Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[mikeb768]

By demonstrating the narrowness of his borders of knowledge and thought.

He's obviously not responding to the frontal approach. He just ignores the information linked which shows the mistakes in his quran, which he simply dismisses and then repeats his claims of perfection etc. His history of the quran is a lie.

You've already posted the history of it's origins in depth more than once, and yet he ignores it. He needs to see other minds and ways of thinking at work.

Do you really think the conversation we've been having is worthless?

I thought it was worthwhile, or I wouldn't have put so much effort into it.

Shall we take a vote?

On second thoughts, I'll just leave you to it. Good luck with your impossible task of arguing mike out of his delusion by telling him it's a delusion.

So long, and good luck to you all.

I'm not claiming to know everything about the Quran, but I would consider my self fairly well versed regarding what is contained in the book and what isn't.

If you can post what you truly believe to be a legitimate error, I will do my best to answer it. Most of the so called "errors" people like present are not even worth addressing. They only require reading a few lines further up the page or a few lines further down the page, understanding of the proper context, etc.

I already responded to a few of these earlier in the thread, take a look and see for yourself.

Also speaking of delusion, God uses the same term to describe our present lives as just that, in the following verse: [Quran 57:20] "Know that the life of this world is but amusement and diversion and adornment and boasting to one another and competition in increase of wealth and children - like the example of a rain whose [resulting] plant growth pleases the tillers; then it dries and you see it turned yellow; then it becomes [scattered] debris. And in the Hereafter is severe punishment and forgiveness from God and approval. And what is the worldly life except the enjoyment of delusion."

 

[punshhh]

No. Not even close. The point is that if it interacts with the universe, then science can, in principle, detect it. If it doesn't interact with the universe, then it cannot be meaningfully said to exist.

It may interact with the universe in a way which we can't detect, or detect at this stage in our development. If it exists, it exists whatever people say about it, or visa versa if it doesn't exist. If you look carefully at what
I have said on this forum, I have not said anything which has not been detected exists, only that something's may exist and even then, I keep any definition of them to a minimum.

If they interact with the universe, then science can detect them, in principle.

Perhaps in principle, but there may be much which cannot be detected by humanity due to our limitations. But which could be detected by another form of intelligence (such as AI) dependent on their particular evolved characteristics.

(I'd rather have read asydhouse's response, as I'm not nearly so eloquent, but...)

No worries, I enjoy discussing these ideas however people express their ideas.

 

[tsig]

This is an example of what is sometimes called naive materialism. You are making existence subject to the human condition, placing the current understanding that humanity has on a pedestal. Fine, I don't see that this in dispute. But what about the things that exist which we are not aware of?

That seems better than kicking it to the curb.

 

[punshhh]

You haven't given us any deeper questions. You mean like the meaning of life? Why are we here? How about there is no meaning as an answer to those questions. We provide our own purpose and meaning. It is not imposed by the universe. The universe does not require anything from us.

I just asked you the question, can you give me an alternative to beginning ex-nihilo, or infinite causal regression? Which are both logical dead ends.

We are the arbiters and the impetus for ourselves.

Agreed.

You insist on an origin for the surface of a sphere? You haven't understood what I posted and what you dismissed in a tit-for-tat fit of pique as "sophistry".

The hypersphere is a mathematically well-defined form that we cannot envision in our heads, because we have evolved in three dimensions, but a hypersphere is a four-dimensional form. There's no sophistry in that.

If you lack education, you should look into it. You might be able to let go of your origins dogma. There is a real mystery, you are almost there when you say we may not be able to detect due to our evolutionary predicament.

I am well familiar with these ideas. I regard the sphere analogy rather redundant. I prefer reducing everything to a single point (such as an atom), of space time (rather like in the Big Bang event). This is much more versatile, while simple to think about and transcends dimensions, which I see as misleading.

But if the physical universe ever gets affected by something from outside, it of necessity will leave a trace, and we will be able to detect that.

This does not follow.

As soon as a real anomaly occurs, we'll be ale to study it using science. And science will be the only tool that will enable us to approach the reality of whatever that anomaly is.

