View Full Version : ((( I, Hereby, Announce The Fall Of Atheism Forever ))))


Proud_Syrian
07-01-03, 03:12 AM
http://islamlobby.simplehost.com/images/isalmissolution1.jpg

The Fall of Atheism
by Harun Yahya. (A Turning Point in History)

There are significant turning points in the history of mankind. We are now living in one of them. Some call it globalization and some say that this is the genesis of the “information age.” These are true, but there is yet a more important concept than these. Although some are unaware of it, great advances have been made in science and philosophy in the last 20-25 years. Atheism, which has held sway over the world of science and philosophy since the 19th century is now collapsing in an inevitable way....READ MORE:

A MUST READ ARTICLE.......

http://www.whyislam.org/877/Modern_Science/Fall_of_Atheism.asp

James R
07-01-03, 08:18 AM
Rumours of the death of atheism are greatly exaggerated.

Flores
07-01-03, 08:57 AM
That was very informative and unbiased. Thanks Proud Syrian for the good read.

Cris
07-01-03, 09:37 AM
An easy read, but sadly very out of date. It seems little more than a theist's dream.

James R
07-01-03, 09:40 AM
Comments on errors in the article follow. Mostly, I will concentrate on the physics errors, but I will also mention a few other mistakes. There are too many in the article to make it necessary to cover the whole thing.

<i>The first blow to atheism from science in the 20th century was in the field of cosmology. The idea that the universe had existed forever was discounted and it was discovered that it had a beginning; in other words, it was scientifically proved that it was created from nothing.</i>

This has not been proved. The big bang theory says nothing about what existed prior to a certain time. For that, we will at least need a quantum theory of gravity.

<i>[T]o accept that the universe had a beginning would mean that God created it and the only way to counter this idea was to claim that the universe was eternal, even though this claim had no basis on science.</i>

This is not true. Showing that the universe has a beginning in no way mandates the existence of god. The universe could be self-caused - perhaps a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum.

<i>the fact arrived at finally by modern astronomy is this: time and matter were brought into being by an eternally powerful Creator independent of both of them.</i>

This is simply not true. Is this an example of the lack of bias you are talking about, Flores?

<i>With the advance of research, it has been discovered that the physical, chemical and biological laws of the universe, basic forces such as gravity and electro-magnetism, the structure of atoms and elements are all ordered exactly as they have to be for human life. Western scientists have called this extraordinary design the “anthropic principle”.</i>

There's nothing remarkable about this. Any universe in which humans exist must have physical laws which permit that existence. The use of the term "design" is misleading, since there is no necessary implication of a designer.

<i>The wellknown astronomer, Paul Davies, writes in the last paragraph of his book The Cosmic Blueprint, "The impression of Design is overwhelming."</i>

...and, as we all know, looks can be deceiving.

<i>In short, the idea of a random universe, perhaps atheism’s most basic pillar, has been proved invalid.</i>

Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of gods. It has no extra baggage of the kind indicated in the article. Here we see one example. Atheism does not require any belief in a random universe.

<i>The quarks, those energy packets, act in such a way that they maybe described as "conscious."</i>

This statement is false. It is immediately followed in the article by a quote from physicist Freeman Dyson. Note that Dyson does not refer to consciousness at all. The juxtaposition of his statement and the previous statement aims to create a false impression of what Dyson is saying.

<i>The discoveries by various branches of science such as paleontology, biochemistry, anatomy and genetics have shattered the theory of evolution from various aspects.</i>

On the contrary, evolution is accepted by paleontologists, biologists, anatomists and geneticists today as the only viable scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

<i>The fossil of even a single undoubted intermediate species that would substantiate the belief in the gradual evolution of species has not been found.</i>

This statement is a common creationist lie. Many such fossils have been found.

<i>On the other hand, observations and experiments have shown that mutations defined by Neo- Darwinism as an evolutionary mechanism add no new genetic information to living creatures.</i>

This is another false claim, which has been eloquently refuted by Richard Dawkins (among others).

<i>All observations and experiments showed that it was, in a word, impossible for a living cell to arise within inanimate matter by random chemical reactions. </i>

No experiment, nor anything else, has shown this to be impossible.

<i>Intricate examples of design, including our eyes that are too superior to be compared to any camera, the wings of birds that have inspired flight technology, the complexly integrated system of the cells of living things and the remarkable information stored in DNA, have vitiated the theory of evolution which regards living things as the product of blind chance.</i>

Our eyes are actually far inferior to even the most basic camera. They are very badly designed, from an optical point of view. There are a number of very clear explanations of how eyes have evolved independently many times over the lifetime of the Earth. None of these require a god.
---

In general, the article is quite clever in the ways it attempts to mislead. Practically all of the things it mentions in terms of medicine, psychology, politics and so on are unconnected in any way with atheism. The examples given are twisted so that they seem to support the overall argument of the piece.

