Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[godless dave]

So you believe that Muhammad who was considered to be a rather honest but otherwise ordinary guy before his 40th birthday, had a seizure which caused him to become (what many would consider and based on the examples which I have provided) a literary #, and mathematical # genius?

No, he was still just as honest and ordinary afterwards as before. And we have no way of knowing how honest and ordinary that was.

 

[godless dave]

So the idea that the book which contains no errors, made accurate predictions regarding upcoming events, and remains consistent with science; the idea that book was the work of multiple authors would seem to contradict reason.

None of those three statements apply to the Koran, but regardless, it would be unremarkable if a committee of people compiled a book that contained no errors and was consistent with science.

 

[tsig]

I don't see what the big deal is. Read the darn book, it's pretty whack.

I got as far as the second surrah (the cow?), where is says this:
"Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him ) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.

7. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, (i.e. they are closed from accepting Allah's Guidance), and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment."
Pretty clear it's talking about me and the uselessness of trying to convince me. Done deal. Case closed. It's right there in the book. Allah has prevented me from ever "getting" it.

So... what's for lunch?

Because Allah kept you from getting it he's gonna make sure you get it in the next life. He's even gonna replace your skin when it burns off so you can feel more pain.

Nice guy he's not.

 

[Scorpion]

If the choice is that Muhammad was a liar, a madman, or a prophet, I choose Liar. He tries to justify himself many times in the quran, and here are some examples. First he tries to justify the fact he cannot do miracles. Then he goes on to say he is not just a mad poet. Obviously people of his time thought that of him so he made up verses about it.

20.133 And they say: if only he would bring us a miracle from his Lord!
Has there not come unto them the proof of what is in the former Scriptures.

21.5 "Nay," they say, "(these are) medleys of dream! - Nay, He forged it! -Nay, He is (but) a poet! Let him then bring us a Sign like the ones that were sent to (Prophets) of old!"

26.224 And the Poets,- It is those straying in Evil, who follow them:

36.69 We have not instructed the (Prophet) in Poetry, nor is it meet for him: this is no less than a Message and a Qur'an making things clear:

37.36 And say: "What! shall we give up our gods for the sake of a Poet
possessed?"

52.30 Or do they say:- "A Poet! we await for him some calamity (hatched) by Time!"

69.41 It is not the word of a poet: little it is ye believe!

 

[Navigator]

It could be falsified by the confirmed discovery of one real god.

Of course. But science is not the tool for such a task. What does science know about what 'real gods' are? Indeed, what does anyone know about that?

Plenty of belief either way but what of that? Belief is not logical - it has no place in logic.

As I said, statements claiming absolutely that there is no god, afterlife, alternate realities/universes etc are not 'statements of science' but statements of atheist belief systems. Confusing atheism for science is silly.

 

[godless dave]

Of course. But science is not the tool for such a task.

Then what is? Is there any other reliable tool for determining whether things exist?

 

[Navigator]

Are you sure your post was supposed to be an answer to mine?

Absolutely.

 

[Astreja]

OK, well we already addressed {allegory in the Qur'an} earlier but if this is the best you can do, and it also makes you feel better, then by all means.

Oh, I can do better, Mike. A lot better.

I hereby unilaterally declare all of the Qur'an to be allegory until demonstrated empirically in double-blind experiments. Can't be too careful, you know.

 

[mikeb768]

I don't see what the big deal is. Read the darn book, it's pretty whack.

I got as far as the second surrah (the cow?), where is says this:
"Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him ) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.

7. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, (i.e. they are closed from accepting Allah's Guidance), and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment."

Pretty clear it's talking about me and the uselessness of trying to convince me. Done deal. Case closed. It's right there in the book. Allah has prevented me from ever "getting" it.

So... what's for lunch?

Reconciling "Predestination" (Qadr) & "Freewill".

Yeah you are not the first person to come up with this argument. How can God punish me for something which was already predetermined [Quran 2:4-7].

2:4] "And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter."
2:5] "They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper."
2:6] "As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe."
2:7] "God hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur)."

As stated in [Quran 2:4-7] people are making a conscious decision (as in choice) to either believe something or reject it. This is called "Freewill". No one is being forced.

Yes, but Muslims believe that the destiny of everything has been prerecorded in Al-Lauh Al-Mahfuud (The Preserved Tablet). In an authentic hadith narrated by At-Tirmithee and Abu Dawuud, Prophet Muhammad said “Verily, the first thing God created was the pen. He said to it: ‘Write.’ It replied: ‘My Lord, what should I write?’ So He said: ‘Write all that will occur.’ So in that hour, everything that will occur until the Day of Recompense was recorded.” Another hadith indicates that this was 50,000 years prior to creation.

It may seem to some that Freewill and Predestination are at odds with one another. So how are we able to reconcile the two? The best way that I have heard it described is as follows: Say you have teacher who is very familiar with his pupils, he knows that they will sit for an exam later that day. Before they arrive to class he writes down every student's name and the exact grade which they will receive on the exam. He then places this piece of paper inside of his desk. The students later sit the exam and turn in their papers.

