Are you an atheist? (1 Viewer)

[aziz rasul]

That I don't ignore science as someone has accused me of.
Science or scientific laws is the creation of God just as the Qur'an is the word of God. Both should match.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Science or scientific laws is the creation of God just as the Qur'an is the word of God. Both should match.

And this right here is WHY you ignore science. You honestly believe that a bunch of iron age primitives hiding from demons at night actually knew everything there is to know.

 

[Galaxiom]

That I don't ignore science as someone has accused me of.

No Aziz, you don't ignore science. You look at science though a glass that is deeply tinged with your prejudiced exalting of Islam. Your Islam filter blocks out all observation that is not consistent with your faith.

Science or scientific laws is the creation of God just as the Qur'an is the word of God. Both should match.

Where there you go. By your own measurement the Qur'an comes up as a fail because it is not consistent with the observations made by science on many counts. Because of your filter, no matter what evidence or argument is advanced, you cannot see it.

We have been though this all before on this very thread. I remember the posts where you justified the Islamic laws that allow men to marry four women on there being more women in the world than men. You simply denied the contrary facts that I produced and claimed that you had a right to your own opinion.

Hopefully you will get someone else to have a discussion with this time around because I find it entertaining reading sometimes.

 

[aziz rasul]

Interesting to see that neither of you has even mentioned the detailed post I gave matching human reproduction to what the Qur'an states. Hmmmm, I wonder why that is?
Over the years I have consistently found that non believers go of at a tangent so you see at first their denials of the TRUTH. In the Hereafter there will be none of that going. You will have to face the TRUTH then.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Aziz, before we go around this mulberry bush again, please understand this distinction that I make.

You absolutely and always have the right to believe what you believe, and I will defend your right to that belief. Where we might have a dispute is more oriented to any attempt on your point to prove via some reasonable argument that you are correct. Whether you offer logic, science, or some other form of evidence, you open up those offerings to scrutiny, and some of us have viewpoints different than yours on the relevance or validity of your arguments.

My problem with your detailed "sperm and reproduction" article is that it is still merely an article about a primitive viewpoint of gestation.

14. Then We created the drop (nutfah) into a clinging clot (alaqah), and created the clinging clot (alaqah) into a lump of chewed flesh (mudrat), and created the chewed flesh (mudrat) into bones ('idham) and clothed the bones ('idham) with intact flesh (lahm); then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allaah, the best of creators.

Taken literally, this is not how gestation works, so is NOT a scientifically valid description. If you want to take it prima facie, it misses the idea.

Taken figuratively, the description uses incredibly crude descriptive terms that end with still claiming it to be a matter of creation. It also ignores a little factor called "gestational recapitulation" in which the human fetus goes through changes that resemble the evolutionary process compressed into a matter of a few weeks. But of course, evolution contradicts the ideas of direct creation so I'm sure that even if they knew it, the framers of the Quran would not have included such a concept.

Science or scientific laws is the creation of God just as the Qur'an is the word of God. Both should match.

Some of the principles of evolution and astronomy (and cosmology) are not consistent with various Holy books. I agree with your statement that the Word of God (in any of his/her/its myriad forms) and the findings of science should match. But when they don't, the problem is deciding which one is right. Most of the time (like, 99%+) we find that science is right and religion is wrong, but the folks who have been brainwashed by their clergy simply cannot accept the situation. It is because this divide exists between science and religion, and the divide keeps growing as the scientific evidence continues to increase, that some of us have given up entirely on religion as being unable to maintain credibility in light of ongoing scientific discoveries.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Aziz, what Galaxiom and I did would be better called 'not bothering to have a conversation with you'. You already believe you know everything, and your entire worldview is based around the assumption that you literally know everything and everyone else is wrong.

