Religion, what's the point?

[Moonwalker]

It should lead to you giving me a proper answer to my question. Dont you lot get tired of having a debate which won't get you anywhere?

You've asked a rhetorical question, and now you're demanding a proper answer...

As if we didn't have enough frivolity in this thread.

 

[MrMarcello]

First I've ever heard of Adam was a prophet, and I grew up in the Baptist faith where the Bible was taken literal in every verse.

 

[Silva]

If he was a prophet, he was a fecking shit one. First human, and first human in hell to boot. Not to mention, giving zero prophecies. And not even existing.

 

[ciderman9000000]

I find it very difficult to believe that Danny is being serious at this stage.

 

[Relevated]

That's it, I'm telling god to punish you.

haha yeah, I'll ask him if he can put you in hell where you belong.

 

[MrMarcello]

It's as if Islam came along, said, "shit, we can't just make up new names because the people won't believe it, so let's just claim these guys were prophets and our guy, let's call him Muhammed, and claim he's the true prophet."

Voila! A new religion was created. Then they had to convince masses. While other religions died off/never took off, Islam did, just like Christianity and many others.

 

[Danny1982]

Listen, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there was a monotheistic religion before the Abrahamic ones came along. There is overwhelming evidence that those people believed in everything but one God. Islam is making an extraordinary claim which says that everyone is born a Muslim. Thus you not only need evidence, but you need extraordinary evidence to back this claim. There is none. You can claim whatever you want, the burden of proof is on you. I could claim that people then believed in the flying spaghetti monster and you would ask me for proof. Not only this but we know that certain organizations of people favor certain religions. The nature of hunter-gatherers societies favored a certain type of religion and the transition to sedentary lifestyle favored another type of religion. It is the organization of society (economic, social,...) that favors certain kinds of religions, political systems, etc which in turn influence on the organization of society. You find this notion in Karl Marx's superstructure/base concept.
Thus, not only is there no evidence of monotheistic religions before Abrahamic ones but even what we know about the lifestyle of people throughout history would not have favored the apparition of monotheistic religion. It would have been counter-productive for those people and thus not in their nature.


Again, do you have any proof that souls exist ?
Fitrah means that people are born with their brain "wired" a certain way so that they believe in one God. Of course they would be inclined to believe in one God, their brains would be wired that way !



Oh really ? Enlighten me please !



Fitrah is real = People are naturally biased to believe in one God. Simple. If all people are naturally biased to believe in one God, monotheism would have appeared a long time ago, in the first manifestations of religion. You can deny this as much as you want it is simple logic.

And you still did not show me what bad influences make people become polytheist.

First of all, lack of evidence for existence =/= evidence for lack of existence.. How many atheists don't know this simple logical and scientific rule, or don't apply it in their arguments?!

Second, it's logical that you're more likely to find "Gods" of poly-theistic people, than the "God" of the people who believe in the one God, because people who believe in the one God don't picture God as something they can draw or sculpt. There are over a billions Muslims now, have you seen them "draw" their God or "sculpt" him?

Third, you don't even understand what the word Muslim means. You think it means people who follow Mohammad (and kill the people they don't like)..

The second bolded part: Did you pull that out of your arse?

The "Oh Really?" part tells me that you don't know much about Islam, which I actually assumed when you asked about Fitrah.. Believing in one God doesn't mean that you just say: Hey, I believe in one God! Or "I'm a Muslim, I believe there is only one good, and that Mohammad was God's prophet". It's not like that.. Even a Muslim, if he wants to get money so much that he steals to get it, then it means that he followed the money more than following God, or treated money as a "second God". If he loves a woman so much that makes him hurt his mother just to keep her means that he followed that woman more than following God, or treated that woman like a second God. If a Muslim kills somebody because Bin Laden told him to do so, even though that person didn't hurt him, it means that he's following Bin Laden more than God, or that he treated Bin Laden as a second God..

Real monotheism (in Islam) is to let God's properties and only his properties make you make you decisions, regardless of what your body wants, regardless of your desires.. How many people would like to do that. Not many, because the dirt of our desires blurs our judgement.

