Prove God!

[Flintlock]

Stealth:

As I said at the end of my last post, these line by line arguments are pointless - half way down your response I noticed that half the stuff you replied to was taken out of context, and in some cases my arguments related to science were taken as arguments related to religion.
This is why I abhor such exchanges. You build a case upon multiple arguments, and by dissecting them this way, one loses sight of the context and overall point being made.

LOL...alright....I agree there...

First:

Faith needs to be kept separate from ideology. Several times you combined the two, especially when referencing communism.

Communism is not faith. Communism has behind it a very strong set of rationalizations and logical arguments that have very little to do with religious faith. Communism as an ideology abhors faith in fact - it is not based on superstition, and yet its interpretations have caused the deaths of people many orders of magnitude greater than deaths caused by faith.

Communism (atleast the stuff practiced by the Soviets), was a "godless religion", so to speak.
The rules of the communist manifesto were accepted unquestioningly by the masses, like any other holy book.
Anyone who questioned the rules was treated like a heretic, again giving us a sense of deja vu.

I had said earlier, that any idea which becomes fossilized and dogmatic should be called a religion. I just repeated that here.

People in the Soviet Union had complete "faith" in the communist leaders, who were nothing but demi-gods, with absolute powers.

You and I may disagree with the rationalizations of communism, but it is nonetheless an ideology derived just as capitalism is.

Sure, capitalism is also an ideology, but nowhere is it treated like an unchangeable law. The European "capitalist" countries have a generous dose of socialist policies as well.

Communism however, was treated like the "answer to everything" and the "ideology which will transform man and society into a new force". This stinks of religious faith.

This validates my point that it is not faith or ideology in general that is rigid, but interpretations of faith and ideology - and that rigidity can occur in a religious, atheistic, communistic or secular society (look at the results of US actions in Latin America, in Iran, in Africa, in Vietnam).

"Rigidity" can occur in any society where the current ideology is accepted as the only way, and the right way.

Most of these totalitarian societies till date, have been, and still are, the ones where religion is given importance over all else.

Communism has collapsed. Even China today blends its communist policies with a generous dollop of pure capitalism.
However, countries like Saudi and Iran continue to treat Islam as start-all and end-all.

The only constant in life and society change, and societies which don't realize that, get left behind.

Second:

You keep invoking examples of atrocities committed by men of faith as proof that faith causes it, but that argument is not valid since a very large number of people of faith do not subscribe to those interpretations of faith that condone atrocities.

Therefore you cannot conclusively argue that it is faith that causes "violence and chaos", since then it would stand to reason that all men of faith would be violent and/or support violence, and they are not and do not.

Most big wars are fought over ideology. Most historical animosities are over ideology. Agree?

The only thing that keeps ideologies (whether godly or godless) are faith. Agree?

Then is it not obvious, that it is this faith, unquestioning faith, that causes problems?

The notion that "faith causes violence" does not imply that all men of faith are violent. That is totally wrong.

I argue then that it is not faith that is responsible for atrocities, but man himself. Man has inherent tendencies to control, for violence, for power - and it is those men who are incapable of evolving beyond those base desires who corrupt whatever ideology or tool is available to gain power.

..and faith is the tool that man uses to gain control and power. Why not strip him of this?

Third:

Science vs Religion:

I fail to see how you can construct a case of religion being completely against science on the basis of your argument that opposing one set of "hypotheses" (the creation of the Universe) that even scientists themselves are not in agreement over, is a negation of science.

A negation of science would occur if all men of faith refused to go into scientific endeavor, if they refused to accept all scientific progress and explanations - and as I have pointed out, a large number of faithful do not do any of the above.

It doesn't matter whether all scientists are in agreement over a prevailing theory. They rarely are.

What matters is, on what basis, religious people disregard scientific theories.

Religious people usually discard a scientific theory, when it conflicts with their religious beliefs, not because their religion has a better explanation.

This is extremely dangerous, because every time the church dogma is at odds with a scientific discovery, the "heretics" have been punished.