Yes, when an anomaly presents itself.

 

[John Jones]

I just asked you the question, can you give me an alternative to beginning ex-nihilo, or infinite causal regression? Which are both logical dead ends.
Agreed.
I am well familiar with these ideas. I regard the sphere analogy rather redundant. I prefer reducing everything to a single point (such as an atom), of space time (rather like in the Big Bang event). This is much more versatile, while simple to think about and transcends dimensions, which I see as misleading.
This does not follow.

Yes it does.

 

[gentlehorse]

It may interact with the universe in a way which we can't detect, or detect at this stage in our development.

Nobody has said that science and the scientific body of knowledge are perfect, but if it cannot be detected at this stage in our development, then we can't meaningfully say that it exists. Note: This is not to say that nothing but that which we've detected to date exists. As the model improves, our awareness of existence will likely increase, as will our ability to make discoveries, accurate predictions, and meaningful statements.

If it exists, it exists whatever people say about it, or visa versa if it doesn't exist. If you look carefully at what I have said on this forum, I have not said anything which has not been detected exists, only that something's may exist and even then, I keep any definition of them to a minimum.

No one is claiming that we (meaning humanity) know everything there is to know about the universe, but until we have evidence (direct or indirect) of X, there is nothing we can say about it. Science is not humanity's best tool. It's humanity's only tool.

No worries, I enjoy discussing these ideas however people express their ideas.

Same here, as long as things don't achieve escape velocity from reason-- (I forget who I stole that from.)

 

[Aridas]

To poke at a couple things...

I don't know if Mike's gotten anything out of what you've been saying, but I have. I appreciate what you say and the way you say it. Who knows? Maybe Mike will think a bit about what you wrote. Stick around. You can't please everybody, but I'd be surprised if I'm the only one who likes your stuff. Keep posting!

Generally, in discussions like these, it seems like the people not actually contributing are the ones who actually learn the most.

No. Not even close. The point is that if it interacts with the universe, then science can, in principle, detect it. If it doesn't interact with the universe, then it cannot be meaningfully said to exist.

From our perspective, sure. The general issue being dealt with is generally not limited to our perspective though, when dealing with people taking punshhh's general position. That said, personally, I don't quite agree with the general statement that if something interacts with the universe, science can, in principle detect it, just given the very high chance that there are hard limits regarding what can actually be measured and reasonably understood about our universe. "Therefore woo" certainly does not follow, but a lot of things are still possible, even if they are unreasonable to accept as the case.

If you can post what you truly believe to be a legitimate error, I will do my best to answer it. Most of the so called "errors" people like present are not even worth addressing. They only require reading a few lines further up the page or a few lines further down the page, understanding of the proper context, etc.

Some, maybe. Just like with the Bible, not all criticisms made are valid. That doesn't negate ones that are. To start with two specific errors pointed out in links provided, though, that I'm curious about your response to...

From the wikiislam article regarding scientific errors in the Quran, first,

Moon is Further from the Earth than the Stars
Main Article: A Qur’anic Understanding of the Universe

The Qur'an claims that the moon is located in the middle of the universe and stars are in the nearest/lowest part of the universe. The nearest star to our solar system is 4.24 light years (4x1013km) away and over 100 million times further away then the moon. Clearly the Qur'anic author has no idea that the vast majority of stars in the night sky are billions upon billions of light-years away.

See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another,
'And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) Lamp
Qur'an 71:15-16
Surely We have adorned the nearest heaven with an adornment, the stars
Qur'an 37:6

And from the page about errors in the Quran that are widely considered to be errors by Islamic scholars" section of 1000 mistakes in the Quran

005 - generally accepted by Islam to be wrong.

9/30: "The Jews call 'Uzayr (the Jewish prophet Ezra*) a son of God - - -". Muslim scholars today admits this is wrong.

I already responded to a few of these earlier in the thread, take a look and see for yourself.

Sadly, given the nature of the claim that you're making, your job supporting that claim will inevitably be much, much more difficult than that in a forum of skeptics. I'm pretty sure that people simply haven't been taking your position as worth taking seriously, because they generally haven't been with how well you've supported them and their inherent trustworthiness, or the opposition to your claims would be significantly greater.