That's why and how people become poly-theist. Even though religion is natural to humans (because it was and always will be logical that there is a God who created the universe), they begin to twist it to fit their desires, and what they want, and that's how you start to get poly-theism in all kinds of forms.. Whatever they like, they make a God for, whether they know or not, whether they draw it or not.

Also, I repeat, it's stupid to think that how anything is created originally is always the most deciding factor in how it turns out..

 

[ciderman9000000]

What do people think about the devout attempting to justify their beliefs on equal terms with genuine science like Danny is trying to do here? The claims are laughable (ex: people are born with the predisposition towards belief in a monotheistic god and Adam was a real person, wholly in conflict with any evidence uncovered by anthropology and evolutionary science respectively), but is it justifiable for these people to be making pseudoscientific attempts at rationalising their religion in the hope of prolonging the influence of their chosen faith under threat of extinction from real science, or would you say that they were better off just sticking to the tried and tested answer of 'God did it because he's magic' and leaving the sciencey bit well alone in order to save further embarrassment?

I can't tell if I respect Danny's failing attempts to combine his religion with science or whether I'd respect him more if he just admitted that in order for his beliefs to be accurate then he must reject every branch of science thus far conceived.

 

[Danny1982]

I find it very difficult to believe that Danny is being serious at this stage.

Cider, it's actually difficult to believe that you're arguing for science, when you don't even know some of it's simple rules.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Cider, it's actually difficult to believe that you're arguing for science, when you don't even know some of it's simple rules.

 

[Danny1982]

If you really believe there was an Adam, care to prove that an evolutionary scientist was wrong?

You can follow up on my last post if you want to continue this discussion.

 

[Danny1982]

Yup.

In case you forgot...

Cider, no need to get philosophical about it. There is very little debate really about this issue. If you don't believe in it then you don't understand science itself, which is a bit disappointing.

It's by the way the exact same thing I said before that atheists believe in, and some denied.. Somebody even told me "Well, you've found only one out of dozens.....". I think we have comfortably more than one who believe in that, as we see..

Lack of evidence for existence does not equal an evidence for lack of existence.

 

[ciderman9000000]

Yup.

In case you forgot...

I didn't forget. I explained the inherent imperfection of science quite thoroughly on the previous page; with it I explained how the scientific process is nevertheless quite able to make reasonable statements effectively disregarding the completely implausible despite not possibly having any ultimate proof to support such statements. This because science cannot prove anything absolutely, it can only serve to put things beyond reasonable doubt. If you don't understand that then it isn't me who has misunderstood the practicalities of science.

 

[MrMarcello]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/09/us/pat-robertson-facebook-remark/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

On adultery
"Males have a tendency to wander a little bit. And what you want to do is make a home so wonderful he doesn't want to wander."
On a man with an Alzheimer's-stricken wife
"I know it sounds cruel, but if he's going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but to make sure she has custodial care and somebody (is) looking after her."
Asked what about the "Till death do us part" part of the marriage vow, he said Alzheimer's is "a kind of death."
On Walt Disney World's "Gay Days"
"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you ... It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor."
On the role of a man and a woman
"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household, and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."
On feminism
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
On the devastating 2010 Haiti earthquake
"They were under the heel of the French, you know, Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story.
And so the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another."
On homosexuality
"Many of those people involved in Adolf Hitler were Satanists. Many were homosexuals. The two things seem to go together."
On assassinating Hugo Chavez
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
On the tornadoes that ravaged the Midwest in 2012
"If enough people were praying, (God) would've intervened. You could pray. Jesus stilled the storm. You can still storms."

 

[Silva]

Cider, it's actually difficult to believe that you're arguing for science, when you don't even know some of it's simple rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Read it, then read it again, then keep on reading it.

 

[ciderman9000000]

In case you forgot:

The gist of the philosophy of science is that absolute proof of anything is an impossible goal, but that we can make what are seemingly extremely accurate educated guesses nevertheless by being reasonable and discarding the incredibly implausible.

Consider an entirely unsubstantiated theory which I'm about to pluck from thin air as an example of how we cannot definitively prove anything at all:

"There exists a super-powerful, telekinetic and infallible lobster living at the bottom of the sea who tampers with the output of every scientific device ever created with the intention of causing humans to believe anything but the reality of every situation they test."