Pretty standard for a religious fanatic, honestly, and neither one of us is particularly interested in playing your game. You are utterly unwilling to accept that anyone else may ever have a point, and like Murderboy, we both know you will not only lie about and distort anything and everything in order to pull your preconceived ideas out of any information you may bring up, not only will you simply ignore any fact you can NOT twist to your satisfaction, but you will also lie about, twist, distort, misrepresent, and/or deliberately misunderstand any point we may choose to make.

Or to put simply, we are both fully aware that there is literally no value in attempting to have a conversation with you.

 

[scott-atkinson]

Aziz, you are entitled to your beliefs and to your viewpoint, as we are entitled to ours, trying to prove either side is fruitless as neither side will relent.

Lets just believe what we want to believe and live in peace.

 

[aziz rasul]

The_Doc_Man I agree that provable science must take precedence. I have no problems with that. If a 'holy' book says that the sun goes around the earth, then clearly the so called 'holy' book must be wrong. I am not oblivious to the fact that science is a standard we should use. However when looking at the various simple stages of human reproduction, we know certain factors which can be proven e.g.

only a single spermatozoon is required to fertilise the egg
the egg is a place in which the spermatozoon is lodged
the fertlised egg becomes a clot and eventually implants itself to the wall of the uterus

All the above factors are mentioned in the correct sequence in the verses I gave. If you find that crude, then that's your opinion which I don't share. We are, after all free thinking people. If someone puts a gun to my head and tells to not to believe in God, my thoughts will still remain in that direction.

People keep suggesting that non Muslims do not have a right to a view. Of course they do. I have simply given my point of view, that's all. Take it or leave it. Just as you may believe that I am brainwashed, I equally believe that non Muslims simply turn away from the TRUTH.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Aziz:

We have a very different interpretation of the meaning of the word 'clot' in any biological discussion. The other verses cannot be taken literally, either. Figuratively, they merely end with God having created someone, so we are back to personifying (or, more technically correct, anthropomorphizing) a natural phenomenon that doesn't need divinity to explain it.

If someone puts a gun to my head and tells to not to believe in God, my thoughts will still remain in that direction.

And, of course, in my case that belief in God cannot be threatened into existence by someone holding a gun to my head.

Belief must come from either faith or proof. In the absence of a direct visit by some divine entity (in the spiritual or mythological sense of the word 'divine'), I must say that I have too much doubt. Doubt that cannot be resolved by the word of a mortal person who has perhaps been deceived as a child and now cannot break out of the mental trap laid by his/her parents.

To me, it all comes back to whether you believe what you were told, and whether at some point that belief would be dispelled by deep introspection. Which is why I am atheist, by the way. My beliefs instilled during my childhood did not stand up to close scrutiny when I became an adult and starting thinking for myself instead of relying on the word of clergy. Oddly enough, it was in part due to the continued admonition among the Christian denominations that we had to make Jesus our PERSONAL savior. I.e. that belief could not come from anyone else, it had to come from within ourselves. And in my case, I could not find that belief within me.

 

[Galaxiom]

Here is something to ponder on regarding human reproduction in order to show where God’s creation matches God’s word.

This is exactly what I was talking about. You see science through a cloud of prejudices that hold Islam as "the TRUTH". Only someone completely enamoured by their religion could draw the conclusion that your tenuous comparison shows the agreement between science and the Quran.

You would appear to be claiming that "mingled sperm" shows prior knowledge that the semen is produced from multiple organs.

Verily, We created man from a drop of mingled sperm (nutfahtin amchaj) …
Qur’an – Insan (Man) 76:2

· The seminal fluid, comprising of a mixture of four different liquids, travels from the male urinary tract to the female reproductive system.

The the reference to "a drop of " supposed to show knowledge that only one sperm does the fertilisation?

·Once the egg enters into the egg, the fertilised egg goes into ‘lock down’ i.e. the single spermatozoa inside the egg cannot escape and no new spermatozoa can enter.

·Over two weeks, the fertilised egg becomes a clot.
·Thereafter, the clot travels down the fallopian tube and implants itself to the wall of the uterus. This is referred to as ‘implantation’.