I repeat, as I have repeated several, several times, in this discussion, that religion is A-OK with science as long as science doesn't question the authority of its teachings. Is that so hard to understand?

Fourth:

Rigidity in faith:

You have conveniently chosen to focus only on the "wars between Muslims" in the early years of Islam to justify your argument of faith being rigid. But it is not a valid one since there exist many denominations and interpretations within Islam, and not every single one of those multiple interpretations was created out of as "war". They were created out of a conflict of ideas and discourse, which indicates evolution and change, not rigidity.

Then why is each and every one of those denominations at war with each other? why do Shias and Sunnis kill each other?

I have never seen two scientists resorting to a duel to decide who is right. That's because scientists seek the truth, not domination.

However, the fight between the various denominations of Islam isn't over any real search for truth, but merely a power-struggle between the successor of Muhammed. Isn't that a recorded part of history?

Change happens when Shias and Sunnis publish their arguments, and build a consensus based on that.
Religious wars happen when Shias and Sunnis don't care who is really right, but want to exert their superiority over one another.

Faith is rigid friend....and the only result is war and conflict.

Note:

Another misunderstanding on your part that I noticed was the tendency to think that I am trying to "legitimize" or "prove" religion/God.

I am not. I am merely arguing against the idea that faith is necessarily counter to science and that it is inherently disposed towards stifling free thought.

I never had this misunderstanding.

Your name "Agnostic" itself gives that away.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Stealth:

Thanks for indulging my request of adjusting the format of our discourse.

First:

LOL...alright....I agree there...

Communism (atleast the stuff practiced by the Soviets), was a "godless religion", so to speak.
The rules of the communist manifesto were accepted unquestioningly by the masses, like any other holy book.
Anyone who questioned the rules was treated like a heretic, again giving us a sense of deja vu.

I had said earlier, that any idea which becomes fossilized and dogmatic should be called a religion. I just repeated that here.

People in the Soviet Union had complete "faith" in the communist leaders, who were nothing but demi-gods, with absolute powers.

Sure, capitalism is also an ideology, but nowhere is it treated like an unchangeable law. The European "capitalist" countries have a generous dose of socialist policies as well.

Communism however, was treated like the "answer to everything" and the "ideology which will transform man and society into a new force". This stinks of religious faith.


"Rigidity" can occur in any society where the current ideology is accepted as the only way, and the right way.

Most of these totalitarian societies till date, have been, and still are, the ones where religion is given importance over all else.

Communism has collapsed. Even China today blends its communist policies with a generous dollop of pure capitalism.
However, countries like Saudi and Iran continue to treat Islam as start-all and end-all.

The only constant in life and society change, and societies which don't realize that, get left behind.

And I agree with you there. It is the "fossilization" of thought, of discourse, of dissent that is the issue. Many communistic regimes fell into that trap, the power centers had no checks and balances in them, and too much power, and resulted in what occurred, as have many religious societies.

Capitalism is not treated as "unchangeable law" because the societies practicing it and the power centers supporting/enforcing it do not treat it as unchangeable law, and indeed temper it with a mix of socialist programs.

This has little to do with the ideology, more with those who practice it, just like religion and communism I would argue, and here again it is "rigidity" that would cause even capitalism to become abhorred.

I don't consider nations like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan treating Islam as the guiding principle of their societies a problem - I see their suppression of dissent and restrictions on analysis and debate related to religion as a problem. It is the "power centers"/society of Saudi Arabia who have perpetuated rigidity and stagnation of thought, and therefore restricted the room for change within religion.

Second:

Most big wars are fought over ideology. Most historical animosities are over ideology. Agree?

The only thing that keeps ideologies (whether godly or godless) are faith. Agree?

Then is it not obvious, that it is this faith, unquestioning faith, that causes problems?

The notion that "faith causes violence" does not imply that all men of faith are violent. That is totally wrong.

You are combing "faith" and "ideology" incorrectly again I believe.

Your usage of "faith" is more of an argument of "any belief in a set of principles". Communist (atheistic) ideologies required people to "believe" (faith) in them, as did "Democratic, secular and Free market values" (faith in secularism, the free market and democracy). The US had "faith" in its ideology, as did the Communists, and the devastation caused by the US in pursuit of what it considered "right" is for all to see.

