Are you an atheist? (6 Viewers)

[Galaxiom]

Here is something to ponder on regarding human reproduction in order to show where God’s creation matches God’s word.

This is exactly what I was talking about. You see science through a cloud of prejudices that hold Islam as "the TRUTH". Only someone completely enamoured by their religion could draw the conclusion that your tenuous comparison shows the agreement between science and the Quran.

You would appear to be claiming that "mingled sperm" shows prior knowledge that the semen is produced from multiple organs.

Verily, We created man from a drop of mingled sperm (nutfahtin amchaj) …
Qur’an – Insan (Man) 76:2

· The seminal fluid, comprising of a mixture of four different liquids, travels from the male urinary tract to the female reproductive system.

The the reference to "a drop of " supposed to show knowledge that only one sperm does the fertilisation?

·Once the egg enters into the egg, the fertilised egg goes into ‘lock down’ i.e. the single spermatozoa inside the egg cannot escape and no new spermatozoa can enter.

·Over two weeks, the fertilised egg becomes a clot.
·Thereafter, the clot travels down the fallopian tube and implants itself to the wall of the uterus. This is referred to as ‘implantation’.

You claim the parallel of science and the Quran by substituting the words of the Quran into the science without any rational justification.

The blastocyst is not a "clot".

The levels of a pregnancy hormone (Human Chorionic Gonadotropin - HCG) increases which indicates that ‘implantation’ has occurred through a urine or blood test.

What has this to do with your "proof". Does the Quran mention HCG anywhere?

Then you connect the 23 pairs of chromosomes with the 23 "mentions of man and woman" in the Quran. That is drawing a very long bow. And the mention of pairs is supposed to refer to chromosomes? This is patently ridiculous.

· Both men and woman have 23 pairs of chromosomes in each cell.
· Twenty two of these chromosome pairs (autosomes) are identical in both men and women.
The number of times the words man and woman occurs in the Qur'an is 23.

45. That He did create in pairs, male and female,

12. And [We] created man from an extract of clay (tiyn).

So now man is made of an extract of clay?

Now it gets really bizarre.

13. Moreover We placed him as a drop (nutfah) in a safe lodging.
14. Then We created the drop (nutfah) into a clinging clot (alaqah), and created the clinging clot (alaqah) into a lump of chewed flesh (mudrat), and created the chewed flesh (mudrat) into bones ('idham) and clothed the bones ('idham) with intact flesh (lahm);

This is certainly not the process by humans got here. If it is still supposed to represent gestation then it is wrong there too. The bones do not form before the organs and "intact flesh".

At no point does "chewed flesh" provide a reasonable representation of the embryonic development.

46. From a sperm (nutfah) drop when it is emitted.
Qur’an 53:45-46

Now man is made from a drop of sperm, not clay after all? Indeed the Quran says man is made of sperm, water, clay and dust in various different verses.

It is perfectly obvious that, like the Jewish and Christian Holy Books, the Quran is nothing more than the musings of an ancient person who, like all "prophets", presumed his own prejudices were seeded by supernatural wisdom.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Here is the problem I have with various "Holy" books. The question is whether they are divinely inspired or simply the result of a fertile imagination tempered by a small amount of knowledge - and a possible bout with indigestion. And the even bigger question that follows that one is, "How would we know the difference between the two?"

"Divine inspiration" in my case sometimes seem to be brought about by eating spicy food too late at night. I don't dare eat Mexican or Indian after about 6 PM (though oddly enough, spicy Chinese doesn't have the same effect on my dreams ... go figure!) If I do eat one of those foods, the dreams are spectacular. Must be divinely inspired, right?

Seriously, I really don't care that someone had a dream and wrote about it. As an amateur writer of fantasy and science fiction, I often write about my dreams. I just don't pass them off as grounds for founding a religion.