Also speaking of delusion, God uses the same term to describe our present lives as just that, in the following verse: [Quran 57:20] "Know that the life of this world is but amusement and diversion and adornment and boasting to one another and competition in increase of wealth and children - like the example of a rain whose [resulting] plant growth pleases the tillers; then it dries and you see it turned yellow; then it becomes [scattered] debris. And in the Hereafter is severe punishment and forgiveness from God and approval. And what is the worldly life except the enjoyment of delusion."

As has been noted before, while it's certainly fine to quote the Quran, you should bear in mind that, until you've actually convinced us that the Quran is in any way worth taking seriously, you're doing it solely for your own benefit, because, as things stands, we seem to be taking the Quran as seriously as we would take the Harry Potter books.

 

[bruto]

I suppose "naive materialism" remains a possibility, but it would be a more convincing possibility if there were no human history. Naive theists have attributed many things to gods that later turned out not to be the work of gods. Given the record, doing the same thing again seems a poor bet.

 

[mikeb768]

To poke at a couple things...



Generally, in discussions like these, it seems like the people not actually contributing are the ones who actually learn the most.



From our perspective, sure. The general issue being dealt with is generally not limited to our perspective though, when dealing with people taking punshhh's general position. That said, personally, I don't quite agree with the general statement that if something interacts with the universe, science can, in principle detect it, just given the very high chance that there are hard limits regarding what can actually be measured and reasonably understood about our universe. "Therefore woo" certainly does not follow, but a lot of things are still possible, even if they are unreasonable to accept as the case.



Some, maybe. Just like with the Bible, not all criticisms made are valid. That doesn't negate ones that are. To start with two specific errors pointed out in links provided, though, that I'm curious about your response to...

From the wikiislam article regarding scientific errors in the Quran, first,



And from the page about errors in the Quran that are widely considered to be errors by Islamic scholars" section of 1000 mistakes in the Quran





Sadly, given the nature of the claim that you're making, your job supporting that claim will inevitably be much, much more difficult than that in a forum of skeptics. I'm pretty sure that people simply haven't been taking your position as worth taking seriously, because they generally haven't been with how well you've supported them and their inherent trustworthiness, or the opposition to your claims would be significantly greater.



As has been noted before, while it's certainly fine to quote the Quran, you should bear in mind that, until you've actually convinced us that the Quran is in any way worth taking seriously, you're doing it solely for your own benefit, because, as things stands, we seem to be taking the Quran as seriously as we would take the Harry Potter books.

That sounds great but who are these scholars you speak of? And how wide of a berth was the survey which they took before making the claim "widely considered to be errors by Islamic scholars"?

Also who voted you spokes person of the Internet? When you say, "I'm pretty sure that people simply haven't been taking your position as worth taking seriously"? OK, you did a scientific poll to support this claim? I know of many scholars who would disagree.

I realize that many people (possibly even the majority) may not be interested in reading over or viewing the information which I have provided. Although this is only represents further proof of the Quran's validity, take for example the following:

[Quran 2:243]
"Didst thou not Turn by vision to those who abandoned their homes, though they were thousands (In number), for fear of death? God said to them: "Die": Then He restored them to life. For God is full of bounty to mankind, but Most of them are ungrateful."

So in this passage we can plainly see that despite God being so generous with mankind, the majority of people will continue (right up until the end) to think of themselves as independent, continue with their arrogance, and continue being ungrateful, despite this. Is this not the case we have before us today?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

[Quran 2:243]
"Didst thou not Turn by vision to those who abandoned their homes, though they were thousands (In number), for fear of death? God said to them: "Die": Then He restored them to life. For God is full of bounty to mankind, but Most of them are ungrateful."

So in this passage we can plainly see that despite God being so generous with mankind, the majority of people will continue (right up until the end) to think of themselves as independent, continue with their arrogance, and continue being ungrateful, despite this. Is this not the case we have before us today?

