Why don't atheists change faiths very often?

[Desert Snake]

Alcohol sure has had a great effect on the earth so far.

Jesus drank wine.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

"Saying Objectivism and Marxism are religions is just as flawed as saying atheism is a religion." Shadow Wolf

Objectivism and Marxism are creeds that people follow that give shape and meaning to their lives. Both can be followed almost fanatically, they have a religion like quality. But I guess they are really philosophies.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

All of those things might be true. But it's like saying there are christians who are good people and there are christians who are lunatics carrying signs saying "God Hates ****". All true, but the numbers are important. One is mainstream, the rest is the fringe.

Most atheist simply don't think there is a god out there.

Your probably right. Would most lean more towards hardcore atheism or agnostic atheism?

 

[Ricktheheretic]

hard/hardcore atheism - "I know there is no god, there is enough evidence for me say for sure there is no god."

agnostic atheism - "I don't and maybe cannot know if there is god, but I have enough evidence to say I don't believe in god."

I know pure agnostic is considered atheist sometimes. It says, "I don't and maybe cannot know if there is god." But I know some agnostics are open to theistc views.

I'm not out to start an argument. I just like to make the point that atheist can mean different things to different people. Same with agnostic etc.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You can't use unicorns as an example because you are aware of the concept.

To "not believe" in an active sense, YES you do need to know what a unicorn is. My point was that the argument is purely semantical.

100% false. The sole definition of "atheist" that I use when referring to myself? (as is the case with most atheists, but not that many theists, apparently) is a lack of faith in god(s) or other supernatural woo.

Do YOU believe in <insert godlike creature name here>? You are atheist with respect to those as-yet unnamed godlings.

And indeed-- all cats are atheists; where are the cat churches again?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If you wanted to argue that I was before I ever heard of Jibbers Crabst, then you would have to also logically argue that I'm an atheist in respect to literally an infinite number of other possible things that no one has thought of yet.

Yes! You ARE an atheist with respect to an infinite number of possible godlings! Good!

You are finally getting it!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Useful and true are two different things. What use is it to say that a cat is an atheist? An adult cat has a brain capacity above that of a newborn... so why say someone is born an atheist anymore than a cat is an atheist?

Also you talk about how the term is used but argue that my cat is indeed an atheist. No one calls their cat an atheist, and that's pretty ridiculous to me to for anyone to claim my cat even has a concept of atheism or theism.

As you touch on later in your post, the term "atheist" is generally reserved for people.

When I say "how the word is actually used," what I'm talking about is that when we consider how we use the word when speaking about adults who have put some thought into the issue of gods, we end up with a definition that also implies that babies are atheists.

I think it's ridiculous to say anyone is born as anything indicating belief or disbelief. I actually am more or less saying what Richard Dawkins said on the subject but extended it a hair further:

"Atheist" doesn't indicate belief or disbelief. The only necessary qualification to be an atheist is that the person doesn't believe in any gods.

It really isn't that hard to manage. It's the exact same process we use to define words like "civilian" ("someone who isn't in the military"), "vegetarian" ("someone who doesn't eat meat"), "non-smoker" ("someone who doesn't smoke"), and many other terms.

For instance, some adult civilians may be civilians because they considered a career in the military and decided to do something else. Some may be civilians because they conscientiously object to military service. But when we hear a news report about, say, a battle that killed 50 civilians including 10 babies, nobody goes "hang on - a baby can't decide whether to serve in the military! They can't be civilians!" or "wait a minute - cats aren't in the military; how many of those civilians were cats?"

“A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents or a child of Muslim parents. This latter nomenclature, by the way, would be an excellent piece of consciousness-raising for the children themselves. A child who is told she is a 'child of Muslim parents' will immediately realize that religion is something for her to choose -or reject- when she becomes old enough to do so.”

― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

source: A quote from The God Delusion

I agree with Dawkins, but I also realized I can't be logically consistent about it and label such a person as an atheist either until they can understand what "atheist" means. Until that time I'd consider them just them, not burdened by labels. He is very right however that no one is born a theist, and can only become a theist later in life. But I'd argue the same for atheism.

Except when we're talking about adult atheists, we apply the label in a way that just means "a person who doesn't believe in any gods." Even a baby is capable of doing that.

Why would you want to label so many things an atheist anyways? Sure, semantically it's correct, but that isn't really an argument for or against atheism.

It's not that I want to; it's that I recognize that this is how the word is defined.

