Dr Adnan Ibrahim on Emotional Atheism

[LuisDantas]

You know, I am starting to wonder if I was not mistaken about Islam. I believed it to be a monotheistic religion with a particularly strong emphasis on the belief in God. But it seems that it just keeps surprising me with the degree of that emphasis.

I am not sure I will keep considering it a religion at all. It is starting to feel like a simple cult of monotheism. Belief in God as a goal rather than as a means to a religious purpose.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

as suppose
After NAZA discovered that , don't you be curious who built that home and who invent these tools ?

First things first: how did NASA discover that these things were built?

try to run away from my point lol , but it's ok

a word written in paper by ink , is not that sign of pen ?

You're moving the goalposts. Before, we were only talking about a mark.

But sure: let's say that I see some writing on a piece of paper and conclude that it was written by a person. Do you understand what leads us to this conclusion?

- we have observed writing being written by intelligent agents.
- we have never observed writing occurring naturally

How does this relate to God? What have you observed God create?

No , its does not that what I meant , I mean something get structured, a rock it's not like cat for exemple, both are things, but one is alive,rock is not.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "structured", but just so we're clear: you're arguing that cats need creators but rocks don't need creators? Is this your position?

 

[Sapiens]

Since you compared it to Hovind, then i regard it as dishonesty and an argument from fallacy and you know it.

Truth hurts, eh? You and Hovind have different grips and different decoder rings, but your games are the same.

 

[Sapiens]

For exemple
If NAZA home found a home and tools in Mars , they will try to find out who build that home , and who invite the tools , right ?

Sure, that is because the home and tools are not alive or reproductively active and are subject to mutations that effect both the genotype and phenotype.

 

[YmirGF]

Truth hurts, eh?

That reminds me of a conversation one day under our fabulous Arbutus tree. My mother, my sister, a friend of my sister and myself were sitting talking about my sister's issues. Things were going well, for a bit and my mom commented that my sister couldn't handle the truth. To disprove this she told my mom to tell her exactly what she thought. My mom, being very straight forward did just that. My sister went into meltdown and was up out of her chair and heading for the car before 90 seconds had passed. After they drove off, I looked at my mom and said something like, "I guess she wanted you to tell her what she wanted to hear, rather than the truth, as you see it."

 

[YmirGF]

Sure, that is because the home and tools are not alive or reproductively active and are subject to mutations that effect both the genotype and phenotype.

Is it me or are creationists stuck in some kind of weird loop that causes them to ask absurd questions like this? I guess it's possible that they simply cannot think outside of the creator box.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That reminds me of a conversation one day under our fabulous Arbutus tree. My mother, my sister, a friend of my sister and myself were sitting talking about my sister's issues. Things were going well, for a bit and my mom commented that my sister couldn't handle the truth. To disprove this she told my mom to tell her exactly what she thought. My mom, being very straight forward did just that. My sister went into meltdown and was up out of her chair and heading for the car before 90 seconds had passed. After they drove off, I looked at my mom and said something like, "I guess she wanted you to tell her what she wanted to hear, rather than the truth, as you see it."

Yep, the "truth" can often be uncomfortable. But I reckon most religious belief is more to do with seeking comfort than truth.

 

[YmirGF]

Yep, the "truth" can often be uncomfortable. But I reckon most religious belief is more to do with seeking comfort than truth.

I'm seeing it as more of an endless repetition of ideas and massive investments of emotion that literally hypnotize the individual into a given mode of belief. To use a trite expression, they literally create their own reality.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm seeing it as more of an endless repetition of ideas and massive investments of emotion that literally hypnotize the individual into a given mode of belief. To use a trite expression, they literally create their own reality.

"Fantasy" might be more accurate.

 

[YmirGF]

"Fantasy" might be more accurate.

Not really, Rick. I'm meaning it in the very real sense of the fantasy becoming reality for the individual.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Not really, Rick. I'm meaning it in the very real sense of the fantasy becoming reality for the individual.

Yes, delusional.

 

[FearGod]

Truth hurts, eh? You and Hovind have different grips and different decoder rings, but your games are the same.

No we aren't, as i believe that the universe is billions years old but he doesn't, try again

 

[Godobeyer]

There is merit in choosing words to present the proper meaning as opposed to some metaphor or approximation. I don't think it is wise to insist on labelling things as either evolution or creation when they are in truth neither.

In any case, sorry, I am just not sure of what you are asking here.

No problem I will try to explain it by what human produce/made car or anything else .


Car produced in factory ,this is close to creation of baby inside belly , right ?

developement of car versions by time

So why you called consider creation's baby in side his mom as evolution ?

 

[Godobeyer]

First things first: how did NASA discover that these things were built?

It's was imagination question, you suppose to answser, ok forget that

You're moving the goalposts. Before, we were only talking about a mark.

But sure: let's say that I see some writing on a piece of paper and conclude that it was written by a person. Do you understand what leads us to this conclusion?

- we have observed writing being written by intelligent agents.
- we have never observed writing occurring naturally

How does this relate to God? What have you observed God create?

Since you saw a
When we saw a masterpiece in wall or in thing , we will ask these questions:

the first question , you will ask who made this.

So look at your body and ask that question , if you told me randomness , or natural selective , I would consider that
as "suicide of mind status".as Dr Adnan called it.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "structured", but just so we're clear: you're arguing that cats need creators but rocks don't need creators? Is this your position?

No, all are created , cats or animals had a live (soul) , rocks had not.

Just curious if human could creat car or planes ...etc
Why we can not creat something had soul , like a cat , or dog ...etc or even made human factory ,as robots?

 

[Godobeyer]

Actually, that makes sense.
Because neither of you are "debating" anything in this thread.

We know

 

[LuisDantas]

No we aren't, as i believe that the universe is billions years old but he doesn't, try again

You sincerely understand yourself to be respectful of scientific knowledge despite your insistence that we must have an answer to "who created the Universe", don't you?

 

[LuisDantas]

No problem I will try to explain it by what human produce .

Thanks.

Car produced in factory ,this is close to creation of baby inside belly , right ?

Only by a very distanced perspective. A fertilized egg is a living being. It interacts with its environment constantly, grows on its own and feeds from the fluid it is immersed in.

And, of course, cars do not reproduce. For that reason they do not evolve either.

developement of car versions by time

That is not comparable to biological evolution. We know plenty enough about both proccesses to say that with authority.

So why you called consider creation's baby in side his mom as evolution ?

Because you insisted that I must choose between two unsuitable words (creation vs evolution), and of those two evolution at least reflects change as time passes.

One might call the fertilization and development of an egg into an embryo, then a fetus and finally a born baby by many names, with varying degrees of accuracy, clarity and adequation by various lenses.

None is quite wrong as long as actual understanding of what one means is attained.

Conversely, no name can change the facts.

Biology may not be a very satisfying discipline for those who want ultimate causes in confortable places of their worldviews, but that is no reason to treat it as a field of deep mysteries that just aren't there.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Godobeyer, how do you tell something that has a soul from something that lacks any?

 

[FearGod]

You sincerely understand yourself to be respectful of scientific knowledge despite your insistence that we must have an answer to "who created the Universe", don't you?

God created the universe, prove me wrong by science.

 

[Godobeyer]

@Godobeyer, how do you tell something that has a soul from something that lacks any?

That was an exemple .
trees had live , but don't had soul.

I guess that consideration is come from different of creation , meat vs wood.
or cable to move or stable.

Rocks or metal don't have live or soul.