As per the definition of God by Amer Husain, a Muslim, Muhammad's Allah is a false God or He doesn't exist at all.
I do not normally want to go into a general discussion of the existence of God. The problem is Islam, not belief in God in general. Both atheists and theists are capable of doing both good and bad acts. Islam’s teachings, which incite terrorism and all sorts of human rights violation, are our major concern, and that’s where I want to stay focused.
And despite my best effort to abstain from a debate on God exists or not, I was tricked into it by a Muslim gentleman. I’m posting the conversation here, just for you to have an idea of the Muslim mind of all varieties.
Amer Husain wrote:
I came upon your website purely by accident. I found it interesting. I proclaim to be a muslim so I read your views with interest in particular where you have called for a debate with muslims.
I wondered if this was only rhetorical or whether you were actually interested in receiving comments from individuals who claimed to be Muslims. I choose my words carefully because I do not claim to speak for Islam but only what I believe it to be, for that is the limit of my true knowledge.
I look forward to hearing from you and then may be sharing and exchanging some views if you like. Also, I am not here to preach or to lecture but simply to share some philosophical thoughts, which I have found at the deepest level is really about whether there exists a creator or designer or whether its all a random event. The specifics of one particular religion over another is a matter of human history not of intellect.
Anyway, I think I am getting ahead of myself here. I look forward to hearing from you.
M. A. Khan wrote:
Dear Amer, Thank you for your query.
Yes! Our challenge is for real, but it has very few takers. You may consult a couple of previous takers of our challenge to close down the site.
1. Debate to close down Islam-watch website
You would be welcome to take on the debate. Please be sure that the debate must focus on Islam.
Amer Husain replied:
Dear Editor, Thank you for your response. I took a few moments to browse the two links you provided. I also noted in your response that you have asked the debate to be specifically about Islam. I think that will be a problem for me as I am not a historical expert on Islam.
I do however note that if you had scrutinized any of the other religious texts (Bible, Torah or any other religious book) in the same manner as you did in these debates, your group may well have arrived at the same or similar conclusion i.e. that the whole basis of the religion is humanly manufactured etc etc.
So, it would seem to me that the real core of your debate is not Islam but religion? or may be you are concentrating on muslims because a significant number of that group is currently engaged in violent activity against the rest of the world based on their absolute dogma. Therefore, if your debate is about the latter then may be your debate is really not about religion at all but sociology i.e. the sociology of a sub group of people who claim to be muslims and draw justifications for their violent actions from a book called the Quran. The debate is not about how to rationally get to the absolute truth but how to deal with a people's social behavior. I emphasize this point again in a slightly different way i.e. winning or losing this debate will not determine whether Islam is a true religion or not, it will simply enlighten who has a better understanding of the Quranic text and its historic context.
If you believe that Islam is a false religion and you want to prove that then your first step must be to prove that Islam is based on a false premise. You will have to prove that God does not exist. In doing that your debate is not with Islam but with all religions / beliefs that are non-materialistic non-reductionists.
This is how I have understood the core of such debates. May be, I have not done you justice, May be I have misrepresented you. If I have done any of these I apologise.
Nevertheless, I look forward to hearing from you, should you like to engage in this wider debate. I do not see this as a challenge or a competition. I think of myself more of a student of thoughts than a proclaimer of absolute facts.
M. A. Khan replied:
Dear Amer, Thank you. I assume that you have read our 'About us" page; there, we have clearly said that all relgions are manmade---Islam is one of them. So, you are correct in suggesting that our premise should be: "all religions are false". Lots of people have criticized other religions effectively: Biblical criticism has a 500-year-long history. Hindiusm has faced criticism for nearly two centuries now. Here, we have started for Islam, and primarily because of our Muslim background, and understanding and knowledge of Islam. We hope to bring about a similar change in Islam as sustained by other faiths.
You may say we are talking about sociology, in the context that "Islam is complete way of life", "Islam is perfect social system", of divine origin. That's what, you can say, is are true concern: the sociology of the Quran, hadith and Sharia, not so much of the Muslim extremists, except that how the fundamental Islamic doctrines drive these otherwise normal human beings, like you and me, into doing violent acts. And we are ready for a debate on this "core concern" of our project.
Concerning your asking us to prove 'there is no God', it's a silly of shifting your responsibility onto others. You claimed first that there is a God, without any proof or evidence whatsoever, and started religion. We said 'no'. Next, it's your duty to prove or show evidence for God's existence. Our next step will be to try to prove your evidence wrong.
Look forward to you next..
Amer Husain wrote:
Dear Mr Khan. Thank you for clarifying why there is a greater emphasis on Islam in your website then on other religions. This puts what your forum is doing on a sound rational footing.
Before I discuss some points further I would like to clarify what I mean when I referred to sociology. I think we are talking about the same thing but this is important to my discussion and so therefore I would like to belabor this a little. I apologize if you have already covered this in your response.