If no one ever believed in God or gods or whatever, like no one ever thought of the concept, atheism wouldn't exist, because there wouldn't be anything to define the label. We would just be people. That's what it's like for a being that doesn't know what atheism or theism is, just themselves.

We wouldn't use the word, no. Just as if there were no military service, meat-eating, or smoking, we wouldn't have words to describe people who didn't do those things.

What the heck are you trying to imply or say? I can't tell if you are being serious or just trying to find more to disagree with? Of course there are concepts of god(s). Perhaps I should of said "a concept of a god" but I was trying to avoid implying either monotheism, polytheism or any other theism, so I thought my original wording was the most neutral.

I'm saying that there's no single "concept of god." Instead, there are uncountably many different god-concepts, and no individual person is aware of all of them. It's impossible to simply reject all gods as a category, because the category is defined as a list of specific gods.

I'm insisting that we don't invent a special definition of the word "god" just to use in our definition of atheism. And in general use, there are no objective criteria for the definition of "god".

I've used this example before, but consider two divine messengers: Mercury/Hermes (a god) and the archangel Gabriel/Jibreel (explicitly not a god). What criteria could you possibly use to say why one is a god and the other isn't? Any objective criteria that you could come up with for what should and shouldn't be a god will either imply that the ancient Greeks and Romans were wrong to consider Mercury/Hermes a god (and maybe outright atheists, depending what your criteria are), or that modern Christians and Muslims are polytheists. Neither of these happens in real life; instead, our definition of "god" is generally based on whether people sincerely consider the thing in question to be a god... and that's it.

Tying this back to atheism: all of this means that rejecting every single god is practically impossible. It means we can't reject gods as a category, so to reject all gods, we would have to reject them one-by-one (or if we're lucky, specific pantheon by specific pantheon), which is beyond the capabilities of any person that the label "atheist" has ever been applied to.

I'm not much for arguing semantics so I won't have anything to debate further but feel free to let me know if I misunderstood your positions. It seems to me you guys are seeing these categorical labels as hard literal definitions, almost as if they exist on their own. I see labels as contextual tools meant to convey someone's thought on a subject. So to me, if you are not capable of having a thought about it, you can't be either this or that. I see the value in labeling something not capable of a thought as useful to others if it really is useful. For example "this thing is rough, slippery ect" but I can't think of any meaningful way to say that my cat is an atheist even if it's true according to so some literal semantic definitions.

Though, it seems some definitions do require it to be a person:

"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

So according to your guy's line of thinking, many definitions wouldn't make my cat an atheist. My cat isn't a person.

Do you consider your cat (assuming he's male) a bachelor? After all, I assume he's not married, right?

I think it's bizarre when people invent problems with the normal definition of the word "atheist" but have no issue using words properly that are defined in a nearly-identical way.

... or maybe not so bizarre, since I think I see where it comes from. I see it flowing from stereotypes of atheists: to many people, atheists are nasty and bad, and babies are sweet and good, so to them, there's a conceptual mismatch when a baby is called an atheist.

But think about the process that an adult, intelligent atheist who has considered the issue of gods has gone through:

- he's probably considered arguments for god and rejected them... but rejecting an argument isn't the same as rejecting the conclusion of an argument. Intelligent people realize that true conclusions can be argued using crappy arguments, so the crappiness of an argument isn't an indication that the conclusion is necessarily false.

- he's probably encountered arguments that he couldn't even consider: maybe some were expressed badly, maybe they were in languages he didn't speak, but for whatever reason, he's probably aware that arguments for gods exist that he hasn't explicitly rejected as false.

- he's probably identified a few gods that are unfalsifiable... which means that he can't rationally reject them. All he can do is note that there's no justification for accepting them.

- he hasn't come close to even hearing about every god, so he certainly can't have rejected gods in general.

- he might think that people who believe in the gods he's considered are unjustified or foolish, but opinions about believers in gods are not beliefs about gods.

All in all, the criteria we use to identify an adult as an atheist also imply that babies are atheists. Personally, I don't really care in and of itself whether babies are atheists, but when people argue for a definition that implies babies aren't atheists, this implies they're arguing for a different definition than the one we use for adults.

At best, it's because they haven't thought about the issue too deeply (e.g. they only define "god" in terms of the specific god they believe in, and rejection of that god is something that a person could potentially be capable of); at worst, they're trying to paint atheists as unreasonable (e.g. trying to portray atheists as closed-minded by implying that they've prejudicially rejected concepts before they even heard them).

