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

[crocusj]

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).

Well, let's face it, it would woudn't it.

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.

Are you sure about that? What about malaria, flu or bubonic plague? We have an imperceptible effect on these and other viruses while they are capable of destroying us. When it comes to being special, smart isn't everything. Though I will admit that it is unlikely that a virus adopts an arrogant attitude to it's place in the pecking order.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Even if this is an accurate analogy, it still doesn't give us a reason to believe that Mom/God or an afterlife exists. It just so happened that the theistic fetus was right, and the atheist fetus was wrong. But the atheistic fetus wasn't really wrong for his skepticism, and the theistic fetus really doesn't have any reason for his optimism.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Sorry I don't see how that works.

In the picture I posted there is 'evidence' of the existence of the mother (just let me explain) as there is revelation from God in real life outside of the womb that indicates to examples of Gods existence.

Not because you say so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry I don't see how that works.

In the picture I posted there is 'evidence' of the existence of the mother (just let me explain) as there is revelation from God in real life outside of the womb that indicates to examples of Gods existence.

Was that your explanation?

I disagree about there being evidence for God. Or rather, I think that "revealed" religion basically comes down to hearsay: the believer believes because he or she was told that it was true. I suppose that hearsay is a type of evidence, but it's generally considered to be bad, unreliable type of evidence.

But your version says that there is no evidence whatsoever and that since they have been together the whole time they both would have had the same thinking/beliefs (and you are being misleading by mentioning a unicorn).

No, I'm not being misleading; I'm playing the same game that you (or your picture) played.

In the analogy, the fetuses (feti?) don't know anything about anything outside the womb. In your version, they're talking about something that we know exists, though they would have no way to confirm or deny this: "Mom". In my version, they talk about something that we know doesn't exist: a unicorn. If my version has stacked the deck, so has yours.

And my point about them being together the whole time touches on something important: they both have access to the same evidence... the same premises on which to base a conclusion. If two people have come to incompatible conclusions, then one of two things (or both) must be true:

- they started from different premises
- at least one of the people has relied on faulty reasoning

But this goes either way, maybe the 'atheist' baby is all about "I will believe when I see" then even though there is evidence that leads to Gods existence he won't believe unless he actually sees God no matter how overwhelming the evidence.

What makes you think there's overwhelming evidence for God?

And one more thing, when you actually see something and witness it with your own eyes, your choice of 'believing it' is no longer an option, you must believe it. So again, Atheists don't wish to have belief in something they have to wait to see but instead prefer to have belief in something they are going to see in this life time. Like the scientist example I made earlier.

I think you have an incorrect impression of atheists.

 

[beerisit]

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.

Unabashed bump.

 

[Im42nut2]

In short, it takes some combination of ignorance and faith to think that death is permanent.

Wrong...reverse that. It's ignorance (there's no such thing as faith) to think that life continues after physical death. The answer is found in anthropology. Carlos Castaneda wrote about 'seeing' the spiritual essence from all dying entities being 'eaten' by the 'eagle' (his interpretation of the energy field surrounding us)...as though we're 'food for god'.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Wrong...reverse that. It's ignorance (there's no such thing as faith) to think that life continues after physical death. The answer is found in anthropology. Carlos Castaneda wrote about 'seeing' the spiritual essence from all dying entities being 'eaten' by the 'eagle' (his interpretation of the energy field surrounding us)...as though we're 'food for god'.

Always check the dates bro!

 

[Bunyip]

My first impression from looking at the picture was amazement at how catastrophically the artist has failed to grasp what atheism means,