Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Theism and Atheism

Posted Jun 11, '13 at 12:57pm

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

151 posts

Here's why people are skeptical of religion, in a nutshell:

so the Holy Prophet prayed to Allah... so Allah sent his angels ... and that is my evidence that god exists


Its completely fine if you have those beliefs, but if you inject words like "evidence" into that statement, people aren't going to take you seriously.
 

Posted Jun 11, '13 at 1:48pm

gaboloth

gaboloth

1,631 posts

I know that there's no point in bringing this up after two pages, but it was just too funny:

24.45 . Allah has created every animal out of water . Of them (is a category which) walks upon its belly, (another which) walks upon two legs, and ( a third which) walks upon four . Allah creates what He wills. Allah is Able to do everything (he wants) .

In this verse, Allah (Praise to Him) tells us that animals were originally created out of water (as was the origin of humans). Some of these animals walk on their belly (like snakes), others walk on two legs or on four legs.
We know that almost all animals except kangaroos (and penguins) walk on four legs. However, for Prophet Muhammed (Peace and blessings be upon him) and old world humans at the time of revelation (1429 years ago), they did not know that there was an animal which walked on two legs in Australia. Only God knew that and has told us about it, as another piece of evidence that He is the author of the Holy QurĂ¢an, not any human .


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-umxPVI8NnrI/TyAbmzXIAdI/AAAAAAAACTc/VkPF6s_gbq4/s1600/Chicken.jpg
 

Posted Jun 11, '13 at 7:57pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,805 posts

Knight

so the Holy Prophet prayed to Allah... so Allah sent his angels ... and that is my evidence that god exists


How is that evidence? This doesn't support the assertion that Allah exists, it's just another assertion.
 

Posted Jun 12, '13 at 5:31am

mbbs112

mbbs112

196 posts

Im still reading the Quran so i dont have that much evidence but when i read all of it then ill post it

 

Posted Jun 12, '13 at 6:02am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

10,002 posts

Im still reading the Quran so i dont have that much evidence but when i read all of it then ill post it


See..but here is the thing. The Qu'ran is not evidence. The Qu'ran is the claim.
 

Posted Jun 12, '13 at 9:05am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,577 posts

Knight

No,you guys know nothing Tamerlane was a nobleman among the other nobles and beat the other nobles to proclaim himself the Great Khan leader of all so all of them or most of them did and secondly Tamerlane(Timur) says in his diary that he did it for 2 reasons because he wanted treasure and that he would gain rewards in paradise for killing infidels and that he didnt want such a horrible massacre to happen but that his soldiers were out of control and dont insult Timur as he was a muslim and i wouldnt want people insulting fellow muslim.and P.S Timur confessed in his diary



Timur was an illiterate, as were most Mongol noblemen for the period. It furthermore doesn't make him any less culpable for not restraining his warriors (even though he explicitly sanctioned them, so your claims are false), for he sanctioned the campaigns.

nd you said before that lots of nations were developing,well they were but they still lost to nations who had a disadvantage such as when the japanese attacked and defeated china in numerous battles and you can read about


So? How does this make Timur, and by extension, the Muslims of that period, any less barbaric than other warring empires who based their campaigns around a divine authority?

the ife of the Holy Prophet pbuh and see that they won all of the battles and that they lost only 1 battle because of their own fault as the enemy retreated leaving behind lots of money and the Holy Prophet posted some archers on a hill to defend them from the underpass from the enemy cavalry but when the archers saw all that money they went to collect it and the leader of the enemy cavalry Khalid Bin Walid saw the underpass unprotected they charged and they attacked the muslims and defeated them and after that they received a revelation from Allah saying that Allah supported them as long as they supported him and that was the moment that the muslims realized that what Allah said was true so you not only need science to help you and that there are some objectives in life that we cannot complete without heavenly support so Allah exists and you can look at the first battle of the muslims between the quraish that the Muslims were shabbily equiped and has only a few horse and camels whereas the quraish army was excellently equiped with many horses and camels and had 900 men and the muslims had 300 so the Holy Prophet prayed to Allah and said that if this small band of believers perished then nobody would worship Allah so Allah sent his angels to decrease the enemy morale and confidence and so the enemy fled in disorder leaving behind a great many famous warriors and chiefs of the quraish and that is my evidence that god exists


One undefeated general makes not proof for God's existence. Does Hannibal's impeccable record as a general mean that the Carthaginian Gods exist? Or Napoleon? Or Frederick the Great?