You claim the parallel of science and the Quran by substituting the words of the Quran into the science without any rational justification.

The blastocyst is not a "clot".

The levels of a pregnancy hormone (Human Chorionic Gonadotropin - HCG) increases which indicates that ‘implantation’ has occurred through a urine or blood test.

What has this to do with your "proof". Does the Quran mention HCG anywhere?

Then you connect the 23 pairs of chromosomes with the 23 "mentions of man and woman" in the Quran. That is drawing a very long bow. And the mention of pairs is supposed to refer to chromosomes? This is patently ridiculous.

· Both men and woman have 23 pairs of chromosomes in each cell.
· Twenty two of these chromosome pairs (autosomes) are identical in both men and women.
The number of times the words man and woman occurs in the Qur'an is 23.

45. That He did create in pairs, male and female,

12. And [We] created man from an extract of clay (tiyn).

So now man is made of an extract of clay?

Now it gets really bizarre.

13. Moreover We placed him as a drop (nutfah) in a safe lodging.
14. Then We created the drop (nutfah) into a clinging clot (alaqah), and created the clinging clot (alaqah) into a lump of chewed flesh (mudrat), and created the chewed flesh (mudrat) into bones ('idham) and clothed the bones ('idham) with intact flesh (lahm);

This is certainly not the process by humans got here. If it is still supposed to represent gestation then it is wrong there too. The bones do not form before the organs and "intact flesh".

At no point does "chewed flesh" provide a reasonable representation of the embryonic development.

46. From a sperm (nutfah) drop when it is emitted.
Qur’an 53:45-46

Now man is made from a drop of sperm, not clay after all? Indeed the Quran says man is made of sperm, water, clay and dust in various different verses.

It is perfectly obvious that, like the Jewish and Christian Holy Books, the Quran is nothing more than the musings of an ancient person who, like all "prophets", presumed his own prejudices were seeded by supernatural wisdom.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Here is the problem I have with various "Holy" books. The question is whether they are divinely inspired or simply the result of a fertile imagination tempered by a small amount of knowledge - and a possible bout with indigestion. And the even bigger question that follows that one is, "How would we know the difference between the two?"

"Divine inspiration" in my case sometimes seem to be brought about by eating spicy food too late at night. I don't dare eat Mexican or Indian after about 6 PM (though oddly enough, spicy Chinese doesn't have the same effect on my dreams ... go figure!) If I do eat one of those foods, the dreams are spectacular. Must be divinely inspired, right?

Seriously, I really don't care that someone had a dream and wrote about it. As an amateur writer of fantasy and science fiction, I often write about my dreams. I just don't pass them off as grounds for founding a religion.

See, for a more modern example, L Ron Hubbard and Scientology. L Ron was a known huckster and was also a hack (literary slang for a not-very-good writer who bases his many stories on a formulaic premise), but for some reason folks decided that his hazy-brain musings on the alien origins of humanity must make more sense than the Bible or Quran. In a sad way, this reflects negatively on the credibility of the Bible and Quran, that folks would believe L Ron's writings more than they believe the more traditional sources. All in the name of Xenu.

By the way, if anyone wants to measure your engrams with a galvanometer, I'd tell them "No" on the grounds that I can do it for your cheaper than they ever will, and my readings will make exactly as much sense as theirs.

 

[Vassago]

Here is the problem I have with various "Holy" books. The question is whether they are divinely inspired or simply the result of a fertile imagination tempered by a small amount of knowledge - and a possible bout with indigestion. And the even bigger question that follows that one is, "How would we know the difference between the two?"

"Divine inspiration" in my case sometimes seem to be brought about by eating spicy food too late at night. I don't dare eat Mexican or Indian after about 6 PM (though oddly enough, spicy Chinese doesn't have the same effect on my dreams ... go figure!) If I do eat one of those foods, the dreams are spectacular. Must be divinely inspired, right?

