Jump to content

Muslims are fearful of Atheism as it is infiltrating their RANKS


Alam_dar

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, MultiB48 said:

I am not saying god exists but your logic is flawed .the scale lies between evidence and imagination ,ofc everything you may imagine doesn't exist .

How is it flawed ?

Name one thing except God or Karma, that you definitely believe in, that has ZERO evidence  of existing. 

 

There is a fine line between saying ' there are things out there in the universe that we don't know of and can't prove' and saying ' there is THIS PARTICULAR THING- named God or Karma- that is out there, but have no proof of'. 

 

Its just silly and product of brainwashing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Muloghonto that Superman thing was a flawed analogy

 

Let me explain for starters, I do believe that there is some higher power beyond my understanding that has created the world as we know it. 

 

it could be whatever you believe in it can be a god particle or an extra terrestrial from planet  xemu, but at a conceptual level both parties subscribe to the same thought. What makes me an agnostic is I tend to leave it at that thought process and not get into the customs and rules of organized religion.

 

if someone believes Superman the DC comics character  created the world or that is their understanding of  “concept of god” then that’s what makes it a religion or a cult of Superman, just because I don’t believe in that and think that is stupid doesn’t make me an atheist because conceptually I believe in the “concept of god” even though I might ridicule the idea of Superman as god

 

 

I don’t really want to get into the debates like who created this and that, because I have already categorized that as something beyond my understanding and wish to leave it at that..now if you try hard to find various ways of debunking that thought process doesn’t that make it a belief system of your own?

Edited by maniac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MultiB48 said:

WHAT?

i don't have to believe in anything nor do i have any evidence nor do i care but that doesn't mean it can't exist 

That is illogical.

Its like saying 'i dont believe in it, nor do i have any evidence for it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a talking planet cursing at its paneer-masala moon while a Fish Pakora sun is laughing at the planet, in some distant galaxy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, maniac said:

@Muloghonto that Superman thing was a flawed analogy

 

Let me explain for starters, I do believe that there is some higher power beyond my understanding that has created the world as we know it. 

Yeah well, i used to think that, before i realized the absurdity of a higher power being necessary to explain lesser phenomena.

 

50 minutes ago, maniac said:

it could be whatever you believe in it can be a god particle or an extra terrestrial from planet  xemu, but at a conceptual level both parties subscribe to the same thought. What makes me an agnostic is I tend to leave it at that thought process and not get into the customs and rules of organized religion.

 

if someone believes Superman the DC comics character  created the world or that is their understanding of  “concept of god” then that’s what makes it a religion or a cult of Superman, just because I don’t believe in that and think that is stupid doesn’t make me an atheist because conceptually I believe in the “concept of god” even though I might ridicule the idea of Superman as god

Well conceptually, God is just as well substantiated as Superman is. 
This isn't some new-age BS created by neo-liberals. Read Jinasena - an acharya of Jainism who dismisses the ridiculous concept of God. Or Epicurius. 

 

The problem with God/Gods is simple - you say 'this universe must have a creator because it has to come from somewhere' - well that argument will then instantly apply to God. And if you say 'this universe is too complex, too ordered to've popped into existence on its own', well you've just compounded the problem by inventing God- the perfection of compexity, ordering and immaculate. So if the universe is too complex and too ordered to exist on its own, then an absolute entity that is peferection of complexity and order, is even less likely to exist on its own.

 

This is called infinite regression. The notion of God simply begets the notion of God's creator. And then on and then on. 

 

This is why ALL sophisticated civilizations were polytheistic : they recognized the absurdity of one God argument (Romans and Greeks go to great lengths to laugh at what they considered a 'barbarian jewish beleif') and simply solved the 'what begat God' question by inventing older and older Gods. Hence in almost all Polytheistic religions, Gods have childeren and parents themselves until they go to a point where the first primeval God popped out of the universe itself. 

 

50 minutes ago, maniac said:

 

 

I don’t really want to get into the debates like who created this and that, because I have already categorized that as something beyond my understanding and wish to leave it at that..now if you try hard to find various ways of debunking that thought process doesn’t that make it a belief system of your own?

debunking thought process that has ZERO substantiation is not a beleif system, its sticking to reality. 

