A Tradgedy

[wel_mel_2]

Bismillah:

Good thing none of it is supportable as fact.

What fact do you have to proof to me RIGHT NOW that you exist?


Salam


Wael.

[Ruggedtouch]

Bismillah:


What fact do you have to proof to me RIGHT NOW that you exist?


Salam


Wael.

A rather cheap attempt to dodge any effort at supporting your copy and paste propoganda.

[wel_mel_2]

Bismillah:

A rather cheap attempt to dodge any effort at supporting your copy and paste propoganda.

I was really serious, you are always talking "facts and evidences" yet you cant proof to me your own existence?


I haven’t seen you, I never heard your words; maybe you are not the one who’s typing right now, maybe its some crazy guy calling himself Ruggedtouch and it is not really <b>YOU</b>, or maybe you have vanished already and right now am talking to a very tiny creature in this huge universe but not really YOU… who knows? I have no proof at all that you exist., <b>unless you reveal yourself to me and I can talk to you directly and see you plainly, then I may believe that you exist. Otherwise you are not here at all.</b>


why dont you make some efforts to proof your own existence???!!!


Salam


Wael

[Ruggedtouch]

Bismillah:


I was really serious, you are always talking "facts and evidences" yet you cant proof to me your own existence?


I haven’t seen you, I never heard your words; maybe you are not the one who’s typing right now, maybe its some crazy guy calling himself Ruggedtouch and it is not really <b>YOU</b>, or maybe you have vanished already and right now am talking to a very tiny creature in this huge universe but not really YOU… who knows? I have no proof at all that you exist., <b>unless you reveal yourself to me and I can talk to you directly and see you plainly, then I may believe that you exist. Otherwise you are not here at all.</b>


why dont you make some efforts to proof your own existence???!!!


Salam


Wael

My existence pales in comparison to this/these god(s) you insist exist and belief in / submission to this/these god(s) you insist must be forced on everyone.


I would have though that you could offer some evidence, some convincing proof that these god(s) are extant. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. You're always lacking in the "support your argument", realm.

[wel_mel_2]

Bismillah:

My existence pales in comparison to this/these god(s) you insist exist and belief in / submission to this/these god(s) you insist must be forced on everyone.

First of all, you don’t know what is the definition of God to reject Him…how can you reject something which you are totally ignorant of? If I show you a pen and told you that it is a book, how will you ever going to disprove my statement unless you know very well the definition of a pen?


<b>secondly, have you met any Muslim in your whole life who forced you to submit yourself to God? </b>


and lastly, your existence now is very important to me, since you are demanding for extraordinary evidence to prove God’s existence, then I have full right to ask you to show me just an ordinary evidence to support your clam that YOU do exist, but you failed to do so, you are always “lacking in the "support your argument"…


Salam


Wael.

[Ruggedtouch]

Bismillah:


First of all, you don’t know what is the definition of God to reject Him…how can you reject something which you are totally ignorant of? If I show you a pen and told you that it is a book, how will you ever going to disprove my statement unless you know very well the definition of a pen?

Firstly Wael. I do not have to conclusively disprove every screwball assertion that comes my way (even so popular a one such as Jinn and devils etc.). You and I both know that if we were tasked with disproving every assertion we would spend every moment of every day of our lives doing just that. We don't operate that way.


I also do not go around making assertions that are by definition outside the realm of possible experience such as god(s). Look, take that assertion and break it down. How can one even assert "that which is outside the realm of possible experience"? By asserting it at all, you are acknowledging that at some level it is outside the realm of possible experience! Your statement self-contradicts and thus is absurd.


If something is not knowledge, it cannot be fact, if it is not fact, then it is unsupported conjecture. What you are doing is not defining limits of logic, which work perfectly fine in the context of existence, but you are pointing out that we shouldn't come to any conclusions about whatever absurd, ludicrous, or outlandish nonsense a theist might choose to utter as a "fact". Sorry. Humanity can do better than that, and we are doing better -- except when we run into throwbacks like Al-Quaeda, who use precisely that idea, that assertions are true without applying any standards to them. Where did the hijackers go? Paradise? 72 virgins? Well, hey, they assert it, you can't disprove it, so it's likely to be true!


No, it isn't.


Anyway, on to the substance of your question. So Wael, you ask the fundamental question, but you do so prematurely, IMO, because you don't first define what you are asking evidence for. What do you mean by "god(s)"? There are many conceptions of gods, ranging from incorporeal entities to long haired hippies walking around in sandals.