When I refer to sociology I am referring to all human actions and behaviour. I make this arbitrary distinction because I need to give myself the ability to construct an axiom which at its heart is supernatural in its origins, yet provable in theory but not proven as yet. So this axiom in this context would be that the universe and its laws are created by an intelligent designer. In contrast to this axiom I would refer to religions (all religions) with all their texts, personalities, histories, rituals etc etc as the sociology of religions. So for me the final determination of 'truth' is not in this 'sociology' but in the axiom. If Islam or for that matter any other religion is the truth then this axiom that I have taken to be true must in fact be true. If the ultimate truth is to be established then its determination lies at the axiomatic level not in the sociology.
So, where do I stand in this quest for this final truth? I will now take this opportunity to dig myself into a hole!! and the purpose of this is to establish the limitations of my position. I will then see how well I can dig myself out of this hole when I carry out a similar review on the opposing view.
If a creator exists and that creator is omnipotent and has created the universe(s) and its laws then I am good. The only drawback I have is that I have no rational proof of this. All I have is a conviction, a belief that this is the case. I will discuss another time why I hold this view in the absence of any rigorous proof. The only thing I can say though is that this statement is theoretically provable (I hope you will grant me this on logical grounds) but it is not proven and may never be proven in practice. Nevertheless, it is a statement capable of proof. How you may ask? Well, the obvious manner would be a direct revelation of the creator. Speculating a little, there may be avenues reached in modern science, which may force that conclusion also. The point is though that this statement has at its core an ability to be proven if it is true.
Having now dug myself well and truly into this proverbial hole I am going to jump across the divide into the opposing camp and investigate the opposing position. There is no intelligent designer to the universe(s) and only materialistic reductionist mechanisms are responsible for creation and natural laws. I have included the terms 'materialistic' and 'reductionist' here to ensure that the statement is entirely devoid of any metaphysics or any supernatural elements. An atheist may be entirely comfortable with this statement as self-evident truth. You may also argue that the onus of proof is on the other side to prove that a creator exists and in the absence of any such proof it is entirely rational and natural to hold a belief that a creator not only does not exist but that one is not needed. Now, I have heard this argument presented to me many times and I have rationally listened to it and have tried to find out why there should be this breakdown in symmetry between these opposing positions. Is this argument really akin to Wittgenstein's 'invisible pink rabbit' whose existence (for its believer) is for that believer to prove. May be it is. If this symmetry breakage between these two positions is a hard rational fact then this fact must be available for all to review and study and critique. But it appears that this symmetry breakage is taken as self-evident because 'that is the only rational position to take'. It is the proof of this assertion that I have not seen. In the absence of such a proof (for substantiating this symmetry break between these two positions) I am left to conclude that this acceptance of the 'self evident' truth is also an axiomatic leap of faith. Now that's okay, most of mathematics is based on unproven axioms as a starting point. But then here is the difficulty. The position of the atheist (at its intellectual rational core) is then no different to that of a person who believes in a creator. Both have at their core an axiom and both axioms are unproven and in essence a leap of faith.
So, have I just presented an argument that believers (please excuse the religious connotation here, I just needed a simple word for this) and atheists are sitting at opposite ends of the same unknown. Happy with their individual self-evident truths but ignorant to the severe limitations of their belief systems. Could I even refer to atheism as a 'religion' because it is a belief system based on an unproven axiom?
Now what happens if I side step this entire issue of whether atheism is a rational state of mind and therefore is not required to state a position beyond stating that this is a 'self evident' position. In the absence of a logical construct that allows me to give this view a unilateral elevated position over the other side I will progress this discussion forward but now on a level playing field. I will examine the atheist statement again but this time I will expect the same onus of proof from it as I do from the opposing position.
Here is that statement again: There is no intelligent designer to the universe(s) and only materialistic reductionist mechanisms are responsible for creation and natural laws. So, what am I really saying here? I am stating that there is no creator, no designer of the universe. Clearly, as with the opposing position this statement is unproven. So, there is a draw one might conclude. One un-provable statement clashes head long with another and all you are then left with is an axiomatic unproven belief and all that follows from there. But is that really what we have. Have we really established that symmetry between the two positions to that fine extent. Let's look at this statement closely again and its logical implications. It is not lost on anyone that the atheistic statement is a negative statement. The establishment of its truth lies in proving that a creator does not exist. How do you prove a negative? Empirically speaking, as long as no creator is found the atheistic statement is preserved. But if you are determined to prove it on a rational basis you must devise a rigorous proof of this negative. I would therefore conclude that unless a mechanism is discovered for proving negatives we can resolve that this atheistic statement is actually unprovable on top of the fact that it is currently also unproven.
