, but since this is a Muslim website we can start with the famous Abu Hamid al-Ghazaali (or known as Al-Ghazzali)

These excerpts are taken from Al-Ghazzali's book: "Tahafut al-falasafiah" or Inchorence of the philosophers.

(1) Every thing temporal (ﺚﺪﺎﺣ) must have a beginning.
(1) Every being which begins to exist has a cause.

how high do you feel the level of social discrimination against Muslims in America is? Have you experienced personally?

To be honest with you I've experienced the reverse. I've never experienced social discrimination based upon my religious affiliation, but I have received discrimination based upon my ethnicity, that is, being African-American. Consequently, among my own brethren, Muslims have discriminated against me  because of my ethnic origin even in something as holy as the mosques we pray in. Of course my experineces does not account all Muslims but those around  my community. Non-Muslim society before knowing my religious affiliation, only recognize the external and since, I do not appear as the elitist race, of course I get discriminated against. On a similar plane, Muslims in the United States that are not from here, have a similar elitist mindset (not all but some) if I am not of the elitist race in their culture I get discriminated against. Interesting enough, its a double edged sword.

Well the argument was to attack the Greek Philosophers view that the world was eternal. But what are your views on the universe if that is not a sutiable argument?

It's kinda depressing that racial discrimination even occurs amongst believers in their own place of worship.

It is what you expect in almost any religion. Being in a religion does not make one impervious to hate.

We know that the Big Bang kicked off the process, but we have no idea what caused it

Basically in the beginning "God" decided to make an extremely dense fireball  which caused a cosmic inflation and expanded exponentially. Remenants of this is found in the cosmic microwave background which is elctromagnetic radiation made up of plasma, photons, electrons and baryons. The question here is what started the Big Bang? It is no question that the elements of the universe are the same elements that exist in us. Can you imagine that we humans are remenants of old dead star particles? Frankly, I believe there is an Artisan who calcaulated precisely when the universe was to exist even in the absence of time. I cannot physically show God's picture and where God was when the universe began unfortunately.

Diagoras wrote: A much more elegant, though difficult to grasp, idea I've heard is that when t=0 what came before is a meaningless statement. Since the current idea is that the Big Bang started time, what came before is a meaningless question.

what came before??  obviously nothing. But there is a notion among scientists actually I think its cosmologists, since this time the universe is expanding and then it will shrink, something like an elastic band when you expand it and suddenly let go it snaps back to its original shape. The notion with the universe is that since it is expanding it will snap back to its original starting point and the process starts all over again.

Diagoras you obviously weren't reading the post before my previous one  (the one mentioning Al-Ghazzali??)

What came before God?

Obviously there is nothing before, above, below, or beyond God. God is infinite and one cannot count infinity nor can one regress infinitely. If one questions "what came before God?" That would render God temporal and comprehensible. What the logical proof was stating was that since God is the "cause" one cannot traverse God into regressing so to speak. Meaning, I cannot comprehend in time the past into what is beyond God. If time existed with the universe then what exists prior to current existence is that of infinity (or the unknown) since, according to Abrahamic tradition God is such a cause. Even if, for a moment we comprehend God to be something else, it would be logical to pressupose that God is not of this reality so to speak, and that God is not constrained to the physical and psychical limitations of the universe.

 Diagoras:

 Issue is, if God made the Universe what made God?

 It is a conditional sentence... If God made the Universe...

 I would like to ask Diagoras, Is there a limit to the number of such questions? Is this the last question please??

 Suppose, I named someone who made God (God forbids), say X made God. Then will you ask who made that X??

 In religion, there is a certain principle that such odd type of questions are not to be asked. Specially, God made everything but Who made God?? If I do not have an answer to it then no harm. The questioner also does not know the answer too. I don't know what will be the answer to that question, if asked from Diagoras.

Angel has written well about the unfolding and folding of the Universe like a scroll. It is mentioned in the Quran. I may present the reference when required.

Diagoras , one last try, which i feel shud have done earlier ,, present this link of Quran.

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/SURAI.HTM - http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/SURAI.HTM

This is the evidence, we have u  to show the existence of God. This Book, in itselves is a great miracle. We cannot show u God and say here he is. But can feel His existence in our lives.

Prove me that it has an author - humanbeing like us ?

No, u cannot and its my challenge to u. 

As to who Created God?

God itselves means , "Uncreated".

Generally, for such people this question is asked, as " Mr. x gave birth to a child. Is the child a girl or a boy?"

U answer me this Diagoras. Its very simple but would like to hear from u.

May Allah swt, guide us all.

Diagoras wrote: Issue is, if God made the Universe what made God? And how can one justify postulating divine, self-aware, massively intelligent entities to explain the unknown?

Diagoras, what do you think of the possibilty of infinity....