And if, by definition, the theist (who makes the claim that something <i>is</i>, thus owns the burden of proof) claims there is no possible proof in this natural world of ours, then the answer is clear: If I admit that what I claim to have existence has no evidence to support my claim, I am describing that which is indistinguishable from nothingness.


Unless one is omniscient, one cannot rule the supernatural out as a possible answer. However, by a simple exercise we can show that asserting a supernatural explanation plunges us into a world of nihilism. Consider:


In the theist worldview, what accounts for the existence of all is a Supreme Being whose mind we can never know, whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond its ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).


This, the theist claims, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be "reasoned". Well, what has the theist "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, for unfathomable, self-contradictory reasons, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, created everything. This "answer" is not only tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.


Why bother with science at all then? Let's just accept the theistic, "God did it" and go back to hewing arks from cubits of gopher wood.


Everyone's concept of god comes from various books written by men. It's again so convenient that god displays all these attributes of humanity in texts we know are written by humans (the source being the part of the debate). But if that billboard was up there, then we would know it wasn't written by man's hand, and then we'd have a foundation to go on.


Again, it boils down to things being confused and muddled and hopelessly complicated because god wants them this way. Or, there is no god and we are discussing a fictional character that workls fine as a fictional character but fails as an actual being. I'm feeling the edge of Occam's razor here...


I think you pre-define the supernatural (including god(s), Jinn, miracles) as "excused" from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion. Both are the same break from reality, the only difference is in degree and in overt harm it might cause.


Tell me, what is the difference between your assertion of supernatural entities and a certifiably insane person's claim that he is Napoleon? Both are equally demonstrable and reasonable claims, (according to your standards), and why should I believe your claims of “miracles” is real, but the individual with cognitive impairment (claiming to be Napoleon) is uttering a false claim?


Faith means you have no way to discern the difference.


Reason lets us understand both for what they actually are.


The single strongest argument against the assertion that gods exist is of course their propensity to not be in evidence. There are simply no reliable witnesses to attest to the existence of gods. However, most would agree that despite the boldness of this simplistic argument, it is just not good enough to sway many people of a theistic bent.


Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.

<b>secondly, have you met any Muslim in your whole life who forced you to submit yourself to God? </b>

No, I haven't. In large part because I've been raised in the West where islam has not had the opportunity to secure a position of majority where we might otherwise be coerced and compelled to kowtow to islam under threat of death as many around the world are.

and lastly, your existence now is very important to me, since you are demanding for extraordinary evidence to prove God’s existence, then I have full right to ask you to show me just an ordinary evidence to support your clam that YOU do exist, but you failed to do so, you are always “lacking in the "support your argument"…
Salam


Wael.

I noticed you’ve made this, (rather silly), charge before, Wael, and except for making a grasp at derailing the subject, why do it?


Clearly, we are all here posting, reading, responding and mutually agreeing that there is a context of reality that we share and as such, we can forgo actually being in one another's presence. I know when FHC, for example, responds to one of my posts that there is a direct, contextual response that speaks to my comments. Clearly, <i>someone</i> is responding to what I write. In addition, I know that my actions have clear and unmistakable consequences. There is a trail of evidence (discernible and extant), to display those consequences.


If I were to go to FHC’s house and speak to her directly about her post, how is that not proving both her’s (and my) existence? I would agree to <i>you</i> it might then be considered hearsay, but nothing is stopping <i>you</i> from investigating it as well and concluding from the source (me) whether or not it's true. Sorry, your take on this collapses, and even if it is true, then your posts fall into the exact same category, and hence you are arguing your own argumentation that it is unreliable as we are not getting it "from the source". (FHC, sorry about all the unwanted company at your house)


Second, we are agreeing the posts <i>exist</i> and we are <i>reading and replying to them</i> -- we are not agreeing that everything said in every post is something we all agree with. I said this plainly and since you seemed to have missed it in innumerable posts, here it is again:


You are assuming the Koran is the final arbiter of what gods are about and you sure haven't made a single argument proving to me that we should take this assumption as fact. So before you quote chapter and verse, may we please see your proof that the Koran is authoritative on the question of god?


It’s a rhetorical question, of course. The litany of exceptions regarding irrational assertions is effectively endless. These are excuses, couched in terms of the supernatural to allow you to embrace your desires for existence to be more than what is right here and now. The fact is, look around you. As much of a struggle, as nice or as bad as it gets-- this is reality.