So, it would seem that the two positions are actually not symmetric. Whilst both positions are currently unproven, additionally the atheistic position it seems is unprovable since it is a negative statement. Is this therefore it? the end of the argument? No, I think there is more that we can explore. We need to look at this so-called unprovability a little more closely to gain a better understanding of it and its context. Let's ask ourselves this question. What is the nature of the atheistic statement and does that nature contain any unique properties, which can shed further like on the conjecture that the statement is inherently unprovable. Another way to tackle the same issue is to ask the question in reverse. If we wanted to develop a mechanism to establish the provability of the atheistic statement are there any properties emanating from the nature of the statement that impact the type of mechanism that is allowed? So, what is this statement and what are these properties, if any? Well, the atheistic statement is not only a statement of negative it is also a reductionist and materialist statement. The latter places certain restrictions of what is permissible for its provability mechanism since it will demand that that mechanism reside exclusively in the realm of the physical world and that in turn is because the atheistic principle does not allow for anything outside of this physical world either as initiator, sustainer, agitator or other wise. Further more, the atheistic principle demands that the mechanism of provability must also be consistent with the principles of reductionism and materialism i.e. they must arise naturally out of material matter from the ground up. Thus this may invoke mathematics but only to the extent that it complies with the physical material laws. Therein lies a dilemma. In order for the atheistic statement to be proven only a physical mechanism is permitted. But note that this mechanism due to its restriction can never be complete. At best it will only be able to 'prove' that possible self consistent mechanisms exist, it cannot ever be shown to prove the non existence of a creator since that will require it to break out of its materialistic / reductionist parameters. If it attempts do break out it will contradict its basic principle of physical material reductionism. So, we are led to conclude that the atheistic mechanism is essentially incomplete and also at its most fundamental level forever unprovable.
So, so far perhaps all we have achieved is to demonstrate that there are some severe intellectual limitations on the atheistic position as soon as we step outside of the 'self evident' argument comfort zone. So, I hope that I have at least in some little way demonstrated that the believers position is neither mindless nor irrational when discussed purely on a rational level and when discussed on a logical level playing field. Tackling these fundamental, complex and unanswered issues are not a question for me of winning or losing the discussion but a means for exploring the human mind further and discovering what limitations are placed upon it. Perhaps we can discover and gain a better understanding of the limits of not only what we understand, but what is available for understanding and thereby get closer to the ultimate truth. With this I will conclude.
I need to develop this discussion on a slightly different level next. That is by exploring whether there is a rational basis for believing in a creator. That's for another time. For now I will conclude and thank you for your time.
M. A. Khan:
Dear Amer, I have told you that we do debate/discussion mainly centered on Islam---Islam’s God, Prophet, History, and Ethics etc. So, I have no time to spend on a general discussion on the existence of God. You may visit other forums, like Richard Dawkin’s blog, Internet Infidels, New Humanist and such other sites that take a general interest in discussing the topic of the existence of God.
Nonetheless, let me make a few observations to your last email, a confusing word-game, to make big claims.
Point one: You suggested that atheists are also believers like theists, but of a different kind.
Contrary to your ridiculous claim, atheists simply negate the theists’ belief in a Creator, because it comes with no sound logical or physical evidence whatsoever. Believers’ belief is, thus, a blind belief. Negating a “blind belief”, which the atheists do, can no way be equated with 'belief'. It stands opposite to belief. I hope that you understand this basic reasoning.
Atheists subscribe to scientific methodology and arrive at conclusions based on evidence—logical, physical, experimental etc. In the case of God's existence, a belief thousands of years old, there hasn’t been any evidence toward proving Her/His existence; instead, with the progress of science and rational philosophical progress, the accumulated myths surrounding God gets thinner by the day. Having said that atheists, being believers in scientific methodology, would readily believe in God as soon as solid evidence are found, just like scientists do. Scientists may not subscribe to something today, but as evidence becomes available, they quickly accept it. This happens in the realm of science all the time.
Point two: You say:
Now that's okay, most of mathematics is based on unproven axioms as a starting point. But then here is the difficulty. The position of the atheist (at its intellectual rational core) is then no different to that of a person who believes in a creator. Both have at their core an axiom and both axioms are unproven and in essence a leap of faith.
In this statement of yours, you are wrong on both counts that believers base their belief in God based on an axiom, and that atheists also base their disbelief in God based on an axiom. I have made clear above that atheists look for evidence to accept something; they are waiting for evidence for a Creator’s existence, which is lacking as of now, and until no evidence presented, they would refuse to submit to this ‘blind belief’. This is not an axiom, i.e. a self-evident truth, which is universal and eternal in nature. Atheists are looking for evidence, and the question of axiom in this seeking for evidence simply does not arise.
It is equally untenable, if not wild, to claim that belief in a Creator is based on an axiom. The ‘belief in a Creator’ is a ‘guess’, if not a ‘wild guess’. A guess is not an axiom, i.e. a self-evident truth. A guess cannot be “truth”, let alone be something self-evident. An axiom, such as 4 + 6 = 6 + 4, is an axiom, because there is no mathematical expression to prove it, but it is self-evident, because every individual can experience it in real life. For example, whether you add 4 matchsticks to another 6 (i.e. 4 + 6) or add 6 matchsticks to another 4 (i.e. 6 + 4)—the end result is the same, 10 matchsticks in either case.