..and faith is the tool that man uses to gain control and power. Why not strip him of this?

AS you have used the term "faith", it would amount to stripping belief in anything -secularism, atheism, democracy, religion, socialism etc.

So what reason is there for man to follow anything, including belief in compassion, universally applicable ethics and morals?

I would argue that it is not about stripping away faith, it is about creating an atmosphere that allows for debate and open exchange of information, and therefore nudging society to evolve into an entity that addresses these issues.

The issue of "faith" as such, is not about a definable ideology/religion, it is about having belief in general and not supplementing it with constant reasoning, analysis and, if needed, reinterpretation.


Third:

It doesn't matter whether all scientists are in agreement over a prevailing theory. They rarely are.

What matters is, on what basis, religious people disregard scientific theories.

Religious people usually discard a scientific theory, when it conflicts with their religious beliefs, not because their religion has a better explanation.

This is extremely dangerous, because every time the church dogma is at odds with a scientific discovery, the "heretics" have been punished.

I repeat, as I have repeated several, several times, in this discussion, that religion is A-OK with science as long as science doesn't question the authority of its teachings. Is that so hard to understand?

I understand what you are saying, but if religion was completely incapable of adjusting to science and accepting the incontrovertible facts science brings, then Christianity would still be stuck in the dark ages. Yet it has accepted many of sciences challenges to the religious dogma prevalent at those times.

That opposition to change does reflect rigidity, but I would again argue that it was due to the rigidity imposed upon people by the Church (too much power in one entity without checks and balances again) rather than any inherent issue with religion.


Fourth:

Then why is each and every one of those denominations at war with each other? why do Shias and Sunnis kill each other?

I have never seen two scientists resorting to a duel to decide who is right. That's because scientists seek the truth, not domination.

However, the fight between the various denominations of Islam isn't over any real search for truth, but merely a power-struggle between the successor of Muhammed. Isn't that a recorded part of history?

Change happens when Shias and Sunnis publish their arguments, and build a consensus based on that.
Religious wars happen when Shias and Sunnis don't care who is really right, but want to exert their superiority over one another.

Faith is rigid friend....and the only result is war and conflict.

The existence of ideological conflict between various denominations and the existence of various interpretations reflects evolution, continued reanalysis and reinterpretation, and therefore a lack of rigidity.

The existence of violent conflict reflects a hijacking of faith by men who desire power, who have too much power, and who refuse to allow dissent, free discourse and thought.

Of course it is about superiority, not faith, since the Quran itself says that there will be many interpretations of Islam, and they are all welcome, and all opinions must be tolerated with God as the final arbiter in the hereafter (paraphrasing). But all of that is forgotten in the quest for power.

This just validates my point that the change needs to occur in societies and men, not in faith.

I never had this misunderstanding.

Your name "Agnostic" itself gives that away.

Point taken.

 

[Muradk]

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with Allah, The Creator.

He asks one of his new students to stand and.....

Prof: So you believe in Allah?
Student: Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is Allah good?
Student: Sure.

INTERESTING CONVERSATION

Prof: Is Allah all-powerful?
Student: Yes.

Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to Allah to heal him.

Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But Allah didn't. How is this Allah good then? Hmm?
Student: (Student is silent.)

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is Allah good?
Student: Yes.

Prof: Is Shaytan good?
Student: No.

Prof: Where does Shaytan come from?
Student: From...Allah...

Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And Allah did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.

Prof: So who created evil?
Student: (Student does not answer.)

Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?
Student: (Student has no answer.)

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen Allah?
Student: No, sir.

Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your Allah?
Student: No , sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your Allah, tasted your Allah, smelt your Allah? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Allah for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your ALLAH doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my IMAAN (BELIEF).

Prof: Yes. Imaan (BELIEF). And that is the problem science has.

Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.

Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.

Student: No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold.

We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that.

There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat.

We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something.

You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it?

In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good Allah and a bad Allah.

You are viewing the concept of Allah as something finite, something we can
measure.

Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.

To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.

Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor.

Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
Prof: (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize
where the argument is going.)

Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir?

Are you not a scientist but a
preacher?
Prof: (The class is in uproar.)

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?
Prof: (The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....No one appears to have done so.

So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable
protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir.

With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

Prof: (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on Imaan (BELIEF), son.

Student: That is it sir.. The link between man & the Creator is IMAAN (BELIEF). That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

 

[Flintlock]

^^^LOL...sorry Mudrak Sir....that dialogue is pretty cheap....

 

[Flintlock]

First:

Stealth:

Thanks for indulging my request of adjusting the format of our discourse.

And I agree with you there. It is the "fossilization" of thought, of discourse, of dissent that is the issue. Many communistic regimes fell into that trap, the power centers had no checks and balances in them, and too much power, and resulted in what occurred, as have many religious societies.

Further, religious societies have a tendency to fossilize, due to their inherent flaws.
I.e. accepting the holy book as unchangeable god's word (irrespective of the fact that no book is god written, all books are indeed man-written and thus far from perfect)

The content of these books limits discourse, concentrates power among those who have the authority to interpret them (compounded by the fact that most religious books are written in "elite" or foreign languages, or languages which are by their very nature difficult to interpret)

Capitalism is not treated as "unchangeable law" because the societies practicing it and the power centers supporting/enforcing it do not treat it as unchangeable law, and indeed temper it with a mix of socialist programs.

Exactly. Similarly, religion (and its various bells and whistles like religious laws, religious practices, rites, rituals and opinions on matters which don't pertain to religion) should not be treated as an unchangeable law.

I am sure you agree with me on this one.

This has little to do with the ideology, more with those who practice it, just like religion and communism I would argue, and here again it is "rigidity" that would cause even capitalism to become abhorred.

Which brings us to the fact that religions are designed to be either rigid and unchageable, or subject to change within certain narrow confines.

I don't consider nations like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan treating Islam as the guiding principle of their societies a problem - I see their suppression of dissent and restrictions on analysis and debate related to religion as a problem. It is the "power centers"/society of Saudi Arabia who have perpetuated rigidity and stagnation of thought, and therefore restricted the room for change within religion.

But the "treating islam as the (sole) guiding principle" part is exactly what is causing the "concentration of power in the hands of religious people" part and therfore causing the "rigidity and stagnation in thought" part.


Second:

You are combing "faith" and "ideology" incorrectly again I believe.

Your usage of "faith" is more of an argument of "any belief in a set of principles". Communist (atheistic) ideologies required people to "believe" (faith) in them, as did "Democratic, secular and Free market values" (faith in secularism, the free market and democracy). The US had "faith" in its ideology, as did the Communists, and the devastation caused by the US in pursuit of what it considered "right" is for all to see.

Actually, I am using "faith" as a BLIND belief in any set of principles, WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.

The "Without any supporting evidence" part is important.



Third:

I understand what you are saying, but if religion was completely incapable of adjusting to science and accepting the incontrovertible facts science brings, then Christianity would still be stuck in the dark ages. Yet it has accepted many of sciences challenges to the religious dogma prevalent at those times.

Actually no, Christianity hasn't accepted most of what science has taught.
I won't spend time puling out a list of all the scientific facts that the Church refuses to accept, but there are a vast number of them.
Same applies to Islam as well (and Hinduism for that matter)

Usually, the Church accepts a scientific fact by conveniently arranging a "revelation".

The reason why the Church has moved on somewhat, since the dark ages, is because the people who form the church ( the priests, nuns, followers etc. etc.) have had access to education outside the church before joining it.



Fourth:

The existence of ideological conflict between various denominations and the existence of various interpretations reflects evolution, continued reanalysis and reinterpretation, and therefore a lack of rigidity.

It doesn't, at all. It represents a total lack of reason, and a simple principle of "might is right".
I.e. whoever has the most political power has henceforth proved the authenticity of his faith.

The existence of violent conflict reflects a hijacking of faith by men who desire power, who have too much power, and who refuse to allow dissent, free discourse and thought.