[wel_mel_2]

Bismillah:


Amazing...


It’s totally true that there are many conceptions of God out there, but I would like to know from you <b>which concept of God that you have rejected the most?</b> (please try to be clear and straight to the point)... Please give us specific description of the concept of God that you’ve rejected and makes you an atheist?

I noticed you’ve made this, (rather silly), charge before, Wael, and except for making a grasp at derailing the subject, why do it?
Clearly, we are all here posting, reading, responding and mutually agreeing that there is a context of reality that we share and as such, we can forgo actually being in one another's presence. I know when FHC, for example, responds to one of my posts that there is a direct, contextual response that speaks to my comments. Clearly, <i>someone</i> is responding to what I write. In addition, I know that my actions have clear and unmistakable consequences. There is a trail of evidence (discernible and extant), to display those consequences.


If I were to go to FHC’s house and speak to her directly about her post, how is that not proving both her’s (and my) existence? I would agree to <i>you</i> it might then be considered hearsay, but nothing is stopping <i>you</i> from investigating it as well and concluding from the source (me) whether or not it's true. Sorry, your take on this collapses, and even if it is true, then your posts fall into the exact same category, and hence you are arguing your own argumentation that it is unreliable as we are not getting it "from the source". (FHC, sorry about all the unwanted company at your house)


Second, we are agreeing the posts <i>exist</i> and we are <i>reading and replying to them</i> -- we are not agreeing that everything said in every post is something we all agree with. I said this plainly and since you seemed to have missed it in innumerable posts, here it is again:


It’s a rhetorical question, of course. The litany of exceptions regarding irrational assertions is effectively endless. These are excuses, couched in terms of the supernatural to allow you to embrace your desires for existence to be more than what is right here and now. The fact is, look around you. As much of a struggle, as nice or as bad as it gets-- this is reality.

<b>Clearly you missed my point again..</b>


I know very well that <i>“someone”</i> out there in this huge universe is posting on our forums and his supposed name is 'Ruggedtouch' <b>but that doesn’t proof at all that it is YOU
who is really posting</b>… I too found your argument silly by rejecting God’s existence where you can see His signs and wonders wherever you go. So unless you prove to me your existence, you have no point at all to reject God Almighty's.

You are assuming the Koran is the final arbiter of what gods are about and you sure haven't made a single argument proving to me that we should take this assumption as fact. So before you quote chapter and verse, may we please see your proof that the Koran is authoritative on the question of god?

Ok, here is one point out of many evidences that the Qur’an comes from no one but Allah the Creator of everything.


The Prophet Muhammad pbuh had an uncle by the name of Abu Lahab. This man hated Islam to such an extent that he used to follow the Prophet around in order to discredit him. If Abu Lahab saw the Prophet pbuh speaking to a stranger, he would wait until they parted and the would go to the stranger and ask him, "What did he tell you? Did he say, 'Black'? Well, it's white. Did he say 'morning'? Well, it's night." He faithfully said the exact opposite of whatever he heard Muhammad pbuh and the Muslims say. However, about ten years before Abu Lahab died, a little chapter in the Qur'an (<b>Surah al-Lahab, Chapter 111</b>) was revealed about him.


It distinctly stated that he would go to Hell fire and will never believe in Muhammad’s pbuh message. In other words, it affirmed that he would never become a Muslim and would therefore be condemned forever. For ten years all Abu Lahab had to do was say, "I heard that it has been revealed to Muhammad that I will never change - that I will never become a Muslim and will enter the Hellfire. Well, I want to become Muslim now. How do you like that? What do you think of your divine revelation now?" <b>But he never did that. And yet, that is exactly the kind of behavior one would have expected from him since he always sought to contradict Islam. </b>


In essence, Muhammad pbuh said, "You hate me and you want to finish me? Here, say these words, and I am finished. Come on, say them!" (Say that there is no god but Allah and I am His Messenger) <b>But Abu Lahab never said them. Ten years! And in all that time he never accepted Islam or even became sympathetic to the Islamic cause. </b>


How could Muhammad pbuh possibly have known for sure that Abu Lahab would fulfil the Qur'anic revelation if he pbuh was not truly the messenger of Allah? How could he possibly have been so confident as to give someone 10 years to discredit his claim of prophethood? The only answer is that he was Allah's messenger; for in order to put forth such a risky challenge, one has to be entirely convinced that he has a divine revelation.