Can the existence of a Creator—the so-called believers’ axiom—be experienced by everyone in anyway?
Point three: You also say that “I need to give myself the ability to construct an axiom which at its heart is super natural in its origins, yet provable in theory but not proven as yet.”
This is another preposterous statement you make. Supernatural is something that does not occur in the natural world, in our real world. Existence of the Supernatural, the existence of God being one, is another wild, probably absurd, guess, without any evidence whatsoever. Most of all, humans (you included), the natural being, has no way to experience or know the Supernatural. It is, therefore, impossible for you, unless you make a claim of prophethood and making a contact with the Supernatural, that you can construct a so-called axiom of Supernatural nature. When you have no way of knowing what the Supernatural is like, what are the properties of the Supernatural realm or entity, it is outrageous to claim that you may have an “ability to construct an axiom which at its heart is supernatural in its origins”.
Conclusion
Let me emphasize that your so-called axiom in your own words—that “the universe and its laws are created by an intelligent designer” and that “that creator is omnipotent and has created the universe(s) and its laws”—stands, as of now, simply a “guess”. It is a guess—or a Supernatural axiom as you call it—like any other mythological creatures, such as fire-breathing dragon, of old, which have become obsolete today. Certain mythological creatures, like Devil, Satan, and Genie etc., having been incorporated into Abrahamic religious faiths, have received perpetuity to their existence, without gathering any evidence at all. They would, otherwise, have become obsolete mythical figures/beliefs of old.
And, as far as proving the existence of God is concerned, it stands alongside fire-breathing dragon—nothing less, nothing more. As things stand now, belief in existence of dragon is as true and as good an axiom, as the belief in existence of a Creator. Human beings have given specific characteristics to God and dragon, respectively, and they remain equally unproven till today, and therefore equally true or untrue.
Having said this, I’m quitting this conversation for reasons I have stated already, i.e. I want to focus on Islam on this Website. I’m inviting you again to a debate/discussion on Islam.
Amer has written to me charging that my response above was from the standpoint of an agnostic, not an atheist. He said,
It seems you do not even understand the basic difference between an atheist and an agnostic as you seemed to have spent your entire response writing as the latter… It’s a person who categorically denies the existence of a creator. An agnostic is the one who has an open mind based on evidence.
I disagree. According to wikipedia, “Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities…. Atheism tends toward skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence.”
For an atheist, there is no evidence—either logical or empirical—for the existence of God. Atheist’s lack or absence of belief in God proceeds from the lack or absence of evidence in favor of God’s existence. This plainly means that had there been availability evidence for God’s existence, they would’ve accepted God’s existence.
But for an agnostic, the existence of God (and such metaphysical/supernatural beings/ entities) is possible, but is unknown or unknowable. According to wikipedia, ‘an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist’.
Agnostics are noncommittal on God exists or not, even when there no is evidence. Atheists are categorical, simply because of lack of evidence in support of God’s existence. As soon as the lack of evidence is replaced by availability of evidence, whether for the existence of God or fire-breathing dragon, atheists would immediately accept their existence. It’s as simple as that.
Let me explain how it would follow. Suppose that proof for the existence of the Hindu God become available tomorrow—i.e. it is proven that Hindu God, and hence the Hindu religion, is true—atheists would immediately acceptance it, but not probably Muslims, Christians and Jews (or they would find it awfully hard even if they do)—because, for thousands of years, they harbored the thought the only through annihilation of the idolatrous peoples, like Hindus (previously through extermination, now persuasion and other trickery), humanity would achieve salvation.
Amer also wrote,
It is a typical self-righteous response I have come to expect from the so-called rational atheist. These are the same old pathetic, baseless and mindless arguments put forward in the 19th century. Looks like your arguments, Dawkins alike have not moved off the Galapagos. Its time you did if you want to get closer to untangling the truth in the 21st century.
What Amer fails to understand is that atheists’ absence for belief in God—whether it was two thousand years ago (e.g. Greco-Roman philosopher poet Lucretius, d. 55 BCE), two hundred years ago or today—is for the same simple reason, absence of evidence. As long as atheism survives—whether for eternity or otherwise—the reason for the atheists’ absence of belief in God would remain the same. It’s as simple.
And, it’s only the theists, who keep inventing new criteria about the nature of God (despite nothing is known about God, including gender, although believers have no scruple in emphasizing God is a male), as works of rationalists keeps discrediting the old ideas about God. Muhammad thought God has hands, feet and beautiful face, and that he sat on a throne in heaven etc. Now you construct a so-called axiom of God (although its completely impossible), whose attributes are infinitesimally different from Muhammad’s idea of God.
Let me conclude by saying that as per the definition or axiom of God that Amer presented above (look here for getting a complete idea of Allah: A Complete Guide to Allah), Allah is definitely not God or a God of the nature of Allah does not exist.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by plain talk , October 19, 2009
For the muslims, this is the great cosmic joke. The best part of being a deceiver. Allah is as good a name to use, as any other, so why not? They can acheive all the LEGAL evil they really want and desire, by spouting off about "what Allah wants". They consider this to be the perfect hiding cover.