If the above theory was correct then every truth produced by science to date would in fact be false.

Can we prove that this lobster doesn't exist? Of course we can't. Does the fact that we cannot prove the nonexistence of this malevolent lobster render science impotent? Of course it doesn't.

Science disregards the completely implausible by being an extremely practical instrument of reason and logic. We know full well that it isn't impossible that the lobster exists, but we can nevertheless say with great conviction and assured accuracy that the lobster doesn't exist, because the chances of its existence would be infinitesimal.

Using the same logic a reasonable mind must rule out the existence of god.

 

[Silva]

You can follow up on my last post if you want to continue this discussion.

So you think Richard Dawkins, one of the most respected evolutionary scientists of all time and a professor at one of the greatest universities in the world, is wrong about evolution?

 

[ciderman9000000]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/09/us/pat-robertson-facebook-remark/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

Spoiler

On adultery
"Males have a tendency to wander a little bit. And what you want to do is make a home so wonderful he doesn't want to wander."
On a man with an Alzheimer's-stricken wife
"I know it sounds cruel, but if he's going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but to make sure she has custodial care and somebody (is) looking after her."
Asked what about the "Till death do us part" part of the marriage vow, he said Alzheimer's is "a kind of death."
On Walt Disney World's "Gay Days"
"I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you ... It'll bring about terrorist bombs; it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor."
On the role of a man and a woman
"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household, and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."
On feminism
"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
On the devastating 2010 Haiti earthquake
"They were under the heel of the French, you know, Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story.
And so the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another."
On homosexuality
"Many of those people involved in Adolf Hitler were Satanists. Many were homosexuals. The two things seem to go together."
On assassinating Hugo Chavez
"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it."
On the tornadoes that ravaged the Midwest in 2012
"If enough people were praying, (God) would've intervened. You could pray. Jesus stilled the storm. You can still storms."

I was with him until Walt Disney World.

 

[Danny1982]

Cider and Silva,

I repeat.. Lack of evidence for existence =/= (in science) an evidence for lack of existence..

The way you keep challenging this basic scientific rule is hilarious.

 

[Danny1982]

So you think Richard Dawkins, one of the most respected evolutionary scientists of all time and a professor at one of the greatest universities in the world, is wrong about evolution?

He can't be. Apparently he's your prophet.

 

[Silva]

He can't be. Apparently he's your prophet.

He's not a prophet you utterly dense moron. He's an evolutionary biologist, if you think you know more about evolution than he does, then there's no hope for you.

 

[Werewolf]

First of all, lack of evidence for existence =/= evidence for lack of existence.. How many atheists don't know this simple logical and scientific rule, or don't apply it in their arguments?!

From wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The difference between evidence that something is absent (e.g. an observation that suggests there were no dragons here today) and a simple absence of evidence (e.g. no careful research has been done) can be nuanced. Indeed, scientists will often debate whether an experiment's result should be considered evidence of absence, or if it remains absence of evidence. The debate is whether the experiment would have detected the phenomenon of interest if it was there.

If Fitrah is correct, monotheistic religions should have appeared a long time ago. We should have evidence of it. Experiments carried in Archaeology, Anthropology and such should have detected the corresponding evidence and they did not. This is evidence that Monotheistic religions were not present in earliest societies. Fitrah implies that there should be overwhelming evidence that beliefs in one God were developed and we haven't found anything of the sort after careful scientific research. If you fail to understand this I cannot help you anymore.

Second, it's logical that you're more likely to find "Gods" of poly-theistic people, than the "God" of the people who believe in the one God, because people who believe in the one God don't picture God as something they can draw or sculpt. There are over a billions Muslims now, have you seen them "draw" their God or "sculpt" him?

Third, you don't even understand what the word Muslim means. You think it means people who follow Mohammad (and kill the people they don't like)..

The second bolded part: Did you pull that out of your arse?

