A picture for Atheists - What is your impression of it's message?

[robo]

2) There are two parents, and Islam and Christianity assumes 1 God.

To add:

Parents are not omniscient. Hitler's parents could not have known he would turn out the way he did.

God is. God could have prevented Hitler's birth but he did not.

Why worship such a God?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

To add:

Parents are not omniscient. Hitler's parents could not have known he would turn out the way he did.

God is. God could have prevented Hitler's birth but he did not.

Why worship such a God?

Eh... Why not?

It is subjective to call Hitler evil, I think I can live with the fact Hitler existed.

 

[Road Warrior]

To add:

Parents are not omniscient. Hitler's parents could not have known he would turn out the way he did.

God is. God could have prevented Hitler's birth but he did not.

Why worship such a God?

I think you are jumping to conclusions. However, let's talk about Hitler's parents. Were there signs he was a megalomaniac as a child? Would an uneducated parent have recognized the signs if there were?

While individuals can have great influence, mostly it is what the great majority of people do which influences societies. Hitler wouldn't have risen to prominence if the German people of the time didn't let him.

As for God, atheists love to use your example, but for believers, what happens in mortality is merely a reflection on eternity.

 

[Gharib]

Nope. First of all, fetuses can't reason. If they could reason like adults, they would recognize all the evidence there was of them actually being inside another human. There's a huge difference between going through a hole and dying and returning to life, so it's not a very good analogy at all.

I disagree, I will tell you why.

The picture wasn't about what fetuses can or can't do. It was about the message it presented and how the reasoning of an Atheist who denies the concept of an afterlife is the same as a fetus denying the reality of there being life, after it comes out of it's mother.

But at the same time, those who do believe in an afterlife don't just make a claim without any reason whatsoever. I do agree with many of you that this concept of an afterlife has a lot to do with belief and not facts all that much, however, by connecting the dots you see a bigger picture. I will try and get through all that.

Moreover, death is what the body goes through, however, the soul/spirit just moves on (transits) from one place (realm) into another. So there is nothing wrong with the analogy, because in both cases the 'human' simply transits from one place to another.

In our world, we have no evidence of God at all. What we do have evidence for, however, is that humans aren't special. We're mammals who evolved from other mammals. If there is an afterlife, I would say that it would have to apply to all animals, not just humans. Because of the fact that we have yet to see any evidence that there is a God or that the world isn't materialistic, I find there being an afterlife less probable than there not being one.

What do you mean by humans not being special, in what way are we not special?

In my opinion the fact that we have the ability to think is what sets us apart from every other living creature. In the Qur'an is also says that this form which we have is perfect in comparison to the forms which all other creatures have (It says something along those words). Lets say that things did/do evolve, all creatures when compared to humans play no major role. This life is mostly about us, everything revolves around us. I will try and give some examples another time.

There is a whole heap of evidence that leads to the existence of God, of course this does require belief also. In Islam the whole point of this life is for us to worship God, to believe in his existence without having seen him directly. Is there any evidence that points to his existence? Yes, however, a condition of seeing these evidences requires some faith too.

I will give you an example of how belief fits into the scene. A scientist conjures up in his mind an experimental theory about the cure of cancer. he carries it out believing that it will work, it turns out that what he believed to be the cure didn't work, so he repeats this same thing by creating different experiments and trying them out.

If the scientist had no belief that his experiment would work he would not have gone through with the experiment and the only way to find out was through actual experimentation. So why would he try something that he knew would fail? He wouldn't, he tried something he believed would work which latter failed.

God too requires that kind of belief.

The fetus is rejecting Mom despite there being clear evidence, there's the difference.

First you said that fetuses can't reason, this contradicts your opening sentence. You said this sentence in order to support your latter claim of there being no evidence for the existence of God while there is evidence for the existence of a mother which contradicts your other statement.