The way they see it, is some men will 'get it' and they will join in the orgy of self indulgence along with them. Some men won't get what they are trying to pull off, and they will have to be killed. This is their reasoning.
Muslim men fully understand that the goal is to turn the moral right of humankind into the perverted lusts of their own desires. To make it legal and acceptable. That is why their lands have turned into pits of pure dirty deep rot. To hell with any who dare to get in their way. That also includes God, the real one.
They think they have fooled everyone. Not true. These fools have done a good job on fooling themselves mostly, but that is about it. To go on about a god is just their way of laughing at the rest of us.
You see, they think we don't realize what they really believe in. They consider themselves masters in deception and we are just idiots, whom they can dangle the word god in front of us, for their 'private' sport.
Notice how very easy it is for muslims to rape and kill? All the while claiming that as 'true believers' they must follow the commands of the prophet. Yet, it is also very easy for them to NOT follow his commands, when it is time for them to drink camel piss.
As they like to rape and kill, they are willing to follow.
If however, they don't like something, like drinking piss, they don't follow.
Same with women. Oh, the prophet is the very best of all men, they say. These same self hating females who enable their evil males, don't think he is so great when it is time for them to breastfeed grown men in the workplace and at school. Then they do not follow the prophet's command. Why?
Just like their menfolk , the women like to cherry pick their so-called beliefs. They go along for two reasons. First, misery loves company and second maybe they'll get some share in world dominion. (not likely)
So these vile snakes have shown us that their beliefs are simply whatever suits them at the time.
NOTHING about any of them can be trusted.
hmkjy
written by Bravo , October 19, 2009
If muhammed did sex with 9 year girl , then its Truth and so muslims can do that.
Its something like a person giving you poison and instead of telling you its poison , he deceives you and says its good thing or medicine and take it and have faith on that person as he tells Truth. Muhammed did same.
written by Balam to plain talk , October 19, 2009
ECEIVER:which represents the true face of Mohammad.Also Mohammad says at few places in Quran:Obey Allah and his Prophet:That equates Mohammad to Allah.Is that not Blasphemy if Allah was the true God?In fact Allah,Mohammad and Quran form the trinity of FRAUD.
written by COMMON SENCE , October 20, 2009
if i dont believe in him still it doesnt harm me. to be honest if a god is out there he can show himself to humans and prove his presence to end this debate (but probably he is not doing so because it will remove the thrill or excitement of his creation)
anyhow as Mr Khan said debate should be over religion and not god (unless untill we get a proof)
As religions do not pass the criteria of logic and rationality therefore these should be rejected
i believe that if a god is out there he can clean our minds and hearts without taking help from a so called prophet
One logical and rational reason for rejecting religions is because these divide humanity and grow hatred among humans and Islam is on top of the list.
written by someone , October 20, 2009
the muslims use taqiya to deceive the others i mean they can lie to advance their religion .
god give us conscious which tell us peace is good and killing or incite killing is bad . quran incite killing and hatred .
quran not only contradict the bible but also contradict itself , plus it full of errors.
written by free thinker , October 20, 2009
written by vbv , October 20, 2009
Above all the dumb Biblical"god" sounds like an irate, insular,narcissitic,brutal,despot who wants absolute submission by his adherents. Otherwise ,it is Hell forever. What lurid and vulgar imagination is this ? It can come only from a primitive,psychopathic deluded ,power-hungry despot.
Dismiss this Biblical/Quranic clutter of Nonsense,you will have a saner and a more peaceful world - the planet Earth and its inhabitants will certainly get longevity ,peace,tolerance and a more colourful place to rejoice in!
written by vbv , October 20, 2009
written by WHO IMPREGNATED MARY ????? , October 20, 2009
man has x-y chromosomes,and who gave jesus the male chromozone ???
did jehova/allah grow a pair of testicles or did
he impregnate mary or did he transport his sperm to mary in a way no one knows ??
what is the real answer ???
simple : mary did it with some man,and to hide it said its virgin birth,and ppl who were stupid in that day believed it.
no one believes this crap today.
why ??
bcoz all know its a pack of lies yet xtian/muzzie believe this lie.
if imaghinary allah made 1 man - adam what was his race and if only 1 man then how come so many races of humans today like white black brown,chinese,etc ???
islam is stupid and so r its followers.
written by plain talk , October 20, 2009
Trying to foist on us that it is has a belief or religion is just part of the deception they like to use.
The only thing Islam has is DESIRE for LUST and POWER. That's Islam, it has nothing more.
Muslims will lie, steal, kill, cheat and manouver in any way they can, to achieve their goal. Their talk of religion is just a cover for the mules/dummies who don't know what is really going on.
Mules are the bottom-feeders, who are considered completely expendable in this deceptive quest. Because they are not smart enough to figure out what is really going on, right under their nose, they are used as pawns.