See, for a more modern example, L Ron Hubbard and Scientology. L Ron was a known huckster and was also a hack (literary slang for a not-very-good writer who bases his many stories on a formulaic premise), but for some reason folks decided that his hazy-brain musings on the alien origins of humanity must make more sense than the Bible or Quran. In a sad way, this reflects negatively on the credibility of the Bible and Quran, that folks would believe L Ron's writings more than they believe the more traditional sources. All in the name of Xenu.

By the way, if anyone wants to measure your engrams with a galvanometer, I'd tell them "No" on the grounds that I can do it for your cheaper than they ever will, and my readings will make exactly as much sense as theirs.

 

[Vassago]

Here is the problem I have with various "Holy" books. The question is whether they are divinely inspired or simply the result of a fertile imagination tempered by a small amount of knowledge - and a possible bout with indigestion. And the even bigger question that follows that one is, "How would we know the difference between the two?"

"Divine inspiration" in my case sometimes seem to be brought about by eating spicy food too late at night. I don't dare eat Mexican or Indian after about 6 PM (though oddly enough, spicy Chinese doesn't have the same effect on my dreams ... go figure!) If I do eat one of those foods, the dreams are spectacular. Must be divinely inspired, right?

Seriously, I really don't care that someone had a dream and wrote about it. As an amateur writer of fantasy and science fiction, I often write about my dreams. I just don't pass them off as grounds for founding a religion.

See, for a more modern example, L Ron Hubbard and Scientology. L Ron was a known huckster and was also a hack (literary slang for a not-very-good writer who bases his many stories on a formulaic premise), but for some reason folks decided that his hazy-brain musings on the alien origins of humanity must make more sense than the Bible or Quran. In a sad way, this reflects negatively on the credibility of the Bible and Quran, that folks would believe L Ron's writings more than they believe the more traditional sources. All in the name of Xenu.

By the way, if anyone wants to measure your engrams with a galvanometer, I'd tell them "No" on the grounds that I can do it for your cheaper than they ever will, and my readings will make exactly as much sense as theirs.

To add to this, every holy book states that God told man to write them. They also state that man is not perfect and makes mistakes. Isn't it also feasible that mistakes could have been made during the interpretation of God's word, translations, etc...?

 

[drb75088]

100% atheist, but if I found myself standing before the pearly gates (or the gate to hell) I could be persuaded to change my mind.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

But of course, in the Christian variants, drb, at that point you would take the trap-door express and never get to those gates since you will never get that level of proof until you are dead. And thanks to that little conceit of Christianity, at the moment you get the proof you would need, it is too late for it to have further meaning because you had to believe in Jesus (or Yeshua bar Yosef) when you were still alive.

 

[raghuprabhu]

People are atheist when it suits them and are believers when it suits them. It is driven by guilt. I was vacillating for a long time before I became a complete non-believer!

 

[drb75088]

I do not pretend to be all knowing or all wise, so there is the possibility that I am wrong and most of the people in the world are correct. I strongly believe a lot of things, but understand that I could be wrong on any or all of them. Not being convinced by proof makes no more sense to me than being convinced without proof.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

drb -

Not being convinced by proof makes no more sense to me than being convinced without proof.

There are two other options to consider, and one of them applies to me - disbelief due to lack of proof. I am not convinced by proof because I haven't seen any proof that I consider to be reasonable or valid. Every so-called proof that has ever been offered is either patently false, seriously not plausible, or at the very least, totally ambiguous.

Here's the brass-plated kicker: The fourth option is belief from proof. However - if you believe because of proof, you lose AGAIN - because of that little admonition "Only through faith shall you come to me."

In the absence of viable, meaningful proof, I have to say that there is no valid reason to believe - particularly since the side costs of belief (worship in services, avoidance of certain activities, tithing, things like that) is non-zero.

Yes, I could be wrong. It's been known to happen in the past. But it comes back to the simple question: Is there enough evidence to change my disbelief to doubt? So far, the answer is no.

Am I all-knowing? No, no, and no again. But that's actually immaterial. There's an old football saying about how great a team looks on paper, but they still have to win or lose with the players that actually showed up on the field. Based on the evidence that "showed up" in this debate, non-belief makes more sense.