So that's why the question of whether babies are atheists matters.

 

[Underhill]

Your probably right. Would most lean more towards hardcore atheism or agnostic atheism?

Probably agnostic atheism, but I think the distinction is a bit silly. Technically I'm agnostic about the existence of aliens visiting our planet but you don't hear me, or anyone else, brag about it. I just write the notion off as nonsense until I see evidence to the contrary. It doesn't mean I am open to the idea.

I see the existence of a god like being possible, as almost anything is possible in a virtually infinite universe. But I find it supremely unlikely that this being is hanging around earth handing out merit badges.

 

[Underhill]

As you touch on later in your post, the term "atheist" is generally reserved for people.

When I say "how the word is actually used," what I'm talking about is that when we consider how we use the word when speaking about adults who have put some thought into the issue of gods, we end up with a definition that also implies that babies are atheists.


"Atheist" doesn't indicate belief or disbelief. The only necessary qualification to be an atheist is that the person doesn't believe in any gods.

It really isn't that hard to manage. It's the exact same process we use to define words like "civilian" ("someone who isn't in the military"), "vegetarian" ("someone who doesn't eat meat"), "non-smoker" ("someone who doesn't smoke"), and many other terms.

For instance, some adult civilians may be civilians because they considered a career in the military and decided to do something else. Some may be civilians because they conscientiously object to military service. But when we hear a news report about, say, a battle that killed 50 civilians including 10 babies, nobody goes "hang on - a baby can't decide whether to serve in the military! They can't be civilians!" or "wait a minute - cats aren't in the military; how many of those civilians were cats?"


Except when we're talking about adult atheists, we apply the label in a way that just means "a person who doesn't believe in any gods." Even a baby is capable of doing that.


It's not that I want to; it's that I recognize that this is how the word is defined.


We wouldn't use the word, no. Just as if there were no military service, meat-eating, or smoking, we wouldn't have words to describe people who didn't do those things.


I'm saying that there's no single "concept of god." Instead, there are uncountably many different god-concepts, and no individual person is aware of all of them. It's impossible to simply reject all gods as a category, because the category is defined as a list of specific gods.

I'm insisting that we don't invent a special definition of the word "god" just to use in our definition of atheism. And in general use, there are no objective criteria for the definition of "god".

I've used this example before, but consider two divine messengers: Mercury/Hermes (a god) and the archangel Gabriel/Jibreel (explicitly not a god). What criteria could you possibly use to say why one is a god and the other isn't? Any objective criteria that you could come up with for what should and shouldn't be a god will either imply that the ancient Greeks and Romans were wrong to consider Mercury/Hermes a god (and maybe outright atheists, depending what your criteria are), or that modern Christians and Muslims are polytheists. Neither of these happens in real life; instead, our definition of "god" is generally based on whether people sincerely consider the thing in question to be a god... and that's it.

Tying this back to atheism: all of this means that rejecting every single god is practically impossible. It means we can't reject gods as a category, so to reject all gods, we would have to reject them one-by-one (or if we're lucky, specific pantheon by specific pantheon), which is beyond the capabilities of any person that the label "atheist" has ever been applied to.



Do you consider your cat (assuming he's male) a bachelor? After all, I assume he's not married, right?

I think it's bizarre when people invent problems with the normal definition of the word "atheist" but have no issue using words properly that are defined in a nearly-identical way.

... or maybe not so bizarre, since I think I see where it comes from. I see it flowing from stereotypes of atheists: to many people, atheists are nasty and bad, and babies are sweet and good, so to them, there's a conceptual mismatch when a baby is called an atheist.

But think about the process that an adult, intelligent atheist who has considered the issue of gods has gone through:

- he's probably considered arguments for god and rejected them... but rejecting an argument isn't the same as rejecting the conclusion of an argument. Intelligent people realize that true conclusions can be argued using crappy arguments, so the crappiness of an argument isn't an indication that the conclusion is necessarily false.

- he's probably encountered arguments that he couldn't even consider: maybe some were expressed badly, maybe they were in languages he didn't speak, but for whatever reason, he's probably aware that arguments for gods exist that he hasn't explicitly rejected as false.

- he's probably identified a few gods that are unfalsifiable... which means that he can't rationally reject them. All he can do is note that there's no justification for accepting them.

- he hasn't come close to even hearing about every god, so he certainly can't have rejected gods in general.

- he might think that people who believe in the gods he's considered are unjustified or foolish, but opinions about believers in gods are not beliefs about gods.

