The Atheist Contradiction and Reasoning

[Fatihah]

I don't know because I was not there to see how it all happened, and neither was anyone else who is alive today. I cannot say with complete certainty that Gods and spirits do not exist but I can say with confidence that it is highly unlikely. You cannot prove that souls or your god exist anymore than I can prove that unicorns or the flying spahghetti monster exists. Why do you accept a belief system based on myth and superstition and deny others? Why are you not a Wiccan, Buddist, Hindu, Christian, or Scientologist? I believe that attributing invisible supernatural causes to aspects/occurences of the natural world is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

Response: The existence of Allah(God) can easily be proven. About as easy as proven that 2+2 is 4. Yet I, nor anyone for that matter, is responsible for the clear denial of atheists to the fact. If you're interested of proof that there is a God, perhaps you can post on similar threads on the topic or create a new one, and I 'll be happy to address you there.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Wow that's a pretty tall claim. If it's so easy to prove, why do you instead rely on such weak apologetic arguments as you have shown in the past?

 

[logician]

Response: I conclude it originating from a human soul due to my religion of islam. By I do not want the thread to be primarily about my religion, but rather the reasoning why atheist draw the conclusions they draw. Why do they accept emotions existing in a human without seeing emotions inside the body.

Everything springs from the brain, which dies permanently upon death.

There is no proof whatsoever of anything else.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

If you want to see real contradictions try reading the Abrahamic bible. You will feel like you are watching Obama in the presidential debate again. They say one thing in one place and another in another place. Despite knowing about these contradictory statements the people fall for it anyway. Maybe Obama is truly the Anti-Christ?

 

[Fatihah]

Wow that's a pretty tall claim. If it's so easy to prove, why do you instead rely on such weak apologetic arguments as you have shown in the past?

Response: To the contray, if such arguments were weak apologetics, then we should have seen you being able to refute and debunk such arguments. However, that has been far from the case. Instead, we've seen the opposite of your claim.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Wow. Alternate universe anyone? Provide an example of an irefutable concrete 'proof' of your deity then. You certainly have not done so yet in this thread! In fact, you have yet to go so far as to even offer convincing circumstantial evidence, or any other kind for that matter.

 

[Fatihah]

Wow. Alternate universe anyone? Provide an example of an irefutable concrete 'proof' of your deity then. You certainly have not done so yet in this thread! In fact, you have yet to go so far as to even offer convincing circumstantial evidence, or any other kind for that matter.

Response: That's because that is cleary not the title or subject of the thread. If you want proof of my deity, you can request so on similar threads relating to such topic, or create a new, and I'll be more than happy to address you there.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Yet of all the many, many threads that exist with the topic you describe you have yet to do so. What are you waiting for? Unless you want to see all us unbelievers have our skins roasted and replaced until time eternal?

 

[Fatihah]

Yet of all the many, many threads that exist with the topic you describe you have yet to do so. What are you waiting for? Unless you want to see all us unbelievers have our skins roasted and replaced until time eternal?

Response: None of the above even gives a somewhat reasonable answer to the Opening Post. Clearly, it is apparent that another atheist has been backed in the coner with questions in which he knows he has no logical answers for, so now comes the attempt to change the subject of the thread to focus on the other person's beliefs rather then their beliefs, in order to suit them. Quite a shame.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Sorry Fatihah,

Your OP was decimated in the first few pages.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Response: None of the above even gives a somewhat reasonable answer to the Opening Post. Clearly, it is apparent that another atheist has been backed in the coner with questions in which he knows he has no logical answers for, so now comes the attempt to change the subject of the thread to focus on the other person's beliefs rather then their beliefs, in order to suit them. Quite a shame.

Fatihah, nearly everyone who has responded on this thread has done a sterling job of answering your OP. The only problem is, since it wasn't the answer you wanted, you've spent the entire thread with your fingers in your ears shouting, "I'm right, you're wrong, la la la la la!!!"

 

[McBell]

Fatihah, nearly everyone who has responded on this thread has done a sterling job of answering your OP. The only problem is, since it wasn't the answer you wanted, you've spent the entire thread with your fingers in your ears shouting, "I'm right, you're wrong, la la la la la!!!"

That is a really accurate summary of this thread thus far.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

yes i did say that didn't i. just say it, it can't be done. you know how things work you're an engineer.

