Printable View
Besides the fact that you can see bacteria with a standard light microscope, there is convincing evidence air exists, while there isn't that God exists. I don't see why I should assume the existence of God, I don't assume the existence of bacteria, I've seen them myself. Not that seeing is the only form of valid reliable evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by usman.khawar
I guess some people just can't take a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
It all went bad when people started stocking grain. Life after death is a metaphor for the seasons, the story of religion is the story of economy. So wealth is where everything started to go sour.
I think we can all agree :biggrin5:
Sorry, I think your reasoning is way off line, so I'm not going to debate the point with you, but I will make this one note:Quote:
Originally Posted by usman.khawar
Your god declared your quran his data.
Christians believe their god declared the christian bible his data.
Buddhists believe Buddha declared his writings to be his data.
Hindus believe Vishnu declared Śruti and Smriti his data.
Jews believe g-d declared the Old Testament his data.
If you ever get consensus among believers as to which completely contradictory piece of writing is the right one, I might be interested.
(The idea that I don't like the idea of god is silly - I'd love there to be a benevolent, omnipotent god who saved children from starvation or death by diarrhoea from dirty drinking water when he wasn't too busy helping sportspeople win games.)
God needs cash!Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowni
God is greedy for souls and riches, apparently.
Authoritative statements like this from religious people really freak me out. Who's putting this stuff in their heads? Are they repeating someone? How can they find this inarguable, and put it forward as though it would convince other people? It implies a skewed view of reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by usman.khawar
Man is proof of God, apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Though it is not as if MM's definition is the only one out there, nor is it a rule that we have to stick to it.Quote:
Oh please, you're being deliberately obtuse. Implicit in MM's post is the conception that God is a benevolent creator, so his point is that he doesn't believe in the concept of the Christian God because he doubts the benevolence of such a being who would allow the things he listed.
Fear, I would reckon -- people in general, and children especially, can be quickly indoctrinated by fear, and in some cases where they can't, the courageous and outspoken get killed. I think these sectarians tend to make such dogmatic statements more to convince themselves than anyone else. --Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
In any case, there isn't exactly a "normal" view of reality, nor is there a "normal" method for viewing reality. I don't want to commit myself to complete relativism, though, because there seem to be human constants when it comes to moral and otherwise transcendental ideas about the world, and there are delusions that can put life and happiness in jeopardy. The only way to judge a world view or an assumption is in terms of its practical (or impractical) effects, a means which can also bid room for some form of religion. A number of people have used this sort of argument to defend religion in some form (e.g. Kant) and reading of the Bible in schools (e.g. Huxley). Moreover, this argument betokens the idea that religion and God can only be refuted on practical grounds instead of theoretical ones -- For, after everything, the believer can always resort to fideism.
For the record I'll say that I believe in "God" in a way that doesn't require faith. For me, God is what I term that idea which answers the fundamental absurdity of existence; the answer to that question so shrouded in mysteriousness we cannot barely ask it.
Orphan, athiest and all ! I would like to read the evidence that how u can see air. But my dear! If u people consider that after developing delicate n sophisticated machines we are able to see bacteria. And may b with more advancement and developing machines we will be able to see anti protons as well. But I like to say one fact for your consideration. Besides that we just can feel air only and we can see bacteria through fine machines so I have to say that to see God, who is creator of all universes and all living and non living beings, we need refined senses. We cannot see him through these body’s senses which are not reliable as you guys must hear the word illusion. Eye is not always reliable. If you put ur right hand in cold water and left in hot for a while and then put both hands together in normal water what you feel ? this is very simple that to see God we need more refine senses. He is not available in the reach of these body senses. You have to develop your senses. You have to refine your senses. He exist little ahead what you have at this time. There is no other exam as well. If He had showed himself then there was no logic for creating brain. If we can’t see a thing this is not the proof that thing doesn’t exist.
About God declared Quran his data I wrote a lot if u guys are serious to understand what I wanted to say kindly read than discuss. Lord blames Jews, Christians etc that they change the words of lord (Budha never said that his writing were from Lord). You can find some moral laws in those but besides those there are lot of contradictions/versions. No book is telling you about any scientific facts with logics. Everybody knows that. If someone due to prejudice is sticky to say that crow is always white then I m not ready to talk with him. I said if anyone find single mistake/error/contradiction from Quran than Quran proved wrong. And God with full confidence said in Quran that He will protect its each word, no one can find a single contradiction from it. There are so many scientific, anthropologist, biologist, cosmologist, etc facts which are proved in this era. How can u justify that fourteen hundred years ago a man with no laboroties/ equipments giving statements with absolute accuracy. Just for example “We made this universe from a big accident (big bang) and we are expanding this universe, everything is moving in its orbit” in single verse God is giving 100% accurate statements/facts with full confidence. Quran is absolutely different book from other jew’s and Christians one’s which were also from the Lord.
Such a "God" is of no use whatsoever then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
On the contrary, it would serve every use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usman.khawar
How about, instead of putting one hand in hot water, and one hand in cold water, why don't we take one person from one area and immerse his thoughts in the Koran, and another guy from another region, and immerse his thoughts in some different Holy Book, and then have both of them experience the real world. What do we typically see happen then?
There are contradictions in everything. A simple search of 'contradictions in the Quran' suffices.Quote:
Originally Posted by usman.khawar
Of course, you can probably write ten pages defending one sentence, saying how that sentence does not mean what it says but something else, and so much in this one sentence is beyond the capabilities of my unholy senses. People will believe what they want to regardless. But I think scriptures were written for people, not gods.
What does seeing have to do with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by usman.khawar
If I hold my breath, I find myself struggling to force myself to breathe. When I start to breathe again, I feel fine.
When I went outside before, it was really windy. I could feel the force of the air moving, but I couldn't see it.
I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that air exists.
Hmm, but to be fair, if you read any of those pages you'll find that it seems to be harder to find crazy nonsense in the Quran than it is in the contradictory new testament or the unbelievably nonsensical old testament. Maybe Islam IS the better written mythology (religion does seem to depreciate with age and Islam is the newest of the three). I guess maybe I'll give the Quran a perusal.Quote:
Originally Posted by cl154576
The Bible was revised many more times than the Quran (not that the Quran wasn't messed with, it was just messed with less often). It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that the stories would be more consistant if leaders didn't repeatedly hack the Christian bible to pieces. It's not age that makes the Bible repetative and strange (stories that lead nowhere, stories with jumbled events happening several times in different chronological order within the same tale, actions with seemingly no cause whatsoever, ect.). Ovid is just as old and Homer is older and their stories are still structurally sound. It is possible that the Muslim mythology doesn't suck.
I love mythology, and I don't automatically dislike religious texts. I've never met a hardcore religious person who didn't come off as a small minded creep and who I couldn't easily imagine as a serial killer, but that doesn't automatically make their mythology as ugly as they are. The idea of books which are so effective that they've collected followers is intriguing, and maybe I'd find such a book beautiful or particularly insightful/useful. I gave the Bible a shot (I hated it, but I still gave it a shot).
Still, it's hard to get over associating "religious" works with that bad taste that the followers leave in my mouth.