I'm not saying that there is no God or that there is no afterlife, just that there's no evidence of there being any. We who deny it aren't like the fetus who denies something despite loads of evidence.

That's not true, see above.

 

[England my lionheart]

I want to discuss the Atheist vs Islamic view of how there is no life after death nor the re-creation of a decayed body.

I know many of you do not believe in this concept and so I wanted to best represent this with a picture, they say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I want to know what your impression is on it, in particular do you agree with the 'atheist' reasoning in the picture.

I think its funny and silly

 

[beerisit]

I disagree, I will tell you why.

The picture wasn't about what fetuses can or can't do. It was about the message it presented and how the reasoning of an Atheist who denies the concept of an afterlife is the same as a fetus denying the reality of there being life, after it comes out of it's mother.

But at the same time, those who do believe in an afterlife don't just make a claim without any reason whatsoever. I do agree with many of you that this concept of an afterlife has a lot to do with belief and not facts all that much, however, by connecting the dots you see a bigger picture. I will try and get through all that.

Moreover, death is what the body goes through, however, the soul/spirit just moves on (transits) from one place (realm) into another. So there is nothing wrong with the analogy, because in both cases the 'human' simply transits from one place to another.




What do you mean by humans not being special, in what way are we not special?

In my opinion the fact that we have the ability to think is what sets us apart from every other living creature. In the Qur'an is also says that this form which we have is perfect in comparison to the forms which all other creatures have (It says something along those words). Lets say that things did/do evolve, all creatures when compared to humans play no major role. This life is mostly about us, everything revolves around us. I will try and give some examples another time.

There is a whole heap of evidence that leads to the existence of God, of course this does require belief also. In Islam the whole point of this life is for us to worship God, to believe in his existence without having seen him directly. Is there any evidence that points to his existence? Yes, however, a condition of seeing these evidences requires some faith too.

I will give you an example of how belief fits into the scene. A scientist conjures up in his mind an experimental theory about the cure of cancer. he carries it out believing that it will work, it turns out that what he believed to be the cure didn't work, so he repeats this same thing by creating different experiments and trying them out.

If the scientist had no belief that his experiment would work he would not have gone through with the experiment and the only way to find out was through actual experimentation. So why would he try something that he knew would fail? He wouldn't, he tried something he believed would work which latter failed.

God too requires that kind of belief.



First you said that fetuses can't reason, this contradicts your opening sentence. You said this sentence in order to support your latter claim of there being no evidence for the existence of God while there is evidence for the existence of a mother which contradicts your other statement.



That's not true, see above.

The concept of an afterlife is anchored in the wishful thinking of the human species that first developed the capacity for thought. This same capacity for thought gave rise to an ego, much as you have inadvertently claimed when you talk about how special we are. It's the capacity for imagination that sets us apart from other animals, we can imagine answers to the questions that our imaginations produce.
Questions like; Is this all there is? What happens when we die? How did all of this come about? We are capable of imagining these questions and we are capable of imagining answers for them.

 

[McBell]

It is funny but it does present the 'logical' reasoning of atheism behind it's claim that there is no God. Does it not?

No, it does not.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I disagree, I will tell you why.

The picture wasn't about what fetuses can or can't do. It was about the message it presented and how the reasoning of an Atheist who denies the concept of an afterlife is the same as a fetus denying the reality of there being life, after it comes out of it's mother.

Yes, I think most have us have figured that out, but unfortunately the reasoning is a strawman fallacy. As well, any reasons the babies might have has nothing to do with the same reasons why an afterlife is nonsense.

But at the same time, those who do believe in an afterlife don't just make a claim without any reason whatsoever.

Yes, they do make that claim without "reason".

Moreover, death is what the body goes through, however, the soul/spirit just moves on (transits) from one place (realm) into another.

Since souls have never been shown to exist, your claim is pointless and does not support claims for an afterlife.

In my opinion the fact that we have the ability to think is what sets us apart from every other living creature.

