A letter to the Atheists

[EiNsTeiN]

A question for you or any other muslim. It is to my understanding that in the muslim faith, when a man dies he is given a number of virgins in the afterlife. Is this true, and if so, is it something that is through out muslim groups or limited

I'm sick of this virgin thing...
Anyone who believed in God (Allah) in any of the eras of God's message to the humanity, as well as doing good in his life is rewarded by the paradise in the aftertime...Not only muslims I mean

In the paradise, you are supposed to have the most perfect beauty, and are able to do whatever you want, see whatever you want...Just anything that you want to do, see eat maybe, anything you can do it there..
Living in the paradise is forever, with new desires, and passions are created specially for you every new day that passes...

In paradise as well, there are creatures called Hoor Ele'een, or what most of the people for some reason misunderstand it and think it's virgins...Hoor el e'een are women with a beauty and perfect that no other woman on the Earth has, they are just one of many things God promised us with in the Paradise..
And for those who are died for the sake of God, He promises them the highest rank in the Paradise...
So this virgin thing is not accurate, added to the word virgin was not mentioned in the Quran except for Mary as I remember, and nothing more about virgins...

Notice that a man will find his wife much perfect and beautiful in paradise than Hoor el e'en, so he will keep starring at her and forget everything about the others..

I am sick to death of people assuming that a scientific theory is just an idea that has no supporting evidence in the real world! This cannot be further from the truth! There is plenty of evidence to show that Quantum mechanics is correct, as you would know if you bothered to do a bit of research.

A scientific theory allows us to theorize about what we will find in the real world. if we then find that thing in the real world, then it is supporting evidence for that theory!

To say that Quantum Mechanics is just a theory like invisible leprechauns that pull everything to the ground to create gravity is incredibly wrong, and anyone who holds the use of the word "theory" in a scientific sense to the layman's definition is incredibly mistaken and does not know what they are talking about.

Well, for the case of now, no theory is proven to be 100% correct...
The scientific theory is a method invented to approach a reliable explanation and simulation to what we see in real life...
But whatever we do, we can not approach a full theory to explain real life, because simply, everyday we discover new things which expands our definition for real life...you can't find a theory to explain yesterday's, today's and future's observations...
This could be because our theories are originated from our observable world, and since we don't and can not as well observe the entire universe, and the entire levels of objects, we can not reach a full theory...you can approach a 99 % accuracy, but still 1% missing, which expand with time to let you discover at the end that your theory could be just 10% accurate, which is how many theories in the past ended

But of course you are right to some levels, a scientific theory explains stuff too!!

Notice that a theory is that which is provided due to observations, and based on experimental evidences. Otherwise, it's called a hypothesis...

Finally, I’m not sure I can post the coming few days, since I will be very busy..

This is a quote I liked from Einstein (This guy rocks me!!)

To see with one's own eyes, to feel and judge without succumbing to the suggestive power of the fashion of the day, to be able to express what one has seen and felt in a trim sentence or even in a cunningly wrought word- is that not glorious? It is not a proper subject for congratulation?

 

[doppelganger]

That is using your option 1...right?
I'm telling you I'm not using any of these options myself...

You say that, but your answers all unequivocally indicate that you are using option 2. I am a very, very careful student of language and meaning, so a lack of realization of your words, particularly where my attention has been specifically drawn to them, is unlikely.

But to realize my words, you must first believe in explaining things without necessarily using scientific methods....I'm a man of science, and use scientific analysis most of my day, but I find it not suitable to explain God by these methods...
Because I deeply believe He is the one who gave us this knowledge...

This is option 2. I know you say it isn't, but the selection of an explantion without reference to an experience that can be objectively verified and measured is option 2. It's really quite simple.

You are absolutely right...but relative things doesnt deny the fact of the presence of an absolute reference...
You must have a reference to measure with, otherwise you are comparing something relative to nothing...am I right?