The "Oh Really?" part tells me that you don't know much about Islam, which I actually assumed when you asked about Fitrah.. Believing in one God doesn't mean that you just say: Hey, I believe in one God! Or "I'm a Muslim, I believe there is only one good, and that Mohammad was God's prophet". It's not like that.. Even a Muslim, if he wants to get money so much that he steals to get it, then it means that he followed the money more than following God, or treated money as a "second God". If he loves a woman so much that makes him hurt his mother just to keep her means that he followed that woman more than following God, or treated that woman like a second God. If a Muslim kills somebody because Bin Laden told him to do so, even though that person didn't hurt him, it means that he's following Bin Laden more than God, or that he treated Bin Laden as a second God..

Real monotheism (in Islam) is to let God's properties and only his properties make you make you decisions, regardless of what your body wants, regardless of your desires.. How many people would like to do that. Not many, because the dirt of our desires blurs our judgement.

That's why and how people become poly-theist. Even though religion is natural to humans (because it was and always will be logical that there is a God who created the universe), they begin to twist it to fit their desires, and what they want, and that's how you start to get poly-theism in all kinds of forms.. Whatever they like, they make a God for, whether they know or not, whether they draw it or not.

Also, I repeat, it's stupid to think that how anything is created originally is always the most deciding factor in how it turns out..

I am speechless. Really. Do you really mean what you are writing ? Because if you do, it's quite sad.

 

[Silva]

Cider and Silva,

I repeat.. Lack of evidence for existence =/= (in science) an evidence for lack of existence..

The way you keep challenging this basic scientific rule is hilarious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

[ciderman9000000]

I repeat.. Lack of evidence for existence =/= (in science) an evidence for lack of existence..

Not always the case. If the above were true then we couldn't reasonably rule out the existence of anything at all no matter how ridiculous, but of course we are able to do so. At times when one might expect an abundance of evidence supporting a certain hypothesis then a distinct lack of evidence can be a good indication that the hypothesis is incorrect. Of course, when it comes to your god, along with the distinct lack of evidence you also have to account for an ever increasing caseload of evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps you're confusing evidence with proof?

 

[Werewolf]

Silva

 

[Silva]

I fecking had to delete half my post as well, went over the 10000 character limit.

 

[Danny1982]

From wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance



If Fitrah is correct, monotheistic religions should have appeared a long time ago. We should have evidence of it. Experiments carried in Archaeology, Anthropology and such should have detected the corresponding evidence and they did not. This is evidence that Monotheistic religions were not present in earliest societies. Fitrah implies that there should be overwhelming evidence that beliefs in one God were developed and we haven't found anything of the sort after careful scientific research. If you fail to understand this I cannot help you anymore.



I am speechless. Really. Do you really mean what you are writing ? Because if you do, it's quite sad.

Didn't you claim to know a lot about Islam? And lived like 100 meter from a mosque? Or was that somebody else? Don't you know what the word "Shirk"=poly-theism mean in Islam?

Also you're going in the same circle in your second paragraph. God made you clean, doesn't mean everybody should remain clean, or that most people should remain clean. Also @ "after careful scientific research".. So there will be no more researches?? Stop trying to claim that you've dug every hole in Earth and answered all the questions about history since year 223,000 BC..

The first part, read the links you're posting.. The quote you've posted doesn't change anything in term of what I posted.


@ Silva, it doesn't matter how many times you post that link, it doesn't change what is a basic scientific rule. Can you by the way quote the part you think I should read?

 

[Danny1982]

I fecking had to delete half my post as well, went over the 10000 character limit.

You need to calm down?

 

[Silva]

You need to calm down?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

[ciderman9000000]

As an example: imagine you're a scientist and you've been hired to do some research at the local china shop, you're investigating whether or not a bull has passed through in the last five minutes. You arrive at the shop and begin conducting a couple of experiments: first you test for bull shit on the floor and find none, then you test for any broken or displaced crockery and again find none. So there's no evidence of any bull passing through the china shop in the past five minutes. What would you report?

Obviously in the above case the lack of evidence to indicate the existence of a bull is very reliable evidence in itself that there wasn't a bull. Or in other words; absence of evidence = evidence of absence.