Thinking and intelligence is just one branch of evolution for humans in a similar way birds are able to fly and we cannot. And, we have found there is intelligence in other animals.

This life is mostly about us, everything revolves around us.

No, it doesn't, that is just part and parcel of the selfishness exhibited by religions.

There is a whole heap of evidence that leads to the existence of God, of course this does require belief also.

LOL! Nice contradiction.

In Islam the whole point of this life is for us to worship God, to believe in his existence without having seen him directly. Is there any evidence that points to his existence? Yes, however, a condition of seeing these evidences requires some faith too.

Again, there is no evidence for gods, religion is based entirely on faith.

I will give you an example of how belief fits into the scene. A scientist conjures up in his mind an experimental theory about the cure of cancer. he carries it out believing that it will work, it turns out that what he believed to be the cure didn't work, so he repeats this same thing by creating different experiments and trying them out.

If the scientist had no belief that his experiment would work he would not have gone through with the experiment and the only way to find out was through actual experimentation. So why would he try something that he knew would fail? He wouldn't, he tried something he believed would work which latter failed.

That is not evidence for gods, that is a strawman argument.

 

[Road Warrior]

That is not evidence for gods, that is a strawman argument.

You might want to read up on the definition of straw man arguments.

Let me help you: Fallacy: Straw Man

 

[McBell]

So why would he try something that he knew would fail? He wouldn't, he tried something he believed would work which latter failed.

To find out WHY it failed.
So yes, scientists are all the time trying out things they know will fail in order to better understand why it failed in an attempt to find a solution.

God too requires that kind of belief.

Since your analogy was a complete fail...(no pun intended(ok, maybe a pun was intended))

First you said that fetuses can't reason, this contradicts your opening sentence. You said this sentence in order to support your latter claim of there being no evidence for the existence of God while there is evidence for the existence of a mother which contradicts your other statement.

What a load of double talk...

IF the fetus' in the picture are able to reason to the degree that the caption indicates, why are they completely ignoring the evidence that completely destroys their position?

Is it for the same reason you ignore all evidence you dislike?

That's not true, see above.

It is true.
"Seeing above" actually hurts your position.

 

[Gharib]

No, it does not.

Why not, can you elaborate a little?

 

[Gharib]

I know it isn't directed at me, but here's my views on the afterlife:

After we die, our atoms are recycled into other things, just like they are during our lives. We become food for plants and animals and thus we make a final contribution to the natural system. To me, this is beautiful. I would rather nurture a tree than live for all eternity.

Yes our body decays, I agree with you on that. However, I (from an Islamic perspective) also believe that God can create us for a second time. It would only be logical to say that to create something for a second time is easier than the first time.

 

[McBell]

Why not, can you elaborate a little?

I did.
In post #70

 

[Father Heathen]

Why not, can you elaborate a little?

We've elaborated for 8 pages. The analogy was logically fallacious. Let's move on.

 

[Gharib]

life after birth isn't a guarantee.

Why not?

 

[Father Heathen]

Why not?

Stillbirth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[A Troubled Man]

You might want to read up on the definition of straw man arguments.

Let me help you: Fallacy: Straw Man

 

[McBell]

Why not?

Leading Causes of Infant Death - Leading Causes of Infant Death or Mortality

 

[Gharib]

We've elaborated for 8 pages. The analogy was logically fallacious. Let's move on.

I am moving on, I'm replying to everyone.

I haven't even replied to half the responses to get the discussion going. It seems you are convinced that your view is right and have no need to discuss. If so, fine by me.

And are you sure those 2 words mean what you want them to mean (logical fallacy)? A Troubled Man already called my OP a 'strawman' argument but it must be a new word for him because he doesn't know it's meaning and that it has no application on what I'm saying. I'm just asking you to be sure that's all.

 

[Gharib]

Leading Causes of Infant Death - Leading Causes of Infant Death or Mortality

You are taking the picture way too literally.