In matters of language, and think carefully about this, the only fixed reference is the ego/I/self-consciousness. And it isn't absolute as sleeping, anesthetics, brain damage and PCP all demonstrate. If you are thinking "God" is a fixed reference for language, you have made the mistake of objectifying your own ego as something outside yourself. This is necessarily so because "God," and any conceptualization of "God," is a symbol in your mind and it exists as a thing only in relationship to your experience of "me"/the self/ego/awareness.

As for Einstein, let me narrow it down for you. Might I suggest that thinking in terms of "Jew" and "atheist" is a bit of a false dichotomy.

But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

 

[XAAX]

However, scientific laws contradict the accounts of the Bible. So any idea that claims that the Biblical account is true (including the Biblical claim that God exists) must also explain why the scientific laws that such claims contradict are wrong. And they have not been able to do so. Likewise, any claim that the scientific account is true must also explain why the religious ideas that such claims contradict are wrong.

Do Muslims believe that pagans are correct in their understanding of God?

 

[XAAX]

In the paradise, you are supposed to have the most perfect beauty, and are able to do whatever you want, see whatever you want...Just anything that you want to do, see eat maybe, anything you can do it there..
Living in the paradise is forever, with new desires, and passions are created specially for you every new day that passes...

In paradise as well, there are creatures called Hoor Ele'een, or what most of the people for some reason misunderstand it and think it's virgins...Hoor el e'een are women with a beauty and perfect that no other woman on the Earth has, they are just one of many things God promised us with in the Paradise..
And for those who are died for the sake of God, He promises them the highest rank in the Paradise...
So this virgin thing is not accurate, added to the word virgin was not mentioned in the Quran except for Mary as I remember, and nothing more about virgins...

Notice that a man will find his wife much perfect and beautiful in paradise than Hoor el e'en, so he will keep starring at her and forget everything about the others..

Thank you for your answer, it does clarify a few points for me. It also makes me curios as to the definition of paradise in the muslim faith. Anything but the complete balance of male and female energy as one could truly be paradise. If one was aloud to do whatever their being wanted which included multiple women or other negative practices, is what your referring to paradise or a worldly enticement for humans?

 

[s2a]

Ya know, it has always amused me through the years when someone quotes Einstein out of context in selectively quoting from one of his reflective moments, and offers Albert's thoughts as some "Argument from Authority" as if he were favoring a religious perspective on life, or the cosmos. To be sure, Einstein was a "genius" of applied imagination and theoretical possibilities (with a little math as support), but he was certainly no qualified expert on religion, nor was Einstein ever an adherent of religious beliefs or claims of deistic cause/effect explanations of the natural cosmos.

To wit:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
--Albert Einstein, 1954-- From Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

He was of such an opinion in his mid-life days (c. 1936), reflected in a rather brusque lettered reply to a child who wrote him inquiring whether or not scientists pray:

"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."
--Source: ibid

What was Einstein's opininated perspective regarding a deity, or a promised afterlife?:

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."
--Albert Einstein, The World as I See It

I note the above words from Albert Einstein (the real one) as clarification of his own personal perspective; not as some cited authoritarian validation/support of an atheistic/agnostic view.

It is uniformed ignorance at best, and self-serving gross mischaracterization/misrepresentation at it's worst--to imply, or even infer, that Albert Einstein was a proponent or adherent of religion-based beliefs.

As Einstein once insisted of his own behalf; such a claim would, of course, be a lie.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, for the case of now, no theory is proven to be 100% correct...The scientific theory is a method invented to approach a reliable explanation and simulation to what we see in real life...But whatever we do, we can not approach a full theory to explain real life, because simply, everyday we discover new things which expands our definition for real life...you can't find a theory to explain yesterday's, today's and future's observations...This could be because our theories are originated from our observable world, and since we don't and can not as well observe the entire universe, and the entire levels of objects, we can not reach a full theory...you can approach a 99 % accuracy, but still 1% missing, which expand with time to let you discover at the end that your theory could be just 10% accurate, which is how many theories in the past ended

But of course you are right to some levels, a scientific theory explains stuff too!!