My profession has no bearing on your refusal to be open to changing your mind.

i was talking about a residential building, that would be perfect if what you'd recomend was actually obeyed, if it wasn't and explosives were tested in it, then does that make the building imperfect?

A residential building is one that people live in. People don't test explosives in a residential building.

Again: a design must accommodate any reasonably foreseeable use. In the case of a human architect or engineer, it would not be reasonably foreseeable for them to know that their apartment block was going to be used for explosives testing. However, in the case of an omniscient god, all future uses are reasonably foreseeable.

If a designer actually knows that the intended use of the building he is designing is explosives testing, then he has a responsibility: he must either design the building to accommodate this use or to refuse to create the design. Obviously, most human architects and engineers wouldn't know things like this, but if the designer is God, he would; therefore, God would be responsible.

See how it works?

as you've said:
'You've already said that you believe that the clay and the water were both deliberately created by God, so if that were to actually happen, wouldn't you just chalk it up to God's design?'

Ah... so you weren't arguing in good faith. Gotcha.

 

[Fatihah]

Fatihah, nearly everyone who has responded on this thread has done a sterling job of answering your OP. The only problem is, since it wasn't the answer you wanted, you've spent the entire thread with your fingers in your ears shouting, "I'm right, you're wrong, la la la la la!!!"

Response: I never claimed to be right or wrong. Thus the problem for you is putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "I only hear what I want!"

 

[Fatihah]

Sorry Fatihah,

Your OP was decimated in the first few pages.

Response: If only you had actual proof of your claim. Sorry tumbleweed.

 

[Sleekstar]

Fatihah, based on my read of your OP, your premise seems to be that atheists should be unable to accept the existence of emotion because it can't be "seen," if they reject God because he can't be "observed." You're trying to be logical, but you're not really doing a very good job. First, one need not "see" a thing in order to "observe" it. Emotions are quite observable. And there are other reasons why an atheist might not believe in a God, other than the lack of observability.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Response: None of the above even gives a somewhat reasonable answer to the Opening Post. Clearly, it is apparent that another atheist has been backed in the coner with questions in which he knows he has no logical answers for, so now comes the attempt to change the subject of the thread to focus on the other person's beliefs rather then their beliefs, in order to suit them. Quite a shame.

Seriously? You know what, even if we (collectively) were to accept that emotions can't possibly be generated by the brain (as current data would suggest), and also to accept that the universe came into being all at once, in it's current state, caused by some vast intelligence.(which, minus the last part, runs contrary to all known data we now have about the universe), we are still no closer to the conclusion 'Allah/God'.
To conclude that emotions are somehow 'otherworldly' and not a product of the brain does not infer a deity, much less yours. Even if evidence of intelligent design existed, that would not be evidence of YOUR intelligent designer. You still have several steps to go to get there.

Which leads back to my last point...where is this 'proof'? You claim you can 'prove' your deity exists, which is a much stronger statement than just claiming that you have evidence it exists (forthcoming?). To provide this 'proof' would give your OP some grounding in reality and provide a basis for serious discussion. So where is it?

As it stands this all amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

 

[JustWondering]

Response: The existence of Allah(God) can easily be proven. About as easy as proven that 2+2 is 4. Yet I, nor anyone for that matter, is responsible for the clear denial of atheists to the fact. If you're interested of proof that there is a God, perhaps you can post on similar threads on the topic or create a new one, and I 'll be happy to address you there.

I have created a new thread for this purpose under General Religious Debates titled: Fatihah, show me your proof of Islam. I look forward to seeing what proof you have.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Seriously? You know what, even if we (collectively) were to accept that emotions can't possibly be generated by the brain (as current data would suggest), and also to accept that the universe came into being all at once, in it's current state, caused by some vast intelligence.(which, minus the last part, runs contrary to all known data we now have about the universe), we are still no closer to the conclusion 'Allah/God'.
To conclude that emotions are somehow 'otherworldly' and not a product of the brain does not infer a deity, much less yours. Even if evidence of intelligent design existed, that would not be evidence of YOUR intelligent designer. You still have several steps to go to get there.

Which leads back to my last point...where is this 'proof'? You claim you can 'prove' your deity exists, which is a much stronger statement than just claiming that you have evidence it exists (forthcoming?). To provide this 'proof' would give your OP some grounding in reality and provide a basis for serious discussion. So where is it?

As it stands this all amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

buuurn lol

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Fatihah, figured I'd bring this to your attention

Fatihah, show me your proof of Islam