All in all, the criteria we use to identify an adult as an atheist also imply that babies are atheists. Personally, I don't really care in and of itself whether babies are atheists, but when people argue for a definition that implies babies aren't atheists, this implies they're arguing for a different definition than the one we use for adults.

At best, it's because they haven't thought about the issue too deeply (e.g. they only define "god" in terms of the specific god they believe in, and rejection of that god is something that a person could potentially be capable of); at worst, they're trying to paint atheists as unreasonable (e.g. trying to portray atheists as closed-minded by implying that they've prejudicially rejected concepts before they even heard them).

So that's why the question of whether babies are atheists matters.

You seem to be overthinking this a bit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You seem to be overthinking this a bit.

Come again?

 

[Stevicus]

Which religious bodies do you speak of?

Well, there are many, particularly some of trivial arguments within Christianity, such as whether to do the Signs of the Cross with two or three fingers - or whether to do them at all. These are the kinds of things that create schisms among religions - even when most of their beliefs coincide with each other.

Then there's the ongoing dispute between Islam and Christianity which has been going on for over a millennium. Even if there are differences, there is still much they have in common, but yet they still fight each other. There are also sectarian conflicts within Islam itself.

The irony of this does not escape notice, since anyone who simply can't agree to disagree and turn the other cheek when it comes to dealing with "apostates" or "unbelievers," they then presume to set themselves up as God's personal representative on Earth. Instead of simply letting God deal directly with the unbelievers Himself, they take it on themselves to do something that should be reserved for God to do. I would suggest that those who feel the need to fight in the name of their religion are unbelievers too, since they obviously don't believe that God will punish those unbelievers. They're too impatient and want to do it themselves.

Yes, God is beyond our comprehension, and we are told everything we see in the Universe is contained within the First Heaven; there are Seven Heavens in total, then comes God's foot stool towering over the Heavens, then his Throne and then you will see your Lord. Everything in the 7 Heavens is mere play for God, and after us he will create others, just as he created before us.

We are the only ones given understanding. This sets us apart from the animal kingdom. Elephants don't have a desire to explore the Earth and Space, they don't even feel obliged to travel to another Country to meet family. This conscious desire to explore and learn comes from the Creator. We are born with certain knowledge and are made with a higher purpose. As such, God has sent Prophets to mankind to tell us what our purpose in life is, and how to live a life pleasing to God. This enables us to succeed both in this and the next life.

I once saw a series of videos where it was suggested that God may exist in a higher dimension, possibly the 7th dimension. A lot of it was a bit over my head, as the idea of different dimensions tends to be rather mind-blowing.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Well, there are many, particularly some of trivial arguments within Christianity, such as whether to do the Signs of the Cross with two or three fingers - or whether to do them at all. These are the kinds of things that create schisms among religions - even when most of their beliefs coincide with each other.

Ok yes I see those issues too. they also have major disagreements on core doctrines like,

Is Jesus God
Is the Trinity real
Is original sin Biblical

Non believers also point out the story of crucifixion and resurrection do not add up.

Then there's the ongoing dispute between Islam and Christianity which has been going on for over a millennium. Even if there are differences, there is still much they have in common, but yet they still fight each other. There are also sectarian conflicts within Islam itself.

The God of Abraham has no son, ask the Jews and they will confirm this. Christianity is the product of Pagan Europeans who sidelined the Jewish followers of Jesus pbuh. They ignored his message and made a religion about him instead.

The conflicts within Islam, Shia - Sunni is purely political. Who should have taken over after the Prophet's pbuh death. There is no dispute on any Doctrine within Islam between us.

The irony of this does not escape notice, since anyone who simply can't agree to disagree and turn the other cheek when it comes to dealing with "apostates" or "unbelievers," they then presume to set themselves up as God's personal representative on Earth. Instead of simply letting God deal directly with the unbelievers Himself, they take it on themselves to do something that to be reserved for God to do. I would suggest that those who feel the need to fight in the name of their religion are unbelievers too, since they obviously don't believe that God will punish those unbelievers. They're too impatient and want to do it themselves.

Tens of Millions of unbelievers live in Muslim Countries, unhindered. The Qur'an says let such people live in peace, unless they actively fight you.

Apostates too are free to become unbelievers too, but the rules of treason apply to those who leave and then attack Muslims, or openly call for others to follow in their footsteps. The USA kills Americans who have political apostates without arrest or trial. Treason appears to be serious amongst believers and none believers.