Even though I'm assuming you probably will say it's something that you need to see proof of. (Sorry if my assumptions are wrong)

I know there was an ORIGINAL creator ( creation). Isn't that something that simply can't be denied...??

Yes, I know you would say, in so many words..'Well who created the creator?'

But the ORIGINAL creator does not have a creator.

Well this is my outlook, and how I came to terms to accept God.

Perhaps others may have different ways...

Obviously there is nothing before, above, below, or beyond God. God is infinite and one cannot count infinity nor can one regress infinitely. If one questions "what came before God?" That would render God temporal and comprehensible. What the logical proof was stating was that since God is the "cause" one cannot traverse God into regressing so to speak. Meaning, I cannot comprehend in time the past into what is beyond God. If time existed with the universe then what exists prior to current existence is that of infinity (or the unknown) since, according to Abrahamic tradition God is such a cause. Even if, for a moment we comprehend God to be something else, it would be logical to pressupose that God is not of this reality so to speak, and that God is not constrained to the physical and psychical limitations of the universe.

As I said, you are engaging in the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.  Because at this point we do not understand how the Universe was kicked off, you postulate into existence a divine, extra-Universal being to explain the unknown. This is both scientifically and philosophically unsatisfying, does that mean that for every unknown in science we should postulate a God that solves the problem? How's Gravity work? God did it. Why did humans evolve such complex brains? God did it. Doing the same to the question of the Big Bang is just as ridiculous.

Also, consider my response of "when t=0, before is a meaningless question." I personally find it highly compelling.

 You have referred to my post briefly and avoided to answer my question. Do you have an answer to the question "Who created the Universe?" If so, Who? Then we shall get down to some other things.

 Please do not refer me to any long writing. Just answer yourself in a few words. Also present what you believe yourself. Do not represent any one else. Thanks.

As I said, you are engaging in the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.  Because at this point we do not understand how the Universe was kicked off, you postulate into existence a divine, extra-Universal being to explain the unknown. This is both scientifically and philosophically unsatisfying, does that mean that for every unknown in science we should postulate a God that solves the problem? How's Gravity work? God did it. Why did humans evolve such complex brains? God did it. Doing the same to the question of the Big Bang is just as ridiculous.

Also, consider my response of "when t=0, before is a meaningless question." I personally find it highly compelling.

Diagoras its getting difficult to converse without you without you associating what "I" say to what "Al-Ghazzali says." You simply here saying "show me" and I'm simply saying "I cannot" thus, renders this thread pointless. Other members may spend time arguing about words and phrases in proving God's existence but I'm not going to entertain someone whose mind is made up. You don't fool me sir nor do I take you as someone who legitmately wants to converse. You want proof and I cannot offer you any so what is your next question?

 I agree. See diagoras is complaining:

 This is both scientifically and philosophically unsatisfying, does that mean that for every unknown in science we should postulate a God that solves the problem? How's Gravity work? God did it. Why did humans evolve such complex brains? God did it. Doing the same to the question of the Big Bang is just as ridiculous.

How does gravity work?? God did it. Suppose God did not do it. Then who invented or created the force of gravity. There can be only two or three answers. 1. God did it.     2. Nobody did it.    3. I don't know who did it.

I do not find any fault with answer No. 1. The other answers are as bad as the first one if that is not suitable. Would diagoras please chose one of those three answers or diagoras may present any other good answer.

Situation is the same with the other problem:

Why did humans evolve such complex brains? God did it. Doing the same to the question of the Big Bang is just as ridiculous.

If God did not do it then some one must have done it. Only diagoras does not know who it was. And we know it. That is all. There is a system of cause and effect working in the Universe. We believe Allah to be the ultimate Cause of all things. Is there anything wrong with that??

 I would ask diagoras about his/her beliefs. If not believing that there is a God (means god does not exist), does diagoras believe in any other thing of the world, seen or unseen thing. Please tell whether what things you see, do you believe in them to be real, to be existent?? More later.

  I will, Insha Allah, write more later after I recieve some reply from diagoras to my above post. In the meantime I would request diagoras to look up the meaning of the word "belief" in the dictionary. To what type of things does it apply?? Does it apply only to the scientific discoveries?? Please let us know. Thanks.

Salaam,

Athiests and Agnostics find it hard to accept God due to the prevalent idea of God with human form,weaknesses,associates etc.God, as in Islam is simply beyond our comprehension. Unique.The supernatural force that caused existence.No accidents or chaos.All creation run its course as prescribed.

Can this force we call God, be disproved by Science?A lot many forces we accept in Science,though we dont see or claim to be absolute.

Then what created God? This question arises because common sense says what comes into being has a source,a creator.Well,God never came into being rather we did.Only something "Eternal" can be the origin of creation.

Does this belief contradict with science?