Stealth jihad? Yeah, more like jihad obivious.
written by The Great Buana , October 20, 2009
written by Walter Sieruk , October 20, 2009
written by Citizen , October 20, 2009
Blaise Pascal -- Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.
Emo Philips -- When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
Richard Jeni -- You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend
Bertrand Russell -- And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence
George Bernard Shaw -- The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
Epicurus -- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Stephen Roberts
"We are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
written by wagamama , October 20, 2009
I have studied Qurand and both (old+new) testaments with an open mind. I've proven that Allah of Quran is same as the jealous God of Old Testament. Now don't hurl abuses on me. If I am wrong prove it.
Wagamama
P.S: Please don't come up with excuses like "Old testament was for only jews or for the people that lived before Jesus etc... You know muslims can say the same thing nhave heard them say that. FKI, the church refers to both old and new testaments!
written by wagamama , October 20, 2009
http://www.box.net/shared/1szuc5kpro
written by dsds , October 20, 2009
Allah is not a trinity. That proved that wagamama is telling lies.
written by Fakira , October 20, 2009
Also definition of God is different in different religions, please dont argue on that. Islamic god is a male tyrant who wants his rules to be followed strictly. He is having emotions and get angry very quickly and looks like muhammed and wants muslims to behave like muhammed. Also God means differently in other religions. Instead that guy should define what he meant by God and who gave God name allah??
written by Ibn Kammuna , October 20, 2009
written by wagamama , October 20, 2009
written by wagamama , October 20, 2009
Whether you believe in Father, Son, and Holy GHOST, or single God it doesn't matter. The contents of the scriptures matter a lot.
written by balam to wagamama , October 21, 2009
written by Infidel , October 21, 2009
This God, The Almighty, Father, Supreme Leader, Allah, Jehovah, etc is the conglomeration of all that is deemed to be of humanly pure virtue and virginal good.
The Devil is the embodiment of humanly dirty error and defiled bad.
The Devil represents human evil and is the God of Hell, the Kingdom of evil doers and sinners.
This Devil is simply an excuse for human denial that humans are completely and solely responsible for their sins or transgressions.
This denial leads the religious or faithful to accept the delusion of The Devil. The transgressors cannot accept full responsibility so it is easier to lay any blame on a divine-like, super powerful, unavoidable existence, the Architect of Evil, Satan.
After all, human transgressors cannot solely accept blame and shame! No! Satan is a powerful persuader, offering a different though immoral path and always advocating temptation which leads to mortal sin...
The reality is that the base human brain, its creativity, the environment - our nature and nurture - are solely responsible for any sinful transgressions according to religious doctrine and its interpretation via human attitude, perception and motivation.
Religion and its doctrines are mere fiction and fantasies with sprinkling of proven earthly fact to justify their dogma. They are divisive to their adherents and also their detractors. Religious doctrine is a humanly created interpretation with a dictatorial, 'one size fits all' stance and largely, there is no scope for alternative theoretical dissemination or the abhor ration of accepted interpretative discourse.
The practice of any religions doctrinal limitations through its faithful, worshipful and applicable cult-like beliefs is anathema to anyone who values freedom of discourse, radical thought and the pursuit of the utopian ideal of a peaceful, tolerant and democratic international community.
Allah, Islam, Islamists, Muhammad, Muslims, Muslimism, the Quran, Sharia, the Hadiths, Sunnah, Fiqh, Kalam, etc are dependent on submission. The subjugation to complete domination by a monotheistic faith to a single incomparable God.
The Shahadah, Salah, Zakat, Sawm and Hajj are the essential practices required to be an Islamist, are in themselves activities designed to reinforce the complete submission to a system of duties. These duties leave no scope for real debate, revelation of alternative practice and pursuit of any non Muhammadian message.
The absolute adherence to and reverence of Muhammad as the messenger and prophet of Allah is troublesome. Muhammad was a historical warmonger, pedophile, owner of slaves, polygamist and as history shows, a possible mass scale confidence trickster.
Maybe Muhammad was indeed The Devil or Satan and through his beguile over men who sought to dominate over and subjugate their women as well as the Infidels, provided a convenient utopian religious doctrine which could not be argued against or questioned for it was ‘A cultured macho message from Allah’.
written by same for judeo-christianity-is , October 21, 2009
jews-chruistians-muslims just fixed on 1 god,but kept all stories of gilamesh,sumerian,mosptotemian stoires etc.
even story of virgin birth is not christian and is actually taken from pagan cultures.
the idea of 1 god,is a hindu ie,of adwaith.
hindus beleieve that all is part of nature,and only nature=god exists and all gods and goddesses we worship r aspects and facets of the same 1 being=god-nature.
so judeo-christianity-islam is just nothing else but pagan ideology repachaked and made extremely
ahtebased and voilent,and so we have problems today.
better to be a truth=nature=real provable
god than imaginary jehova/allah.
ie better to be a pagan and be envorinment friendly,than a jew-christian-muslim.
bcoz as pagans we can love our god=mother nature care for her as she cares for us.
written by vbv , October 21, 2009
In short , there is no 'God/Allah/Yahweh' except in the minds of deluded fools or those scheming rascals and scondrels who want to subjugate innocent gullible people for grabbing all the power and pelf they can from others hard-earned wealth.