The existence of blind faith paves the path for men who desire power to mislead their people by fear tactics (hell and earthly retribution) into submitting to their dogma.

Of course it is about superiority, not faith, since the Quran itself says that there will be many interpretations of Islam, and they are all welcome, and all opinions must be tolerated with God as the final arbiter in the hereafter (paraphrasing). But all of that is forgotten in the quest for power.

Well, what the Quran says depends not on what the Quran actually says, but on the guy who decides what the Quran says. Get my point?

This just validates my point that the change needs to occur in societies and men, not in faith.

When faith is shown to be what it is i.e. belief without reason, and given the same pedestal as any other idea like communism, surrealism or big bang theory, and subject to the same vigorous scrutiny, then we will have real change.

 

[Always Neutral]

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with Allah, The Creator.

.

If Allah is the only creator who created the russians and chinese ?

Regards

 

[dabong1]

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with Allah, The Creator.

He asks one of his new students to stand and.....

Prof: So you believe in Allah?
Student: Absolutely, sir.

Prof: Is Allah good?
Student: Sure.

INTERESTING CONVERSATION

Prof: Is Allah all-powerful?
Student: Yes.

Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to Allah to heal him.

Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But Allah didn't. How is this Allah good then? Hmm?
Student: (Student is silent.)

Prof: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is Allah good?
Student: Yes.

Prof: Is Shaytan good?
Student: No.

Prof: Where does Shaytan come from?
Student: From...Allah...

Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.

Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And Allah did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.

Prof: So who created evil?
Student: (Student does not answer.)

Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.

Prof: So, who created them?
Student: (Student has no answer.)

Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen Allah?
Student: No, sir.

Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your Allah?
Student: No , sir.

Prof: Have you ever felt your Allah, tasted your Allah, smelt your Allah? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Allah for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.

Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your ALLAH doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my IMAAN (BELIEF).

Prof: Yes. Imaan (BELIEF). And that is the problem science has.

Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Prof: Yes.

Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Prof: Yes.

Student: No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold.

We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that.

There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat.

We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something.

You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light....But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it?

In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good Allah and a bad Allah.

You are viewing the concept of Allah as something finite, something we can
measure.

Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.

To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.

Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor.

Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
Prof: (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize
where the argument is going.)

Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir?

Are you not a scientist but a
preacher?
Prof: (The class is in uproar.)

Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?
Prof: (The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it?.....No one appears to have done so.

So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable
protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir.

With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

Prof: (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on Imaan (BELIEF), son.

Student: That is it sir.. The link between man & the Creator is IMAAN (BELIEF). That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

Excellent....i see nobody has tried to answer any of the questions the student put to the prof.

 

[Flintlock]

Excellent....i see nobody has tried to answer any of the questions the student put to the prof.

Don't get too happy...the student's questions are too cheap for me to spend time answering.

Agnostic Muslim here has grilled me with far tougher questions. Why don't you read those ones?

If you say "please", then I'll consider answering..

 

[niaz]

Man has been obsessed with Gods since the first one walked on earth (you can call him Adam or Lucy or what ever). Initially, anything that man had no power to control, was called a Deity. Thus a pantheon of different deities such as Sun, Moon, Wind, Thunder. Even animals such as tigers, elephants and monkeys were attributed with divine powers. With the passage of time, number of deities diminished as rational explanations could be found for the god like powers.

Another obsession of mankind was about what happens after one dies? It is the end or annihilation or something is left which lives on for ever? This was necessary for an orderly society and just as any man breaking the law of the land is punished; powerful, who could not be punished for breaking the norms of the society such as incest, rape or cruelty; were supposed to pay for the crimes in the after life for breaking the tenets of the God.

A time had to come where man thought that he could explain every thing and did away with the existence of God. Lord Buddha was earliest of such men who rationalized that continuous cycle of death and rebirth was the result of man’s actions and the deliverance (Nirvana) is achieved thru following his golden path.