Notice that a theory is that which is provided due to observations, and based on experimental evidences. Otherwise, it's called a hypothesis...

A theory also allows us to theorize about the future.

So we have, on one hand scientific theories which are designed to utilise only what we can see and verify in the real world. On the other hand, however, we have ancient texts that are based on an imperfect knowledge.

The scientific theories are designed to adapt to new knowledge, thus making sure that they are always as accurate as possible. The religious explanations, however, stick doggedly to ancient superstitions, and when scientific knoweldge (which has been verified) contradicts them, they either claim the science is just wrong without explaining HOW it is wrong, they ignore it, or they attempt to explain the problem away.

Theories may not be provable 100%, but religious accounts can be easily DISproved.

Do Muslims believe that pagans are correct in their understanding of God?

I'm not a Muslim, so why ask me? I don't know Islam well enough to know what its opinion of other religions are. And in any case, I specifically mention the Christian bible. I never said anything about islam or any Pagan beliefs.

 

[XAAX]

I'm not a Muslim, so why ask me? I don't know Islam well enough to know what its opinion of other religions are. And in any case, I specifically mention the Christian bible. I never said anything about islam or any Pagan beliefs.

That is wierd, i thought i put a different quote in that post...a glitch or im loosing it..lol...Sorry

 

[rasor]

Peace be with you all!!

Suppose you find a watch in the middle of a desert. What would you conclude? Would you think that someone dropped the watch? Would you suppose that the watch came by itself?Of course no sane person would say that the watch just happened toemerge from the sand. All the intricate working parts could not simply develop from the metals that lay buried in the earth. The watch must have a manufacturer.If a watch tells accurate time we expect the manufacturer must be intelligent. Blind chance cannot produce a working watch.But what else tells accurate time?

This old chestnut by Rev. William Paley has been satisfactorily answered loads of times.A good example is the book "The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.Though the god addled may have trouble finishing it :cover:

 

[rojse]

I have a couple of questions with this analogy of the watch and it's maker.

Firstly, we have based our time systems on the rotation of the moon about the earth, and the earth about the sun. One rotation of the earth equals a day, one revolution around the sun equals a year. There are plenty of calendars based on the earth's rotation, because it makes planning agriculture easier. So how is God involved in that process?

Secondly, life evolved on earth so life would be optimised for it's conditions. And to say that all animals and such would die if we were closer or further away is wrong. Extremeophiles, or small microbes that live outside of normal conditions, can live in volcanic vents, or in intense pressures, or in extremely cold conditions. There are animals that live without the benefits, directly or indirectly, from sunlight. Sure, we would not be able to survive the way we do now if it was closer or further away, but other animals would evolve to take up all of the space and new environments.

And, while that sun has been extremely good to us right now, in a couple of billion years, it will get hotter and redder, and no life will be able to live on earth as it goes nova, as our planet will be a heat bowl. Then, when that sun cools and shrinks, and turns into a white dwarf, the planet will be like an ice planet. If God exists, he is pretty nice to allow this to happen to us, indiscriminately.

I can understand why someone would say that the universe was created because it is so complex. I do not agree with the conclusion, but I understand the logic. But where does the leap from "the Universe was created by God" change to "my God created the Universe?" After all, many Gods and their followers claim that theirs made the universe. What makes you certain yours does it?

Lastly, if we really found a watch in the desert, it would have a flat battery, be scratched, not be able to tell the time at all, and probably have lost it's straps. We would look at it, compare it to our nice, shiny watch with lights and alarms and precision timing, and chuck it out in disgust and revulsion.

I would also like to say if God was serious about getting the sun working for us how we want it, why would he not have it beaming on us at night, when we could use it because it is dark, instead of the daytime, when there is plenty of light about already?