It is the biggest scam that goes unchallenged in the name of sacred holy shit!
written by Infidel , October 21, 2009
I wrote that Satan is used 'to support the notion of a direct opposite to the omnipotent, omnipresent and proper God.'
Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, et al were all confidence tricksters and as you say 'It is the biggest scam that goes unchallenged in the name of sacred holy shit!'
On this planet there are always plenty of suckers for shysters. The Diet Industry is $$$ paradise but religion is absolute power!
written by alah-jehova is same hatefilled , October 21, 2009
imaginary deity can be only 1 or 3...it does not matter,bcoz he is imaginary.
so allah the imaginary deity is same as jehova-3 imaginary deities.
these r hateful,hate filled anti humanity imaginary beings who tell ppl to kill in his name.
written by a guest , October 21, 2009
written by Machmoed elchalid , October 21, 2009
About Mohammed: There no evidence at all that he dit excist as a prophet. Noone has written about him during his life. In the boook 'die dunkeln anfange' they present overwelming proof that islam is a product of 300 years or more. It looks like the arab governement (end of omayaden dynastie en begin of abassids) they constructed the most of hadieth to explain the koran or to use them for polticall uses. The scientists have found a lot of coins wich states allah on the other side but with a crucifix/Cross on the other side...how could this be? Well we also know that the first kaliefs weren't muslim at all. Like Muawia a lot of kaliefs were only interested in power and not God/religion or anything like that. Another conclusion was that the islam was not the initiator of goinig into war. The islam is a product of the history of arabs and others. Even 100 years after the story op the prophet being dead they changed some verse of the koran. The koran has an development of approximatly 230 years instead of 23 years. This book (Die dunkeln anfange= the dark begin(ning)) is only written in German language because of fear for fundamentalists.
written by Ibn Kammuna , October 21, 2009
When I wrote my comment I was not trying to defend anything. I just saw that your article has a major fallacy in it. I used to teach Logic courses in college. I tell you what, you don't have to take what I say. Take your article to a philosophy professor at a nearby university and ask him/her to read it and see if there is anything wrong with it. Fair enough!
Have a good day all.
written by Babak , October 21, 2009
written by sceptical man , October 21, 2009
you can also see the vedio in ( www.jihad-watch.org )
written by WHY THERE R NO PROPHETS AND RE , October 21, 2009
bcoz this is age of truth and people demand proof.
this is not the age of science or religion but age of truth.
earlier ppl used religion as a tool to search truth,but the result was not very satisfying as seen in the case of monoatheist ideology.
ppl became disenchanted or dissatisfyed,and searched again and used science as a tool,and found that religion is a hoax.
so we now know,why there r no more prophets,
from day 1 the propehst were frauds or mentally ill ppl who exploted the stupidity and gullibility of others to become self important,but today
religion in general and monoathesit hate based ideology in particular judeo-christianity/islam is truly exoised as a hoax and fraud.
so no one will ever claim prophethood as they will be asked very probing questions and exposed as fraud.
that is the reason why no more prophets today.
but same shud hold for all other prophets before muhamed and muhamed also,all r fraud,hoax
and liar,and killer of innocent people.
ban religion for peace on earth.
written by duh_swami , October 21, 2009
When something happens, it is called 'I AM'...
Pure existence can be seen as a glass smooth ocean where a happening is a temporary event, like a wave, that soon melts back into the ocean...Pure existence resides in real time, everything in existence is in existence in real time...Everything that exists, exists in the present...While these ideas can be found in the Bible, there is nothing religious about them...There is nothing in this that indicates a 'personal' God...
These are pretty heavy concepts to lay on a sheepherder...
written by wagamama , October 21, 2009
I am not seeking anybody's attention. I am asking to challenge it with WORDS and not through verbal accusations.
written by Wagamama , October 21, 2009
I am not seeking anybody's attention. I am asking to challenge it with WORDS and not through verbal accusations.
written by wagamama , October 21, 2009
I'll definitely forward my article to philosophy professors. Till todate, nobody has come up with logical reasoning to refute my article. All I have heard is "it was the law for that period only; God gave such laws because people were like that."
written by Wagamama , October 21, 2009
A) They ask thee (O Muhammad) of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah, and adjust the matter of your difference, and obey Allah and His messenger, if ye are (true) believers.(Quran 8.1) ; Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you. (Quran 4.24)
B) When the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. (Deuteronomy 20: 13-14)
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A & B ?
written by Citizen , October 21, 2009
Lets hope people dont take religion seriously and live life rationally and logically.
written by plain talk , October 22, 2009
Don't be too hasty in wishing the end of religion that we can tolerate. Islam will rush in to fill the void.
It doesn't matter if you like it or not, religion is here to stay. All that remains, is which one?