This intellectual debate about the existence of a supreme deity has been going on and would continue long after all of us have disappeared. Why I keep harping on faith is because there is no logical explanation. God can neither be proven nor disproven. As I have stated earlier, Prof Hawkins, in reply to what was there before the big bang stated ‘Nothing’ and that Universe came out nothing just like the bubbles come out of soap solution. I call the force or entity which caused universe to be created as Allah.

It is at this juncture that we enter into the realm of speculation. I call this ‘Faith’. Despite being better educated and better read than an ordinary man on the street, I have no hesitation in admitting that my intellect fails me at this point and I depend upon ‘Faith’. You can call it a spiritual need or that I have been brainwashed as I come from long generations of Muslims. Nevertheless God or Allah is something that I truly believe in and will continue to do so. Needless to say that belief in Islam is only after belief in one God.

I have nothing else to say on this matter.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Why does one want God?

Are we insecure?

Can we not go through life without a psychological support?

If God was there and if he was for the good of man, then why all this strife around the world?

Where is God?

How are you any different from me?

We have the same physical attributes and yet religions tell us we are not the same!

If God is One, then how come we have different paths and how come we fight against each other for the One God, who is for ALL!!

Or are there many Gods up there?

Each playing his own power game, charged with all the human foibles?

If so, how is God different from us humans?

 

[Wounded Healer]

Why does one want God?

one doesnt want a God, one "needs" a God.......without the fear of a supreme being, a being watching over each and every one of our actions, humans will do far worse things then what they have already done.......without the concept of going into heaven if we do good deeds, there will be far greater evil in this world than what we see nowadays.

Are we insecure?

i hate to say it but, yes, we are insecure........and this insecurity comes because of our surroundings.......we are even less then a tiny speck in this universe, well, just forget about the universe and let us concentrate on this earth for now.....if one looks closely, we see that of all the creatures on earth, we humans are the ones who are not in any sort of balance with our environment......all other creatures, be they, plant or animal, are at harmony with nature but not us......we grow and plunder and grow and plunder, and this gives rise to a feeling, prevalent in many people, a feeling of not belonging to this earth......a question like "what is our purpose here" arises......and when we dont find an answer, we become insecure.

Can we not go through life without a psychological support?

No, how can we? as explained earlier, we need a God.......one who supports us, who hears our prayers.........without this, man would be like an empty shell, rolling along the waves of time......man is not left like a ship without moorings at the mercy of winds and tides; he has to adhere to a set of norms and in following them, he tries to become a Good person.........without this psychological support, man would face an ideological vaccuum which would then only be filled with rage and hatred.

If God was there and if he was for the good of man, then why all this strife around the world?

a test!!! a test for man to prove himself........

Where is God?

All around us! in everything we see and everything we feel...........when one learns science, we see the magnificent order in everything.......from the largest galaxy to the smallest particle of an atom........we see order and harmony in everything......and What force could possibly have created such a magnificent piece of art, this universe and beyond, in not God?

How are you any different from me?

that is the beauty of religion, every religion.......your not different from me, nor i from you......its is only our deeds that make us different......a good, just and moral man in one religion will also be a good, just and moral man in another......only our deeds differentiate us.

We have the same physical attributes and yet religions tell us we are not the same!

religion does not tell us that we are not the same, its our preachers and mullahs and pundits who do this.........dont get confused by what they tell us, research religion by urself and only and only then will u find the answers.

If God is One, then how come we have different paths and how come we fight against each other for the One God, who is for ALL!!

the paths may be different but the goal is the same........and we fight against each other because those in power do not understand the true meaning of religion....they never have and they never will...religions all around the world have been misunderstood and horrible thigs have happenned in the name of religion.....but then, would we really be humans if we didnt falter, would we really be humans if we didnt make mistakes........but what distinguishes us from animals is that humans are supposed to learn from our mistakes, but sadly, we have not done so, till yet.

Or are there many Gods up there?

how can there be many Gods up there? the concept of a supreme being is negated when we believe in more then one God......it implies that, that one supreme being is not one, but rather there are others like him e.g. if one believes in a god who gives life, and one believes in a god who takes life, then we see that it means ke the god who gives life cannot take life and the god who takes life cannot give it, so then, even god is bound by his duties, and hence, is not a supreme being........whereas, the concept of God or supreme being can only be recognized when we believe that God has the ultimate power.......he can do anything......what good would be a God who does not have supreme power?