Seriously, I really don't care that someone had a dream and wrote about it. As an amateur writer of fantasy and science fiction, I often write about my dreams. I just don't pass them off as grounds for founding a religion.

See, for a more modern example, L Ron Hubbard and Scientology. L Ron was a known huckster and was also a hack (literary slang for a not-very-good writer who bases his many stories on a formulaic premise), but for some reason folks decided that his hazy-brain musings on the alien origins of humanity must make more sense than the Bible or Quran. In a sad way, this reflects negatively on the credibility of the Bible and Quran, that folks would believe L Ron's writings more than they believe the more traditional sources. All in the name of Xenu.

By the way, if anyone wants to measure your engrams with a galvanometer, I'd tell them "No" on the grounds that I can do it for your cheaper than they ever will, and my readings will make exactly as much sense as theirs.

To add to this, every holy book states that God told man to write them. They also state that man is not perfect and makes mistakes. Isn't it also feasible that mistakes could have been made during the interpretation of God's word, translations, etc...?

 

[drb75088]

100% atheist, but if I found myself standing before the pearly gates (or the gate to hell) I could be persuaded to change my mind.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

But of course, in the Christian variants, drb, at that point you would take the trap-door express and never get to those gates since you will never get that level of proof until you are dead. And thanks to that little conceit of Christianity, at the moment you get the proof you would need, it is too late for it to have further meaning because you had to believe in Jesus (or Yeshua bar Yosef) when you were still alive.

 

[raghuprabhu]

People are atheist when it suits them and are believers when it suits them. It is driven by guilt. I was vacillating for a long time before I became a complete non-believer!

 

[drb75088]

I do not pretend to be all knowing or all wise, so there is the possibility that I am wrong and most of the people in the world are correct. I strongly believe a lot of things, but understand that I could be wrong on any or all of them. Not being convinced by proof makes no more sense to me than being convinced without proof.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

drb -

Not being convinced by proof makes no more sense to me than being convinced without proof.

There are two other options to consider, and one of them applies to me - disbelief due to lack of proof. I am not convinced by proof because I haven't seen any proof that I consider to be reasonable or valid. Every so-called proof that has ever been offered is either patently false, seriously not plausible, or at the very least, totally ambiguous.

Here's the brass-plated kicker: The fourth option is belief from proof. However - if you believe because of proof, you lose AGAIN - because of that little admonition "Only through faith shall you come to me."

In the absence of viable, meaningful proof, I have to say that there is no valid reason to believe - particularly since the side costs of belief (worship in services, avoidance of certain activities, tithing, things like that) is non-zero.

Yes, I could be wrong. It's been known to happen in the past. But it comes back to the simple question: Is there enough evidence to change my disbelief to doubt? So far, the answer is no.

Am I all-knowing? No, no, and no again. But that's actually immaterial. There's an old football saying about how great a team looks on paper, but they still have to win or lose with the players that actually showed up on the field. Based on the evidence that "showed up" in this debate, non-belief makes more sense.

 

[drb75088]

My comments about proof are related only to the options in the original question. I am 100% atheist. But the question was, could I be convinced by proof, and of course the answer to that is yes. Which of course is one of my main arguments about the fictional God of most religion. If my eternal salvation really mattered, proof and conviction would be easy enough.

 

[Mike375]

Atheism is a religion or faith as there no proof that God or gods or whatever don't exist.

An atheist "believes" the absence of evidence is sufficient for him/her to have faith that a god or gods don't exist.

 

[Frothingslosh]

There's no evidence that pink unicorns that fart glitter and piss Budweiser don't exist, ergo they must be real!

Sorry, Mike, but that's a logical fallacy called 'argument from ignorance'. It merely shows you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I hate to break it to you (actually, that's a lie, I'm happy to tell you), but lack of evidence is NOT evidence of existence. That particular inane argument is merely an attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the person making the extraordinary assertion.