Salam


Wael.

[radiyah]

Bismillah


FHC you are ready to give a million if i convince RT, well he did not even answer my logic wonder why? And I do not look at materialistic stuff when I call for Monothism & Islam, I only expect that Allah (SWT) will be pleased by me forgive my sins and accept me in Jannat alnaeem. Hard luck FHC :P


Peace

[Ruggedtouch]

Bismillah:


Amazing...


It’s totally true that there are many conceptions of God out there, but I would like to know from you <b>which concept of God that you have rejected the most?</b> (please try to be clear and straight to the point)... Please give us specific description of the concept of God that you’ve rejected and makes you an atheist?

Words are concepts given labels, nothing more. In the context of these theistic/atheistic discussion, “faith”, appeals to a god(s), god means a spirit, an entity, a being of involvement and intelligence and so on. Religion means the doctrines and tenets established to adhere to the "rules" of such beings. To me, "gods" are any number of proffered deities, both modern and ancient, who have been selected as "the Supreme Being".


I’ve rejected all conceptions of god(s). Scriptural proofs are in no way any sort of proof at all-- it is from those scriptures that one comes to the belief in the first place, and it is their very veracity that is in question. Your use of the Koran as a vehicle to prove the Koran true is a viciously circular argument, yet you continue with this nightmarish charade.


Again, religious claims are always going to be able to embrace their special pleading status and it really boils down to whether one is willing to make that <i>leap of faith</i> and believe or not. I'm not prone to believing things that have built-in arbitrariness standards-- it's far too simple to misinterpret or to corrupt the data, and to me if it indicates a "supreme being" at all (which it doesn't but for argument's sake let's say it does) it points to a god(s) who must take some sort of delight in willfully confusing us.


Humanity is evolving away from mythologies, that much is clear. Religious beliefs have nowhere near the power and clout they used to, and as science progresses forward, the god of the gaps pleadings get thinner and thinner. Once, god opened every flower, now, he's reduced to being the Universe Winder. One day, that too will be taken away from him as he is merely a myth and always has been. My opinion? Yep. Will it be borne out? Speculatively, everything we've learned so far shows that the theisms are simply poetic perceptions of existence, important for their time, less relevant as we progress and learn the truth about existence. So yes, eventually when we come to the finish line of what is Truth, the natural explanation will reign supreme.


I think theists are painfully aware of this as well, consciously or unconsciously, though they will never admit it.

<b>Clearly you missed my point again..</b>
I know very well that <i>“someone”</i> out there in this huge universe is posting on our forums and his supposed name is 'Ruggedtouch' <b>but that doesn’t proof at all that it is YOU
who is really posting</b>…

As I noted previously (paraphrasing):


<i>your posts fall into the exact same category, and hence you are arguing your own argumentation is unreliable as we have no reason to believe that you</i> are who you claim to be


Not surprisingly, you’ve made no attempt to address this. I wonder why?

I too found your argument silly by rejecting God’s existence where you can see His signs and wonders wherever you go. So unless you prove to me your existence, you have no point at all to reject God Almighty's.

This is a nonsense argument.


What "signs" prove your god(s) existence?


What "wonders" prove your god(s) existence?

Ok, here is one point out of many evidences that the Qur’an comes from no one but Allah the Creator of everything.
The Prophet Muhammad pbuh had an uncle by the name of Abu Lahab. This man hated Islam to such an extent that he used to follow the Prophet around in order to discredit him. If Abu Lahab saw the Prophet pbuh speaking to a stranger, he would wait until they parted and the would go to the stranger and ask him, "What did he tell you? Did he say, 'Black'? Well, it's white. Did he say 'morning'? Well, it's night." He faithfully said the exact opposite of whatever he heard Muhammad pbuh and the Muslims say. However, about ten years before Abu Lahab died, a little chapter in the Qur'an (<b>Surah al-Lahab, Chapter 111</b>) was revealed about him.