Each playing his own power game, charged with all the human foibles?

already explained above.

If so, how is God different from us humans?

All the above mentioned points should make the difference quite clear.

 

[Flintlock]

one doesnt want a God, one "needs" a God.......without the fear of a supreme being, a being watching over each and every one of our actions, humans will do far worse things then what they have already done.......without the concept of going into heaven if we do good deeds, there will be far greater evil in this world than what we see nowadays.

Actually no, humans don't need to fear hellfire in order to behave themselves.

Earthly punishment is good enough.

It is very easy to go around saying that "without god, man will lose his morals and run amok" but in reality there is little evidence for this.

Infact, the countries with the most ardent believers in god also have the highest crime rates. In addition, it has been found that in prison populations around the world, deeply religious people far outnumber the weak-believers, agnostics or unbelievers.
Also, the countries with the weakest belief in god tend to be the most advanced and have the lowest crime rates.
Examples? Japan. Sweden. Switzerland. Denmark. Norway.

China will soon be a superpower, and the folks are atheists!


If your thesis had any basis in fact, one would find the prisons of the world full of atheists, homosexuals and other god-offenders. The truth is quite the opposite.

Sorry to crash your party, but the world works fine, and better, far better, without God-Power.

 

[Wounded Healer]

Actually no, humans don't need to fear hellfire in order to behave themselves.

Earthly punishment is good enough.

You dont actually believe that every bad deed that a person does in this world, will come back to haunt him ten-fold in this world? plz tell me u dont, coz i have seen many people doing horrible acts and getting away with them........our society is too immature to hurt or punish such men, and if God does'nt punish them, then who will? it will be like telling the world that "crime pays".

It is very easy to go around saying that "without god, man will lose his morals and run amok" but in reality there is little evidence for this.

i dont need evidence, friend. i have my own example in front of me and that is enough. i try to be good and stay away from wrong-doings just because i have love for Allah and fear of the here-after......so, in essence, my religion and my believe in a superior being has helped me be a moral and just man.....it has helped me become a good person, and am not claiming saint-hood here.......and i know it is hard to refrain from all evil but, atleast i am trying.......

and whatever i said in my previous post was my own thinking, and should not be constructed as the opinion of the whole muslim community.

Infact, the countries with the most ardent believers in god also have the highest crime rates

compare the crime rates between the west and the middle-eastern muslim countries and you'll find the truth!!!

In addition, it has been found that in prison populations around the world, deeply religious people far outnumber the weak-believers, agnostics or unbelievers.

you believe everything u read??? and these deeply religious people you are talking about are mis-guided souls and nothing else........dont blame God or religion for this......no religion tells people to harm others.

Also, the countries with the weakest belief in god tend to be the most advanced and have the lowest crime rates.
Examples? Japan. Sweden. Switzerland. Denmark. Norway.
China will soon be a superpower, and the folks are atheists!

weakest believe in God? whats that? you either believe in God or you dont? but what u fail to see here is that the names of the countries you have mentioned, base their laws on those same set of norms that God has passed to man through generations.......

If your thesis had any basis in fact, one would find the prisons of the world full of atheists, homosexuals and other god-offenders. The truth is quite the opposite.

my thesis? lolz man, i just said what i thought about God and religion.......and the prisons are full of people from all walks of life.........all mis-guided souls, as i have said earlier.

Sorry to crash your party, but the world works fine, and better, far better, without God-Power.

whatever helps u sleep better at night, my friend.........your entitled to your own opinion, just as i am.

regards,

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Stealth,

A personal question - what faith were you raised in?

What faith were your parents raised in?

 

[Flintlock]

Stealth,

A personal question - what faith were you raised in?

What faith were your parents raised in?

I was raised a Hindu. Ganesh and Lakshmi are usually worshipped in our house. I am usually an enthusiastic participant in all the pujas and festivals.

My family have varied beliefs, some are very religious, others couldn't care less.