After all exams have been completed and submitted, the teacher then takes out the list from his desk. He then grades each exam which the students have submitted, and finds that the prerecorded list to be an exact match. [Longer version 1, 2]

Also regarding you not making it past the 2nd chapter of the Quran. You are not alone, many people who start reading the book soon realize that if the claims which are being made therein are true, the implications could be rather significant. Ignorance can therefore seem like bliss (even if only temporary).

 

[Navigator]

1: While consciousness might continue after death, there's no reason to believe it does, as evidence of human consciousness has not been observed independent of a living, functioning human brain.

2: If consciousness exists in a manner that cannot, even in principle, be observed, then how can we have any knowledge of it? How can we say anything meaningful about whether it might exist? What is the difference between something that cannot be observed and something that doesn't exist?



3: There is no reason to believe that it might be possible.

4: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." ~Samuel Clemens~

1: Of course. I have said so more than once in this thread. You and others seem confused about that. I certainly am not suggesting anyone believes EITHER way. I realize that many do believe absolutely that such things as god, afterlife, alternate realities/infinite universes etc, cannot exist, and confuse their atheism as science

2: One can speculate if they want to...bearing in mind that speculation itself needn't evolve into belief.
I recall recently hearing that Steven Hawkins posits multiple universes - I have no problem with that.


Apart from that (speculation) there is no way to have knowledge of such things, which is precisely why 'these things cannot exist' is not a statement of science, but a statement of atheism, or more precisely, certain forms of atheism.


3: As there also is no reason to believe that it isn't possible. Either way, this logic does not prevent individuals from believing it does or doesn't.
What is so difficult to understand here? Logic has no use for belief.

4: Purely an atheistic sentiment, but certainly not accurate. Faith is believing in something which could be true because the one believing it hopes it is true.

Those who for example believe in the continuation of consciousness (afterlife) also have beliefs about what afterlife will be like. That is faith.

Those who don't believe in the continuation of consciousness (afterlife) believe there is nothing...they cease to be. That is also faith.

Neither are able to prove their belief induced claims absolutely. Science certainly isn't in the business of making such claims, because it cannot categorically do so. Some scientists may try to use science to bolster their personal beliefs, but essentially science cannot be used for that purpose as it deals solely with the observable universe we are primarily involved with and the questions it can hope to help answer.

What is so hard to understand here?

 

[godless dave]

Those who don't believe in the continuation of consciousness (afterlife) believe there is nothing...they cease to be. That is also faith.

No, it's science. There is no evidence suggesting that consciousness can continue after death, and plenty of evidence suggesting it does not. "Believing" that there is no afterlife is a conclusion based on evidence.

 

[Navigator]

Then what is? Is there any other reliable tool for determining whether things exist?

Specifically the 'things' such as god/alternate universes/extraterrestrials/afterlife etc cannot be determined either way as to whether they exist or not.

Essentially they are ideas about 'things' outside this universe, (or in relation to extraterrestrials and perhaps continued consciousness (afterlife) - inside this universe but as yet undetected and in relation to consciousness without form perhaps undetectable)

Science as yet hasn't developed detection devices for such things. In relation to extraterrestrials there are some inventions science has been able to create for the purpose of possible detection but how would science go about inventing something which can detect discarnate consciousness?

So there is no reliable tool for detecting such things, which is precisely one reason why science is not stating anything regarding the existence or non existence of god. The other reason is that there is no particular agree on definition of 'what god is' - How can science look for something that isn't even properly defined?

I mean, for example, someone might define the physical universe as 'an atom of gods body' (and how could we know this is true or not?) but as a definition it still couldn't be tested by science. That is why science cannot be useful for making absolute statements about the existence or non existence of god.

Religious definitions of god can to a good extent be challenged as most likely purely human inventions - as they most often are attributed with human attributes both positive and negative, but the idea of 'god' (and alternate universe etc) can be rather a non exhaustive thing. They could exist, and indeed as ideas they do exist but there is no way to determine/measure etc as matter of fact either way, and no particular reason therefore to believe either way.

 

[Navigator]

No, it's science. There is no evidence suggesting that consciousness can continue after death, and plenty of evidence suggesting it does not. "Believing" that there is no afterlife is a conclusion based on evidence.

If there was evidence then there would be no need for "belief" now would there?

I am happy for you to give examples of this evidence, as I would be amazed that such things as god, afterlife, alternate universes etc categorical cannot exist because science has proved so.

I would truly be in awe of that.

 

[godless dave]

If there was evidence then there would be no need for "belief" now would there?

I am happy for you to give examples of this evidence, as I would be amazed that such things as god, afterlife, alternate universes etc categorical cannot exist because science has proved so.

I would truly be in awe of that.