I once saw a series of videos where it was suggested that God may exist in a higher dimension, possibly the 7th dimension. A lot of it was a bit over my head, as the idea of different dimensions tends to be rather mind-blowing.

The more Science looks, the more evidence for God is made clear.

 

[Muslim-UK]

I am utterly confident that the Qur'an is a poetry collection from 7th century Arabic culture. I doubt that it was all written by Muhammad, much less God. I think it is the parts that served the ambitions of Muhammad's followers. And it's in an ancient language that I don't know a word of. It's ethics and world view is primitive, to be charitable about it.

If it was just poetry, why did the people of Mecca want to silence the illiterate Prophet? Why did he turn down their offers of being made King, riches, power and women if it was mere poetry?

I'm not out to argue, just interested in getting your understanding.

 

[Underhill]

Come again?

I was mostly kidding.

 

[Underhill]

Ok yes I see those issues too. they also have major disagreements on core doctrines like,

Is Jesus God
Is the Trinity real
Is original sin Biblical

Non believers also point out the story of crucifixion and resurrection do not add up.

The God of Abraham has no son, ask the Jews and they will confirm this. Christianity is the product of Pagan Europeans who sidelined the Jewish followers of Jesus pbuh. They ignored his message and made a religion about him instead.

The conflicts within Islam, Shia - Sunni is purely political. Who should have taken over after the Prophet's pbuh death. There is no dispute on any Doctrine within Islam between us.

Tens of Millions of unbelievers live in Muslim Countries, unhindered. The Qur'an says let such people live in peace, unless they actively fight you.

Apostates too are free to become unbelievers too, but the rules of treason apply to those who leave and then attack Muslims, or openly call for others to follow in their footsteps. The USA kills Americans who have political apostates without arrest or trial. Treason appears to be serious amongst believers and none believers.

The more Science looks, the more evidence for God is made clear.

That video is a bit odd.

The entire argument boils down to a few simplistic ideas "life is so complex that is had to be designed" and "science doesn't know how it happened exactly...therefor god". Except that in order to use the creator as an explanation, then there must be someone out there so much more complex than us. And science tells us that the being had to come from somewhere. It's essentially the same thing map makers did in the margins of maps when they wrote, "here there be dragons".

These kinds of arguments are designed for uneducated people. Most scientist today are coming to the exact opposite conclusion. That life is probably a lot more common in the universe than we originally thought.

This discussion is difficult because we are talking about such vast scales in both time and space that virtually anything is possible.

As Stephen King said in The Gunslinger,

"You see? Size defeats us. For the fish, the lake in which he lives is the universe. What does the fish think when he is jerked up by the mouth through the silver limits of existence and into a new universe where the air drowns him and the light is blue madness? Where huge bipeds with no gills stuff it into a suffocating box and cover it with wet weeds to die?

Or one might take the tip of the pencil and magnify it. One reaches the point where a stunning realization strikes home: The pencil tip is not solid; it is composed of atoms which whirl and revolve like a trillion demon planets. What seems solid to us is actually only a loose net held together by gravity. Viewed at their actual size, the distances between these atoms might become league, gulfs, aeons. The atoms themselves are composed of nuclei and revolving protons and electrons. One may step down further to subatomic particles. And then to what? Tachyons? Nothing? Of course not. Everything in the universe denies nothing; to suggest an ending is the one absurdity.

If you fell outward to the limit of the universe, would you find a board fence and signs reading DEAD END? No. You might find something hard and rounded, as the chick must see the egg from the inside. And if you should peck through the shell (or find a door), what great and torrential light might shine through your opening at the end of space? Might you look through and discover our entire universe is but part of one atom on a blade of grass? Might you be forced to think that by burning a twig you incinerate an eternity of eternities? That existence rises not to one infinite but to an infinity of them?”

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

do you see any animal-constructed churches/cathedrals/synagogues/mosques? No?

Dogs have several Christian colleges and universities including Notre Dane University, Wheaten College, Tailer, Yorkie College, and Indiana Westiean University.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ok yes I see those issues too. they also have major disagreements on core doctrines like,

Is Jesus God
Is the Trinity real
Is original sin Biblical

I find it interesting that the existence of gods is perceived as a significant point in some doctrines, since in my opinion it is inherently unsuitable for such a role.

Even more interesting when the matter is raised to a major disagreement even when dealing with such inconsequential subjects as how many aspects a deity is supposed to have, how many of those are or appear to be human, and whether it is reasonable to speak of "partners to God".