By tearing down the ones you can live with, you are opening up areas for Islam. Think.
written by Nasir , October 22, 2009
Do Not Beleive this site. This is all fake and false. It is misguiding about islam. Islam never says all that have been written in this site. If you want to know read Quran. Do not go for fake versions.
written by The Great Buana! , October 22, 2009
written by Kohi , October 22, 2009
If you open your eyes you would see islam is the chain on humans moving FORWARD in the world.
written by COMMON SENCE , October 23, 2009
written by read 9.05 , 8.55 chapter 2-the , October 24, 2009
as an ex-muslim i say i read koran and found it most hateful,as bad or worst than mein kampf,and so i rejected islam.
thyere is no jehova/allah and m,uhamed is no prophet at all.
nature is god,truth and all that exists,and we r
part of it.
if a god is there,its mother nature.
written by Gwawr , October 24, 2009
written by A.B. , October 28, 2009
Well, how were human beings made? Some "idiots" say that they evolved from monkeys. Well, how were monkeys made? They say they evolved from unicellular organisms. And, how were those made? They may say that some atoms have "miraculously" arranged themselves till they produced something that can produce metabolism, divide, and breed to form a line of species. Well, and how were atoms made? We can go like this until you ask yourself how were protons and electrons created, specially when you know that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
The only possible answer is the presence of a Creator who was there before everyhting else and will be there when everyything else ends. If you have another explanation please let me know of it, and if you need to know more about Islam, please contact me.
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
written by A.B. , October 28, 2009
Well, how were human beings made? Some "idiots" say that they evolved from monkeys. Well, how were monkeys made? They say they evolved from unicellular organisms. And, how were those made? They may say that some atoms have "miraculously" arranged themselves till they produced something that can produce metabolism, divide, and breed to form a line of species. Well, and how were atoms made? We can go like this until you ask yourself how were protons and electrons created, specially when you know that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
The only possible answer is the presence of a Creator who was there before everyhting else and will be there when everyything else ends. If you have another scientific explanation of how atoms were found, please let me know of it, and if you need to know more about Islam, please contact me.
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
written by vbv , October 29, 2009
The Cosmology of the Bible and the Quran is absolute trash,bullshit . And if the "god" spoke those words ,then that "god" is also a bullshit created by a primitive mind with ulterior motives of gaining power,influence and easy money/wealth without having to work for it.
Therefore . "god" and religion is the creation of the wicked scamsters ,nothing more.
written by A.B. , October 30, 2009
Please, I am open to scientific disscusion, without the use of bad words about my beliefs or yours, I am talking about ration so answer me with it.
written by A.B. , October 30, 2009
Abu al-Qasim (Abulcasis), considered a pioneer of modern surgery, wrote the Al-Tasrif (1000), a 30-volume medical encyclopedia which was taught at Muslim and European medical schools until the 17th century. He invented numerous surgical instruments, including the first instruments unique to women, as well as the surgical uses of catgut and forceps, the ligature, surgical needle, scalpel, curette, retractor, surgical spoon, sound, surgical hook, surgical rod, and specula, bone saw, and plaster. In 1021, Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen) made important advances in eye surgery, as he studied and correctly explained the process of sight and visual perception for the first time in his Book of Optics.
Al-Khwarizmi (780-850) (born in Iran) , from whose name the word algorithm derives, contributed significantly to algebra, which is named after his book, Kitab al-Jabr, the first book on elementary algebra. He also introduced what is now known as Arabic numerals, which originally came from India, though Muslim mathematicians did make several refinements to the number system, such as the introduction of decimal point notation.
The 9th century chemist, Geber (Jabir ibn Hayyan), is considered a pioneer of chemistry, for introducing an early experimental method for chemistry, as well as the alembic, still, retort, pure distillation, liquefaction, crystallisation, purification, oxidisation, evaporation, and filtration.
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_science for more.
My dear, it is not Islam that is the problem, it is us modern muslims who are weaker than continuing our great ancestors path, and instead stand by watching the others pass by us and only try to hinder them. The problem is not the idea, it is how we are, unfortanetly, applying it.
written by vbv , October 31, 2009
1. Antony Flew wrote a detailed article adopting "the presumption of atheism". Plantinga took Flew's arguments and shattered them to pieces. In the last few year, Flew admitted defeat and changed his views.
2. Planitnga has strong views that are well-supported on the epistemic level. Belief in God (not Allah. Allah is Satan incarnate actually) is properly basic belief. It like, to use Witgensteins terminology, seeing red or experiencing pain. You do not need evidence for it. It is self-evident. Now, for someone on the sideline, this may seem a weak position. But it is not. One needs to read Plantinga and his analysis to see what I am talking about. things are not simple here.
Finally, I commend brother MAK on this posting, even though it is not about Islam really. Allah is not the God we are talking about here. When one looks at some of Allah's attributes (Best deceiver, Avenger, ..), it is evident that Allah is the greatest satanic being. He is not God, thats for sure.
Peace to all and thank you Amer and MAK