It distinctly stated that he would go to Hell fire and will never believe in Muhammad’s pbuh message. In other words, it affirmed that he would never become a Muslim and would therefore be condemned forever. For ten years all Abu Lahab had to do was say, "I heard that it has been revealed to Muhammad that I will never change - that I will never become a Muslim and will enter the Hellfire. Well, I want to become Muslim now. How do you like that? What do you think of your divine revelation now?" <b>But he never did that. And yet, that is exactly the kind of behavior one would have expected from him since he always sought to contradict Islam. </b>


In essence, Muhammad pbuh said, "You hate me and you want to finish me? Here, say these words, and I am finished. Come on, say them!" (Say that there is no god but Allah and I am His Messenger) <b>But Abu Lahab never said them. Ten years! And in all that time he never accepted Islam or even became sympathetic to the Islamic cause. </b>


How could Muhammad pbuh possibly have known for sure that Abu Lahab would fulfil the Qur'anic revelation if he pbuh was not truly the messenger of Allah? How could he possibly have been so confident as to give someone 10 years to discredit his claim of prophethood? The only answer is that he was Allah's messenger; for in order to put forth such a risky challenge, one has to be entirely convinced that he has a divine revelation.


Salam


Wael.

And again, you enter a circular argument (using the Koran to prove the Koran true). That's dishonest, Wael.


I have good and valid reasons for rejecting god(s) existence. He doesn’t exist. You’re the one making claims to this asserted supernatural entity yet you offer nothing to support your claim. Why do you require that everyone just roll over and believe your totally unsupported fabrications?


Clearly, you’re backpedaling on this. The question posed previously remains firmly unanswered:


<i>You are assuming the Koran is the final arbiter of what gods are about and you sure haven't made a single argument proving to me that we should take this assumption as fact. So before you quote chapter and verse, may we please see your proof that the Koran is authoritative on the question of god?</i>


The point is, you can’t. This of course completely uncouples the Koran from being any sort of divine book, which in turn decouples anyone having any idea about what the belief system would be, since the belief system is reliant on the book for its foundation. In other words, the writers of the Koran (and we know they were men), were as knowledgeable as men were at the time it was penned, and there's no knowledge in it that is god-like in nature. This is because it is a wholly human document. It's an illustration of the problem with your approach to belief. Even your own objections you would sweep aside in favor of believing in what makes you feel good. You prefer the feel-good -- even if it's untrue -- rather than the truth, which may be uncomfortable.


While one has the right to believe whatever one wants, the point of this discussion is to illustrate that believing by "feelings" is notoriously unreliable for attaining any truths. Knowledge isn't reliant upon "feelings" -- and in fact feelings often sway us away from truth and knowledge because sometimes the truth is not very comforting.


Knowledge claims rely on critical examination and the compilation of facts. Most people shy away from this, and disdain reason as "cold" and "dispassionate" -- again, this may be the uncomfortable truth, but it is still the truth: <i>Knowledge</i> comes from critical analysis, and not from feelings.


The theist can assert a theistic worldview but has the added responsibility to also show a specific god is the <i>only</i> source of the cohesion of nature. This they do by citing various documents of dubious pedigree, texts that make immutable claims that then are shown to not hold up to much scrutiny, or are clearly wrong, or are flatly contradicted by other texts of equal standing (i.e., other dubious texts that make other immutable claims that are equally shown to fail under even cursory scrutiny, etc.)-- and thus the theist must implement "FAITH".


The atheist is not burdened by this mysterious and unexplainable method of attaining knowledge, because faith is not the same as empirical trust. In the court of Logic, knowledge is knowledge or it isn't. Faith by definition is not knowledge, it is faith-- it is belief despite or regardless of evidence. The moment evidence is applied to faith, and that evidence is shown to support the claim of faith, the claim of faith must lose its status of "faith" and instead become knowledge. Theism cleverly avoids this trap by asserting its claims only and always fall into the category of faith. Well, I for one agree with theists here: They have no knowledge of the truth nor can they by their own standards, they can only have faith. The atheist has the luxury of an empirical consistency that either supports itself repeatedly:


"If I step out the window, the laws of logic indicate I will fall to the ground below. Every time. Without fail."


or fails, thus becoming untrue:


"The world is flat, and the sky is a lid covering it". No, it isn't.


and thus has a monopoly on knowledge. The theist can have knowledge claims (David's tomb is discovered. The Temple mount dates back x amount of millennia, and so on) but of its central tenets the status of knowledge is out of bounds. Not by atheist decree, but by theistic decree.

[wel_mel_2]

Bismillah:

Please stop this madness, Wael. That’s completely unsupported conjecture. You’re waving your religious dogma ....

I know I know... what else will I expect from you huh?? :D Just don't bother yourself with my madness :blink:


Salam


Wael.