 

[Danny1982]

Not always the case. If the above were true then we couldn't reasonably rule out the existence of anything at all no matter how ridiculous, but of course we are able to do so. At times when one might expect an abundance of evidence supporting a certain hypothesis then a distinct lack of evidence can be a good indication that the hypothesis is incorrect. Of course, when it comes to your god, along with the distinct lack of evidence you also have to account for an ever increasing caseload of evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps you're confusing evidence with proof?

In Abraham's existence/existence of monotheistic religions you can use both words and it will still be valid, because you can't even claim that you've thoroughly examined every possible area there is to examine to say you have a credible evidence.. It's like going to Egypt and meeting 100 Muslims in a few areas and claim to have an evidence that Christians don't exist in Egypt. That's bullsh*t.

Let alone the fact that you're actually saying that you have a proof that Abraham doesn't exist, since "he absolutely did not exist"!

 

[Silva]

In Abraham's existence/existence of monotheistic religions you can use both words and it will still be valid, because you can't even claim that you've thoroughly examined every possible area there is to examine to say you have a credible evidence.. It's like going to Egypt and meeting 100 Muslims in a few areas and claim to have an evidence that Christians don't exist in Egypt. That's bullsh*t.

Let alone the fact that you're actually saying that you have a proof that Abraham doesn't exist, since "he absolutely did not exist"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

[Silva]

Where's your evidence that Abraham did exist, then?

 

[Werewolf]

Didn't you claim to know a lot about Islam? And lived like 100 meter from a mosque? Or was that somebody else? Don't you know what the word "Shirk"=poly-theism mean in Islam?

Oh I know a great deal about Islam, and certainly more than you. I have already exposed your ignorance numerous times in this thread.
"Shirk" means not believing in Allah. You could be an Atheist and be a "Moushrik", not necessarily a polytheist. Do you need me to give you another lesson ?

Also you're going in the same circle in your second paragraph. God made you clean, doesn't mean everybody should remain clean, or that most people should remain clean. Also @ "after careful scientific research".. So there will be no more researches?? Stop trying to claim that you've dug every hole in Earth and answered all the questions about history since year 223,000 BC..

What part of "overwhelming evidence" did you not understand ? We should have discovered evidence by now ffs.

The first part, read the links you're posting.. The quote you've posted doesn't change anything in term of what I posted

Read that again, carefully, using your finger.

 

[Danny1982]

Where's your evidence that Abraham did exist, then?

Did you suddenly wake up and started reading?

You said he absolutely didn't exist.. Why? Based on what?

 

[Silva]

Did you suddenly wake up and started reading?

You said he absolutely didn't exist.. Why?

Because there's nothing to suggest he did. Feel free to give us some evidence that proves that wrong.

 

[Werewolf]

This level...

 

[ciderman9000000]

In Abraham's existence/existence of monotheistic religions you can use both words and it will still be valid, because you can't even claim that you've thoroughly examined every possible area there is to examine to say you have a credible evidence.. It's like going to Egypt and meeting 100 Muslims in a few areas and claim to have an evidence that Christians don't exist in Egypt. That's bullsh*t.

Let alone the fact that you're actually saying that you have a proof that Abraham doesn't exist, since "he absolutely did not exist"!

When did I say that Abraham "Absolutely did not exist?" I said that Adam didn't exist; as in, there was never a 'first human'. Evolutionary science is pretty thorough and we can reasonably rule that one out as being absurd.

In regards to the 100 muslim analogy above, it would be evidence of the lack of Christians, though in statistical terms it would be considered rather flimsy evidence I'd imagine. Evidence nevertheless though.

You seem to have accepted now that lack of evidence can be evidence in itself; is this the case?

Anyway, Werewolf was referring to Fitrah, not Abraham. He proposed that if Fitrah existed then there would be an overwhelming abundance of monotheistic worship from the very dawn of humanity; yet we find none. This lack of evidence is evidence in itself – please, not to be mistaken again with proof – that Fitrah is a concoction of an overactive human imagination rather than a real thing.

Do you understand?

 

[Silva]

I said Abraham didn't exist, because you know, he didn't. We're expected to believe this man had a child when he was 100 and his wife was 90.

Edit: The 100 Muslims example would under no circumstance be considered evidence. You wouldn't get scientific consensus on such a comprehensively shite test.

 

[Silva]

Moses definitely wasn't real either.