 

[longshanks]

Belief is obligatory. If you have the most noble traits on this earth and you are not believer in Allah, He will not forgive you. How can He forgive you and you don't belive in Him, He who created you.
Nature, which is nature and not human beings, do belive in Allah and they do worship Him and praise Him. Every living creature in the universe has it's own way in praising God. We don't understand their languages but they do. There once was a Prophet "Solomon" peace be upon him, who used to understand the language of animals and every living creature.

I would like to ask you, what is the objective of your existance, why do you exist? and to whom you resort when you are in need of anything? would you tell me?

Peace,

A prayer plus an empty stomach equals an empty stomach.

If this watch nonesense is intended to convert an atheist i for one am amused at the attempt.
Im an atheist 100% i hold my beliefs as dearly as anyone on here for the simple reason i know i am right.
God does not exist and heaven is a manmade fantasy.
those are the core of my beliefs.
Science is slowly chipping away at everything the so called prophets and messiahs have tried to preach.
Eventually the religions of the world will have nothing left to cling onto which is as it should be.
The object of life for me is to look after myself and those around me, and it is they who i turn to when i need looking after.
A prayer plus an unsolved problem equals an unsolved problem.
When we die we we die end of story but i for one a sure that im going to make the very most of the time i have got.
An atheist hold life in a much more precious way than you can understand.
Life is all there is.
War mongering muslims and christians should learn from and convert to atheism.
:yes:

 

[xBlackCess]

Peace be with you all!!

Consider the sunrise and sunset. Their timings are so strictly regulated that scientists can publish in advance the sunrise and sunset times in your daily newspapers. But who regulatesthe timings of sunrise and sunset? If a watch can not work without an intelligent maker, how can the sun appear to rise and set with such clockwork regularity? Could this occur by itself?Consider also that we benefit from the sun only because it remains at a safe distance from the earth, a distance that averages 93 million miles. If it got much closer the earth would burn up. And if it got too far away the earth would turn into an icy planet making human life here impossible.Who decided in advance that this was the right distance? Could it just happen by chance? Without the sun plants would not grow. Then animals and humans would starve. Did the sun just decide to be there for us? The rays of the sun would be dangerous for us had it not been for the protective ozone layer in our atmosphere. The atmosphere around earth keeps the harmful ultraviolet rays from reaching us. Who was it that placed this shield around us?

Just a constructive comment here and this is not to argue your point but to give my personal thoughts. Yes it's phenomenal how it all worked out, this interesting creation around us that seems to be put together quite flawlessly, however; yes we are a perfect distance from the sun but look at how many stars, planets etc are out there. I take many things into consideration. But with the amount of countless objects in the universe, at least ONE is bound to be that perfect distance from the earth for all this to happen.

 

[kmkemp]

Just a constructive comment here and this is not to argue your point but to give my personal thoughts. Yes it's phenomenal how it all worked out, this interesting creation around us that seems to be put together quite flawlessly, however; yes we are a perfect distance from the sun but look at how many stars, planets etc are out there. I take many things into consideration. But with the amount of countless objects in the universe, at least ONE is bound to be that perfect distance from the earth for all this to happen.

There is a lot more to it than that. For one, there are three types of galaxies and we happen to be in the only one that will possibly have a safe zone for any length of time. There are so many variables that are set perfectly, it makes one wonder. A good resource would be the book Rare Earth.

 

[rasor]

There is a lot more to it than that. For one, there are three types of galaxies and we happen to be in the only one that will possibly have a safe zone for any length of time. There are so many variables that are set perfectly, it makes one wonder. A good resource would be the book Rare Earth.

There is another book "Life Everywhere" by David Darling, that answers many of the arguments in "Rare Earth"

 

[rojse]

Perhaps we only arose here because there the precise set of parameters for life on earth were met, such as temperature, the size of the moon, and so forth. If life tried to arise in other areas, where the parameters were not met, life would have a very different composition or life would not exist, after all. Two quite possible and reasonable answers that do not invoke the existence of God.