Quoting the Quran as proof for the Quran's validity is circular reasoning. Also, who made you spokesperson for God? You speak as if your posts come from a direct line from God, and that anyone who rejects them is being "ungrateful" or "obstinate."

 

[John Jones]

Put it to a poll yourself, Mike. Who do you think takes your arguments seriously?

 

[RayG]

[Quran 2:243]
"Didst thou not Turn by vision to those who abandoned their homes, though they were thousands (In number), for fear of death? God said to them: "Die": Then He restored them to life. For God is full of bounty to mankind, but Most of them are ungrateful."

So in this passage we can plainly see that despite God being so generous with mankind, the majority of people will continue (right up until the end) to think of themselves as independent, continue with their arrogance, and continue being ungrateful, despite this. Is this not the case we have before us today?

And in this passage we see God being extra generous by urging men to beat women if they aren't obedient:

[Quran 4:34]

"Men are overseers over women, by reason of that wherewith Allah hath made one of them excel over another, and by reason of that which they expend of their substance. Wherefore righteous women are obedient, and are watchers in husbands absence by the aid and protection of Allah. And those wives whose refractoriness ye fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat them; but if they obey you, seek not a way against them; verily Allah is ever Lofty, Grand."

Your book is a joke, and your repeated cherry-picking of quotes from it does nothing to strengthen your argument.

RayG

 

[Brian-M]

I realize that many people (possibly even the majority) may not be interested in reading over or viewing the information which I have provided. Although this is only represents further proof of the Quran's validity, take for example the following:

I don't see how that counts as proof as the Quran's validity. In fact, you say "further proof", implying that some proof was already provided. Strange, but I don't seem to recall you providing anything that could reasonably count as proof on the Quran's validity.

 

[mikeb768]

Quoting the Quran as proof for the Quran's validity is circular reasoning. Also, who made you spokesperson for God? You speak as if your posts come from a direct line from God, and that anyone who rejects them is being "ungrateful" or "obstinate."

What gives you the impression that I'm speaking as if my posts come from a direct line from God? Is it because I sometimes include passages from the Quran?

 

[Aridas]

That sounds great but who are these scholars you speak of? And how wide of a berth was the survey which they took before making the claim "widely considered to be errors by Islamic scholars"?

Certainly, you can look at where the page is sourcing its claims. I specifically made it easier for you to do so, in fact. That said, are you, in fact, claiming that Jews consider Ezra to be a "son of God" like Christians consider Jesus to be a "son of God?" I'm fairly certain that you've got no grounds to stand on if you think that.

Also who voted you spokes person of the Internet? When you say, "I'm pretty sure that people simply haven't been taking your position as worth taking seriously"? OK, you did a scientific poll to support this claim? I know of many scholars who would disagree.

...Thanks for the laugh. You're seriously trying to use that tactic? You know many scholars who would disagree with the claim that the posters in this thread (ETA: or these forums, more specifically, given what I said before, but if you weren't trying to dishonestly score points by quote mining, you wouldn't have raised the issue, though) don't appear to take your position as worth taking seriously? Alright. Present them, then. I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong, regardless. As it stands, though, all you're doing is to make yourself less credible at the moment.

I realize that many people (possibly even the majority) may not be interested in reading over or viewing the information which I have provided. Although this is only represents further proof of the Quran's validity, take for example the following:

[Quran 2:243]
"Didst thou not Turn by vision to those who abandoned their homes, though they were thousands (In number), for fear of death? God said to them: "Die": Then He restored them to life. For God is full of bounty to mankind, but Most of them are ungrateful."

So in this passage we can plainly see that despite God being so generous with mankind, the majority of people will continue (right up until the end) to think of themselves as independent, continue with their arrogance, and continue being ungrateful, despite this. Is this not the case we have before us today?

You seem to need it explained again. Citing the Quran is not going to get you anywhere here with quotes like that. All that quote looks to me like is blatant and weak manipulation and... that the God that you support is remarkably ineffective and untrustworthy. He says, "Die," but they don't die? They do die and he raises them all from the dead? Neither of these makes your position any more credible. Worse, by the looks of it, the cited implies that they were in fear of death because of the God. If people are being, frankly, bullied, why would they be grateful to the one bullying them?