 

[drb75088]

My comments about proof are related only to the options in the original question. I am 100% atheist. But the question was, could I be convinced by proof, and of course the answer to that is yes. Which of course is one of my main arguments about the fictional God of most religion. If my eternal salvation really mattered, proof and conviction would be easy enough.

 

[Mike375]

Atheism is a religion or faith as there no proof that God or gods or whatever don't exist.

An atheist "believes" the absence of evidence is sufficient for him/her to have faith that a god or gods don't exist.

 

[Frothingslosh]

There's no evidence that pink unicorns that fart glitter and piss Budweiser don't exist, ergo they must be real!

Sorry, Mike, but that's a logical fallacy called 'argument from ignorance'. It merely shows you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I hate to break it to you (actually, that's a lie, I'm happy to tell you), but lack of evidence is NOT evidence of existence. That particular inane argument is merely an attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the person making the extraordinary assertion.

 

[Galaxiom]

Atheism is a religion or faith as there no proof that God or gods or whatever don't exist.

An atheist "believes" the absence of evidence is sufficient for him/her to have faith that a god or gods don't exist.

Your nonsensical claim has already been debunked over and over again.

If the absence of a belief is a religion then everybody subscribes to an infinite number of religions each denying the existence of an imaginable entity for which there is no evidence.

 

[Mike375]

Simple question. Do you have proof that God or gods do not exist?

 

[Galaxiom]

Simple question. Do you have proof that God or gods do not exist?

Of course we can't provide evidence since a negative cannot be proved.

However choosing not to believe in gods (unicorns, fairies, zoogoos, dagabaths, longuples, facaturns or any other fanciful notion) is a reasonable decision based on observation and intellect.

This decision cannot be intelligently construed as religious or faith based. Only an abject fool would do so.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

It seems to me that every time someone is cured of some disease and the onlookers say "It's a miracle and proves that God exists" - these people must be ignorant of the Douglas Adams "Babel Fish" argument.

Mike, you need to hope that we cannot ever prove that God DOES exist, because the moment we do, His son's "only through faith" disclaimer is proved to be a lie, which completely destroys any chance of His existence. And we don't know if, at the time Jesus said those words, He was speaking as the Son or the Trinity - since the three are one. But if that was the Trinity speaking, then all three are destroyed at once by finding even the smallest scintilla of proof. And that is enough to show the absurdity of it all, which is (dis-)proof enough for me.

 

[Vassago]

Mike, you need to hope that we cannot ever prove that God DOES exist, because the moment we do, His son's "only through faith" disclaimer is proved to be a lie, which completely destroys any chance of His existence. And we don't know if, at the time Jesus said those words, He was speaking as the Son or the Trinity - since the three are one. But if that was the Trinity speaking, then all three are destroyed at once by finding even the smallest scintilla of proof. And that is enough to show the absurdity of it all, which is (dis-)proof enough for me.

That's an interesting argument. I've never looked at it that way before.

Of course, God(s) could change their mind(s) and decide to do away with the "only through faith" assertion. After all, no humans went to heaven until Jesus was born and died according to Christianity.

 

[Minty]

I think the excellent film Dogma had a moment like this where - Matt Damon and Ben Affleck are fallen angels who have found a loophole to get back into heaven.

In order to do this, they must become human. When Matt Damon becomes human, he gets a sudden burst of conscience and decides not to go back realising that it would unmake the world if they proved God wrong. Ergo self fulfilling prophecy!

I still like the idea of the Budweiser Unicorn though. Can you order them on-line?

 

[Frothingslosh]

This decision cannot be intelligently construed as religious or faith based. Only an abject fool would do so.

Dayum, Galaxiom, I thought 'overly aggressive debater' was MY role!

I still like the idea of the Budweiser Unicorn though. Can you order them on-line?

Afraid I still need to find one first.

 

[Minty]

Afraid I still need to find one first.

You only need belief


apparently

 

[Frothingslosh]

Or, apparently, lack thereof.

Perhaps we believe in it too much?