Shirk seems to be a concept with aspects of idolatry (worship of false gods) and of polytheism (acceptance of two or more separate deities as legitimate), and it seems to be a big deal for Muslims.

I just don't understand why. I can't help but see such a worry as misguided. How could that even matter?

Hinduism, to mention the most obvious example, knows better and is that much better off for that. So do Paganism and other true religions.

 

[Muslim-UK]

I find it interesting that the existence of gods is perceived as a significant point in some doctrines, since in my opinion it is inherently unsuitable for such a role.

Even more interesting when the matter is raised to a major disagreement even when dealing with such inconsequential subjects as how many aspects a deity is supposed to have, how many of those are or appear to be human, and whether it is reasonable to speak of "partners to God".

Shirk seems to be a concept with aspects of idolatry (worship of false gods) and of polytheism (acceptance of two or more separate deities as legitimate), and it seems to be a big deal for Muslims.

I just don't understand why. I can't help but see such a worry as misguided. How could that even matter?

Hinduism, to mention the most obvious example, knows better and is that much better off for that. So do Paganism and other true religions.

Well we can't all be right about God. Could you define some key attributes of GOD and then we can examine things further. If you could use whatever scripture you follow in your reply, that would be helpful.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well we can't all be right about God.

Fair enough, but IMO over-valuing the matter quite a bit.

Could you define some key attributes of GOD and then we can examine things further. If you could use whatever scripture you follow in your reply, that would be helpful.

I don't have an affinity for god-concepts, so there is no key attribute for any deity far as I am concerned.
Unless you want to discuss the inspiration that can come from reflections on Shakti the Devi and similar representations of feminility? But that has a lot more to do with art than with arguments, and ultimately the conclusions are unavoidably very personal.

As for scriptures, they are a secondary tool for spreading religious wisdom, not a source proper of it. A key part of their use is learning and accepting the responsibility to decide when and to which extent they might apply. Scriptures are never to be taken too seriously - not even the Tao Te Ching. A religious person should stand on his or her own discernment and learn to improve it.

 

[Muslim-UK]

The entire argument boils down to a few simplistic ideas "life is so complex that is had to be designed" and "science doesn't know how it happened exactly...therefor god". Except that in order to use the creator as an explanation, then there must be someone out there so much more complex than us. And science tells us that the being had to come from somewhere. It's essentially the same thing map makers did in the margins of maps when they wrote, "here there be dragons".

GOD is outside of the observable Universe, and the next one which we have not discovered yet, and the next etc etc, in fact HE is outside all 7 of them. As such HE is not constrained by the rules of the universe. Rules like everything must have a beginning, something complex must be designed etc.

ibn ‘Amr said: Allaah created the water above the seven heavens, and He created the Throne above the water.”

ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “Between the lowest heaven and the one above it is (a distance of) five hundred years, and between each heaven and the next is (a distance of) five hundred years marching.” According to another report: “The thickness of each heaven is a distance of five hundred years marching. Between the seventh heaven and the Footstool (al-Kursiy) is (a distance of) five hundred years. Between the Footstool and the water is (a distance of) five hundred years. The Throne is above the water and Allaah is above the Throne, and none of your deeds are concealed from Him.”

These kinds of arguments are designed for uneducated people. Most scientist today are coming to the exact opposite conclusion. That life is probably a lot more common in the universe than we originally thought.

We are waiting for Science to catch up. Creation has been scattered through out the Cosmos:


"And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the living creatures that He has scattered through them: and He has power to gather them together when He wills" Qur'an 42:29

This discussion is difficult because we are talking about such vast scales in both time and space that virtually anything is possible.

The fact that you're rationalising and asking questions is a good sign. God hates people who do not think.

Truly, the worst of all creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf, the dumb, those who do not use reason. Qur'an 8:22

Do they not contemplate within themselves? Allah has not created the heavens and the earth and what is between them except in truth and for a specified term. And indeed, many of the people, in [the matter of] the meeting with their Lord, are disbelievers. Qur’an 30:8

As the bereft people are cast into it the angels will say, “Didn’t a warner come to you?”

It almost bursts up with fury. Every time a group is cast therein, its keeper will ask: “Did no warner come to you?” They will say: “Yes, indeed a warner did come to us, but we belied him and said: ‘Allah never sent down anything (of revelation); you are only in great error.’“ And they will say: “Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we would not have been among the dwellers of the blazing Fire!” Qur'an 67:8-10