 

[Tassman]

.
Yes.
Debating the "real" value of "nothing" is just pinheads and angels.
Why not a query on the ABSOLUTE stupidity of the Shi'a-Sunni wars?
They're not even about differences in doctrine, but who is going to be the next Imam..... following the last guy who died 1000 years ago?
How can that be rationally defended?
And yet, today someone(s) is getting killed for that sole reason in Islam.
WTF?

I see no value in a ‘hate’ session against Islam. ALL religion can be “queried” regarding factional divisions and sectarian warfare over their history; why single out Islam? Mikeb’s efforts have been assessed and dismissed.

I for one have found the subsequent discussion very interesting – particularly the contributions by asydhouse demonstrating that not only is Islam at fault, but that ALL religious belief has been superseded by modern scientific notions about reality.

 

[mikeb768]

And in this passage we see God being extra generous by urging men to beat women if they aren't obedient:

[Quran 4:34]

"Men are overseers over women, by reason of that wherewith Allah hath made one of them excel over another, and by reason of that which they expend of their substance. Wherefore righteous women are obedient, and are watchers in husbands absence by the aid and protection of Allah. And those wives whose refractoriness ye fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat them; but if they obey you, seek not a way against them; verily Allah is ever Lofty, Grand."

Your book is a joke, and your repeated cherry-picking of quotes from it does nothing to strengthen your argument.

RayG

That is a good question. I have often wondered about this verse myself. Why would God seem to provide such an allowance to a husband, to behave in such a manner.

Muslims also use the Sunnah (what the prophet said and did) as a guide for the practice of the religion, and when we look to the example he set, there are no such examples of the prophet having beat any one of his wives. But the allowance still seems to be present.

A good question, one which I do not pretend to know the answer to. Although there are quite a number of lectures which can be found online regarding this topic.

 

[mikeb768]

You seem to need it explained again. Citing the Quran is not going to get you anywhere here with quotes like that. All that quote looks to me like is blatant and weak manipulation and... that the God that you support is remarkably ineffective and untrustworthy. He says, "Die," but they don't die? They do die and he raises them all from the dead? Neither of these makes your position any more credible. Worse, by the looks of it, the cited implies that they were in fear of death because of the God. If people are being, frankly, bullied, why would they be grateful to the one bullying them?

OK, I get that if you are unfamiliar with Surah 2 then just taking a short ayat and posting it may not make a whole lot of sense to you. You should read the Surah in its entirety.

But referring to God as a bully? How so?

 

[mikeb768]

I don't see how that counts as proof as the Quran's validity. In fact, you say "further proof", implying that some proof was already provided. Strange, but I don't seem to recall you providing anything that could reasonably count as proof on the Quran's validity.

So you are sticking with the idea that a guy who never read, or wrote a book, had a seizure when he was 40 years old, which caused him to become (what many would consider and based on the examples which I have provided) a literary #, and mathematical # genius? OK.

Also if the task is "mediocre" (as you suggest) and not "miraculous" (as I am suggesting), then why hasn't anyone been able to not only reproduce it, or better, one up it?

Don't you think that someone, or some group, would by now have been able to dethrone the work of a illiterate 7th century Arab merchant?

So far the best thing we have is "Assassinations Foretold in Moby Dick!". I'm sure that even you could produce something more worthy. Maybe even a piece of work which could in fact end this debate for good?


*Additionally, Brendan McKay the website creator for the "Assassinations Foretold in Moby Dick!" page also has a link to a "Nineteen in the Quran" page, although rather than evaluate what has been presented in the book, he has decided to leave the page completely blank. The only statement which can be found within this section reads " Sorry, nothing here yet." ROFLLL! What Mr. McKay is doing is metaphorically placing his head in the sand, and trying to pretend as the findings do not even exist.

 

[RayG]

That is a good question. I have often wondered about this verse myself. Why would God seem to provide such an allowance to a husband, to behave in such a manner.

Why? Because your God is a bully.

RayG