The dangerous trend, in intellectualism, is to believe- in anything. because belief is nothing more than a cop-out and lazyness. And if belief is not to be discouraged, there is no distinction between fact and fiction, as the definition of fact is incompatible with belief.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MultiB48 said:

It could also mean I dont believe in super intelligent aliens, nor do i have any evidence for it but that doesnt rule them out from existing

Yes but you can make that argument for practically anything. 

This universe as we know it,is unbounded (ie, it means, we are not 100% sure if it is finite or not and even if it is, we havn't charted all of it). 

So, you can make the argument ' X has no proof of existing, but it can exist, in some nook/cranny of the universe where who knows what the laws of physics are because hey-we havn't found that area of universe yet/studied it yet'. 


So by that metric, ANYTHING is possible, correct ? Ok - so bring on the Paneer planet circling an aloo-gobi sun that has a moon made up of paratha. Coz hey, same logic applies - havn't found it, can't prove it doesn't exist (coz universe is unbounded to us), so accept it as possible. 

 

This is effectively what the God argument boils down to - utterly illogical, utterly inconsistent, but since its an unbounded universe, 'could be true, who knows'. So apply the same logic to ALL absurd, illogical and inconsistent ideas and say they are all possible too.Or as you say ' doesn't rule out the paneer planet around aloo gobi sun, from exiting, either'.

 

 

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

NOPE ,already have pointed that out,you seem to lack nuance .

You have not explained, why anything is not possible in the unbounded universe. 

If we can have the God argument- which violated logic and evidence, then why are all other illogical and non-evidenced arguments re: 'it can exist' invalid. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

it's upto your intellect to decide what's reasonable and what isn't but validation(logic or evidence or otherwise) from humans is not required for something to exist.

Reasonable is simply a fancy way of saying 'no I think its too improbable but have nothing to base it on, except my feelings'. 

 

Belief from humans is not required for something to exist. but for us to consider the possibility of it existing, it must make some sort of sense or it must have some sort of evidence. Otherwise, we are back to considering the most absurd ideas as existing possibly (which make no sense and have no evidence - like my paneer planet). 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

If you want to jump to your paneer planet at every possible step beyond the realm of evidence then that's up to you but most wont do that.

Because most go by convention. Not logic. Paneer planet has pretty much the exact same credibility as God - illogical and unevidenced. 

Its called herd/group mentality.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

to a stone age human hydrogen etc would also have the same credibility as your paneer planet,You act as if you have evidence for everything, as if you have tested things out yourself ,most of our knowledge comes from 2nd hand sources hence herd mentality is not exclusive to any group in particular.

So what you are saying then, is paneer planet is possible, because stone-age man couldn't even conceive of hydrogen atom and thought it was irrational. So therefore, paneer planet 'could be' ?!

 

See, this is a case study on why 'could be' has no place in human consideration without logic or proof. If something turns out to be logical in the future- sure. Atleast we can say that our ancestors (if they previously dismissed it) acted rationally based on their info, than be an irrational fool considering every possibility, so like a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and then, they can guess a truth through all types of irrational guess-work. This is the same methodology of fortune-telling, astrology etc : make innane pronouncements at random until you strike a home run and hook the customer by one success, nevermind the millions of failures. 

 

My point is, such mentality (irrational guesswork to simply be lucky) serves no good practical purpose but has far more negative practical consequences.

 

As for herd mentality- I can easily check the proof of something/evidence of something science claims, if I wished it. Herd mentality is about taking things to be true, just because someone said so, with no assurances that there is proof if desired. 


Deferring to authority pronouncement when proof is available, is a convenience short-hand, not intellectual dishonesty like believing something is true with zero evidence.

 

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chapetmarunga said:

Don't care about religious people in general as long as they pick & choose what they follow according to the times they live in.

I don't care about the discussion between an atheist and agnostic. 