 

[rasor]

Perhaps we only arose here because there the precise set of parameters for life on earth were met, such as temperature, the size of the moon, and so forth. If life tried to arise in other areas, where the parameters were not met, life would have a very different composition or life would not exist, after all. Two quite possible and reasonable answers that do not invoke the existence of God.

Exactly.We are a product of the conditions of the enviroment we exist in.

 

[kmkemp]

Perhaps we only arose here because there the precise set of parameters for life on earth were met, such as temperature, the size of the moon, and so forth. If life tried to arise in other areas, where the parameters were not met, life would have a very different composition or life would not exist, after all. Two quite possible and reasonable answers that do not invoke the existence of God.

The argument that we shouldn't be amazed at the odds against our existence since we would not be here to ponder them if we hadn't overcome them holds no water at all if that is what you are getting at.

 

[rojse]

That is your opinion, fair enough. But please explain why you believe your opinion is right, and mine is wrong, before so casually dismissing mine. I deserve some sort of explanation for your opinion, just as you deserve an explanation of mine.

We were fine-tuned for life here because evolution constantly selected the animals best suited for survival. If we had evolved on one of the moons of Jupiter, I have no doubt that we would be saying on this thread: "Life on earth? Don't be silly. It's too close to the sun, we would all be burnt alive." And this might be true for us - after all, we would be far further from the sun than on earth, and we would actually be boiled alive on Earth, no matter how habitable it would actually be for the earth's aliens in this instance.

But we could not dismiss life on earth if we evolved on Jupiter, it would just take a different form to what we were used to. There are scientists who are investigating the possibilities of life on Mars, Venus, and several of Jupiter's moons, such as Titan and Europa. If only one of these bodies has life, it would be quite different, as the conditions in which that life arose would be different. Differences in atmosphere, differences in gravity, and so forth would change the biological appearance of the aliens. Perhaps life on these planets might not be based on carbon, but silicon, or something like that.

 

[JayHawes]

The world stands on a platform bound to be torn apart by every which wind that goes it's own way.

 

[rasor]

There is a lot more to it than that. For one, there are three types of galaxies and we happen to be in the only one that will possibly have a safe zone for any length of time. There are so many variables that are set perfectly, it makes one wonder. A good resource would be the book Rare Earth.

What types of galaxies do we find in the universe?

At the moment, we consider common types of galaxies and we ask about characteristics of galaxies that you can see with visible light.

There are four main classes (as classified by Hubble).

1. Spiral galaxies.
   • Disk + central bulge.
   • M51 Whirlpool Galaxy [type Sc].
   • M31 Andromeda Galaxy [type Sb].
   • M77 in Cetus [type SBp].
   • M104 Sombrero Galaxy [type Sa].
   • M85 a ``lenticular'' galaxy (on left) -- mostly bulge, a little disk [type S0].
   • NGC5866 a lenticular galaxy, mostly bulge [type S0].
2. Barred spiral galaxies.
   • Disk + central bulge with bar.
   • M83 in Hydra [type SBc if you think it has enough of a bar].
   • M91 in Virgo Cluster [type SBb].
   • M95 [type SBb].
3. Elliptical galaxies.
   • All bulge, elliptical shape, no disk; stars but no gas.
   • M32 dwarf elliptical galaxy, satellite of M31.
   • M60 giant elliptical galaxy in Virgo Cluster (on right, with NGC4647) .
   • M87 giant elliptical galaxy, the dominant galaxy in Virgo Cluster.

Irregular galaxies.

• Irregular shape.
• M82 .

Maths was never my strong point but I add that up to 4 main classes with 17 sub catergories.

 

[longshanks]

The universe is teeming with life if it happend here its likely it happened elsewhere we are probably just never going to meet up with it, we have enough trouble getting to the moon.
The bottom of the oceans is as hard a place to survive as any yet thousands of species manage.
The earth is all we have lets look after it shall we.