I was specifically talking about life after death. In that case, there is copious scientific evidence that consciousness is a property of human brains, and thus cannot survive death. So in that case, it's not a belief that there's no afterlife, it's a conclusion based on scientific evidence.

With gods, there is no scientific evidence that they can't exist, just a lack of any evidence that they do exist. So it's reasonable to conclude that they don't, but it is not scientifically demonstrated that they don't.

With multiple universes, there is the same lack of evidence that they exist. The only reason to give the idea credence at all is that they are mathematically predicted by some theories of physics, which is more than any postulated gods have going for them, but it would not be reasonable to conclude that they exist.

 

[asydhouse]

I was specifically talking about life after death. In that case, there is copious scientific evidence that consciousness is a property of human brains, and thus cannot survive death. So in that case, it's not a belief that there's no afterlife, it's a conclusion based on scientific evidence.

With gods, there is no scientific evidence that they can't exist, just a lack of any evidence that they do exist. So it's reasonable to conclude that they don't, but it is not scientifically demonstrated that they don't.

With multiple universes, there is the same lack of evidence that they exist. The only reason to give the idea credence at all is that they are mathematically predicted by some theories of physics, which is more than any postulated gods have going for them, but it would not be reasonable to conclude that they exist.

Good post.

As to the something from nothing discussion, I've seen a mathematician explaining that "nothing" is a mathematically unstable condition, so the moment you arrived at a state of "nothing", that state would immediately "topple" into "something". So the "nothing" that would be more "nothing" than the void wherein the "something" of quantum fluctuations exist "in potential", that more profoundly "nothing" cannot survive without immediately demanding the more stable condition of "something".

Per the hilighted part of your post, and in response to Navigator's tiresome insistence that he is taking a "more scientific stance than thou":

People who get brain damage from a hit on the head, for instance, often become completely different in their character, effectively ceasing to be the person they were before their accident. This looks like evidence to me that "consciousness" is dependant on the brain.

When people talk of life after death, they are naively expecting themselves to be unaffected by the transition to the new bodiless nonphysical state of the afterlife. It's illogical to think that people would make that transition as identical entities to their physically generated selves, in the light of the changes observed in living people after the change in their brain states.

On top of that, Navigator seems unable to grasp that the null hypothesis is a scientific position: given everything we do know, god does not appear to exist. Therefore, we can assume that god does not exist, until such time that god is shown to exist.

"God does not exist" is easily falsified by showing that god does exist. Therefore it is a scientific statement.

In the absence of evidence to demonstrate a god's existence, it is not a falsifiable statement to say "God exists", because it is not possible to prove a negative. In other words, you can never prove that god does not exist, therefore it is a non-falsifiable claim to say that "god does exist", and therefore not a scientific statement.

To summarise:

A) The scientific position is that a statement must be falsifiable for it to be scientific.

B) "God does not exist" is falsifiable, therefore it is a valid scientific position, given our current knowledge.

C) "God does exist" is unfalsifiable, therefore it is not a scientific statement.

D) "I don't know, so I'm going to allow the equal weight of possibility to both statements" is not scientific, it's just a cop out.

You can claim that position philosophically, even morally, but don't try to pretend that it's the scientific position.

All the best, a Syd

 

[John Jones]

The discussion is mainly aimed at people who deal in the realm of "reason" and "logic", if you read the OP.

I would be helpful then if you started demonstrating a little more of them

 

[John Jones]

I said that. Science cannot. that is exactly why it does not categorically state that god etc does not exist.

Science is saying no such thing. It deals with this universe.

You are confusing atheism with science. They are two separate things.

I'm not convinced you know much about the discipline of science. The statement 'there is no god' is falsifiable, and is therefor more scientific than the statement 'there is a god', which cannot be falsified. It has predictive value because we can expect to see no supernatural behavior on the part of non-extant gods.

That's the last time I'm going to waste my time explaining it to you. Go read some Karl Popper or Thomas Kuhn.

 

[I Ratant]

I don't see what the big deal is. Read the darn book, it's pretty whack.

I got as far as the second surrah (the cow?), where is says this:
"Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him ) warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.

7. Allah has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearings, (i.e. they are closed from accepting Allah's Guidance), and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be a great torment."

...

.
That allah, what a kidder... hardening Pharoah's heart so the plagues can be inflicted on the Egyptians... and making people that can't get his message because he made them that way. Pbuh... phooey.

 

[John Jones]

Of course. But science is not the tool for such a task. [...].

Says who?

 

[John Jones]

Of course. But science is not the tool for such a task. What does science know about what 'real gods' are? Indeed, what does anyone know about that?

Plenty of belief either way but what of that? Belief is not logical - it has no place in logic.

As I said, statements claiming absolutely that there is no god, afterlife, alternate realities/universes etc are not 'statements of science' but statements of atheist belief systems. Confusing atheism for science is silly.

So stop doing it.