 

But when religious people start imposing their system, then no other choice left other than to counter them. (While atheists and agnostics follow almost the same system, which is based upon intellect and free thinking)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Yeah well, i used to think that, before i realized the absurdity of a higher power being necessary to explain lesser phenomena.

 

Well conceptually, God is just as well substantiated as Superman is. 
This isn't some new-age BS created by neo-liberals. Read Jinasena - an acharya of Jainism who dismisses the ridiculous concept of God. Or Epicurius. 

 

The problem with God/Gods is simple - you say 'this universe must have a creator because it has to come from somewhere' - well that argument will then instantly apply to God. And if you say 'this universe is too complex, too ordered to've popped into existence on its own', well you've just compounded the problem by inventing God- the perfection of compexity, ordering and immaculate. So if the universe is too complex and too ordered to exist on its own, then an absolute entity that is peferection of complexity and order, is even less likely to exist on its own.

 

This is called infinite regression. The notion of God simply begets the notion of God's creator. And then on and then on. 

 

This is why ALL sophisticated civilizations were polytheistic : they recognized the absurdity of one God argument (Romans and Greeks go to great lengths to laugh at what they considered a 'barbarian jewish beleif') and simply solved the 'what begat God' question by inventing older and older Gods. Hence in almost all Polytheistic religions, Gods have childeren and parents themselves until they go to a point where the first primeval God popped out of the universe itself. 

 

debunking thought process that has ZERO substantiation is not a beleif system, its sticking to reality. 

The dangerous trend, in intellectualism, is to believe- in anything. because belief is nothing more than a cop-out and lazyness. And if belief is not to be discouraged, there is no distinction between fact and fiction, as the definition of fact is incompatible with belief.

 

The survival of religious institutions depends on attracting devotees using fear or mysticism.  Why would anyone be "devoted to" a religious leader unless they saw some kind of miraculous healing power in her/him?  I often think of the example of Shirdi Sai Baba.  While he was truly an ascetic with great intentions - a progressive thinker and reformer - people did not really follow him for those reasons.  People believed in him for his supposed miraculous healing powers and thought he could cure them of their afflictions; his reformist ideas were just collateral. 

Edited by Brainfade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Because most go by convention. Not logic. Paneer planet has pretty much the exact same credibility as God - illogical and unevidenced. 

Its called herd/group mentality.

 

Even though you made some good points previously..... you are back to square one with that. 

 

Let us take the Paneer Planet example..let us keep aside the ridiculousness of the concept of a planet made out of paneer aside, that is still a specific belief that can be argued upon or debunked which makes it a religion.

 

The grey area that is an event,particle,person however you want to term it that it is beyond the realms of explanation can be termed “god”....example:science may explain the creation of the universe, now if they are not able to explain the event that led to it, that would be “god”, now if science can explain the event that led to it but not able to decipher the event that led to that event that would be “god”....I personally believe that there is a point to which science could reach where things can get inexplicable...obviously I cannot quantify that point  where sciences reach would end but  that end point to me is “god” and that’s what makes me agnostic.

 

Edited by maniac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, maniac said:

Even though you made some good points previously..... you are back to square one with that. 

 

Let us take the Paneer Planet example..let us keep aside the ridiculousness of the concept of a planet made out of paneer aside, that is still a specific belief that can be argued upon or debunked which makes it a religion.

 

The grey area that is an event,particle,person however you want to term it that it is beyond the realms of explanation can be termed “god”....example:science may explain the creation of the universe, now if they are not able to explain the event that led to it, that would be “god”, now if science can explain the event that led to it but not able to decipher the event that led to that event that would be “god”....I personally believe that there is a point to which science could reach where things can get inexplicable...obviously I cannot quantify that point  where sciences reach would end but  that end point to me is “god” and that’s what makes me agnostic.

 

So anything unexplainable to you is God. There will always be a point of unknown knowledge about something. I guess to you right now, dark matter is God, quantum tunneling is God, etc etc. 

 

You may want to explore the notion that the universe may not have been created but might actually be eternally uncreated. If you can accept that, then the universe itself is God ? so then we are all in our way, Gods too as we are part of the universe...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...