The fact is, for over a thousand years, the Muslims and Christians battered each other to a standstill, with no side giving way until the late modern period. If an Islamic or Christian God exists, evidently he didn't give much support to his Chosen People.
 

Posted Jun 12, '13 at 2:20pm

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,315 posts

Moderator

After reading this most recent discussion, I'm just wondering if the atheist sympathizers of AG might be better served arguing for the irrationality of theistic belief. There are quite a few points (including those made by mbbs112) that demonstrate the levels of irrationality amongst theists.

We can go back and forth all day about what constitutes 'evidence' and whether certain claims or stories support other claims. But I think we could move the question back one level to one that is more fundamental.

Right now I see lots of points going back and forth regarding whether evidence E supports claim C. I think it's an interesting question whether E should be considered evidence, but this is a tough line to pursue. Instead, maybe we should focus on whether claim C is rational and just set aside the question of evidential relations.

Just a thought - I just kind of feel like this conversation has gone in circles for quite some time. Maybe we could spice things up?

 

Posted Jun 12, '13 at 3:35pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,805 posts

Knight

maybe we should focus on whether claim C is rational and just set aside the question of evidential relations.


First off this is a rather incredible claim, On that basis I would say it would be irrational to accept without solid evidence. But since you want to avoid the evidence argument let's move on.

The source of this claim comes from people handing these stories down from word of mouth. A method notorious for creating errors in stories. We could rationally accept something mundane in this fashion since we would have other events that commonly take place to draw from, but not an extraordinary one.
More so the original people who made the claim are unknown, leaving us with no first hand verification.

The different sources give us widely different accounts of this claim. The accounts change from culture to culture, from community to community, within communities and can even vary from person to person.

Out of those varying claims the nature of this entity can be logically inconsistent, contradictory and paradoxical.

Out of those making the claims, those leading the pack are often found to use lies in order to promote what they are saying and will attempt to suppress any claim contrary to theirs and will even try to quell questioning their claim.

So just on the basis of the claim alone we are left with a widely inconsistent extraordinary claim, fashioned by unknown people, carried on through unreliable means, with some of the most dishonest among us promoting it as true.

I'm going to say, no it's not rational.

(Note: I'm not saying everyone promoting this claim is dishonest.)
 

Posted Jun 13, '13 at 8:27am

Moegreche

Moegreche

3,315 posts

Moderator

On that basis I would say it would be irrational to accept without solid evidence.


I completely agree. We might quibble on what counts as solid evidence, but I think you and I would agree that many theistic claims have little to no evidence. But, of course, we are in a way begging the question against the theist. We count certain things as evidence (empirical observations, a certain class of arguments, etc.) at the exclusion of other purported forms of evidence. Thus we have ipso facto disregarded the basic premises upon which theistic belief is founded. As a result, the conversation can't even get off the ground. So, as you point out, let's just grant the evidence and see what happens.

Out of those varying claims the nature of this entity can be logically inconsistent, contradictory and paradoxical.


Well put, this is exactly what I'm thinking. In the same way, if I have evidence for a claim that is logically inconsistent I need to do something about it. We can note that accepting an inconsistent claim is irrational without even thinking about the evidence in support of this claim. (This ends up being a bit weird because the inconsistency of a claim is itself evidence against the claim, so it seems unavoidable to talk about evidence. But we can avoid this by invoking some fundamental principles of rationality).

So now we ask: what theistic claims fail on these principles of rationality? Furthermore, what are these principles? For the latter, I'd suggest the following:

1) We should not accept claims that are internally inconsistent.
2) We should avoid whenever possible inconsistency in our overall network of beliefs.
3) We should not accept claims that lead to beliefs that are inconsistent in terms of (1) or (2).

Feel free to modify or argue against any of this - it's all off the cuff. But if this is right, are there specific theistic beliefs that violate (1), (2) or (3)?
 

Posted Jun 15, '13 at 11:49am

mbbs112

mbbs112

196 posts

man you guys confused me,i dont even know what mage and moegreche are talking about except a little about the "Incredible claim"

 
Reply to Theism and Atheism

You must be logged in to post a reply!