I encourage anybody who is interested to read other sources if you want to find out more about the things discussed. Just a little research will quickly show you that this article is hopelessly biased.

kajolishot
07-01-03, 09:40 AM
Matter and time came into being by the explosion of this mass-less point. In other words, the universe was created from nothing.

This does not automatically mean that some being initiated the creation. Just because we do not understand something does not justify assigning that task to a god or gods. There are plenty of credible theories about the origin of the big bang than is the "god did it."

Flores
07-01-03, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by James R
Comments on errors in the article follow. Mostly, I will concentrate on the physics errors, but I will also mention a few other mistakes. There are too many in the article to make it necessary to cover the whole thing.


None of the points mentioned are errors. You are simply commenting on other possibilities that should be considered that is also unproofed. An error is a clear mistake resulting from miscalculations or wrong reporting of facts. Neither are the case. This is an inexact interpretation of a phenomena or a presentation of a working model and your comments are by noway exact correction to the interpretations or seem to rebut the basic assumption behind the basic model of creation.

Flores
07-01-03, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by James R

<i>the fact arrived at finally by modern astronomy is this: time and matter were brought into being by an eternally powerful Creator independent of both of them.</i>

This is simply not true. Is this an example of the lack of bias you are talking about, Flores?


There is nothing biased about reaching a conclusion that an eternally powerfull creator independant of the creation is behind the unexplained problem. He didn't say grey hair blue eyed Zues created us, he simply attributed the unknown element to an independant factor or function.. .I thought that's what we do in Physics when we are about to describe a phenomena.
We say X = blablabla..

He says, eternally powerfull creator = abc.....ect....^ Universe harmony.

He never claimed to know the exact form of the function, but for a base model, I say, pretty darn accurate.

Zero
07-01-03, 09:58 AM
Fall of Atheism?

Theism fell a long time ago. Atheism is just there, so it never falls. Since it never makes outrageous claims like intelligent design myth or the creationism myth.

DJSupreme23
07-01-03, 10:01 AM
I'd like to offer a brief opinion on this article:

quote: "Science, which has been presented as the pillar of atheist/materialist philosophy, turns out to be the opposite. As another writer puts it, "The strict materialism that excludes all purpose, choice and spirituality from the world simply cannot account for the data pour in from labs and observatories."2 "

The impression I get from the article (or at least the first part of it) is that, the author claims that since science has not proven all and everything and given us a Theory of Everything (yet!), it has failed.

Well, I find this view itself deeply arrogant, as it requires one with the opinion that he knows all to make such a conclusion.

Not only that, but I feel that the author is not out on a "true" mission of discovery (no ideological baggage, that is, no previous assumptions as to the state of things), but has a basic assumption about an existence of a God.

And then he proceeds to knock at evolution... I only though christian fanatics dod that, but apparently Moslems have joined them in that undertaking.

Objectivity totally collapses when the author proceeds to quote the Qu'ran in the section "Medicine: The Discovery of "How Hearts Find Peace" ".

But the conclusion is the worst:

"Conclusion. We are living at an important time. Atheism, which people have tried for hundreds of years to portray as “the way of reason and science,” is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance. Materialist philosophy that sought to use science for its own ends has been in turn defeated by science. A world rescuing itself from atheism will turn to God and religion. And this process has begun long ago. The time is fast approaching when many people who are living in ignorance with no knowledge of their Creator will be graced by faith in the impending post-atheist world. Harun Yahya. September 2002"

When emperical method is pronouned to be "ignorance", expecially be an obviously (religiously) biased author, I lose my faith in said person to deliver an unbiased piece of work.

Then again, perhaps an objective article is too much to expect from a site called "whyislam.org" - obviously a missionary site.

Crunchy Cat
07-01-03, 10:13 AM
Aside from all the defects of the article that everyone else has
pointed out, I wanted to note how the author tries to pass
off his opinions as 'fact' all over the article. Just an example:


This means that the material universe is not a purposeless...

DefSkeptic
07-01-03, 11:17 AM
Article= pure bullshit.

Teg
07-01-03, 12:37 PM
I love how they include a picture of Kant with a caption that bashes him. And all of this without any evidence. Guy you know that when they include a picture of someone they must be right...:D

Of course Islam has been courting the intellectual bases since its inception. Back then it was a more tolerant religion however. In fact I was meeting with a group of Islamic student union members. I found the Quron to be a very dogmatic document, can't say where the specific evidence they cite as the big bang precurser theory. The truth is that if you make a book big and vague enough anyone can see anything in its pages.

Of course we all are familiar with the esteemed(:D ) scholar(?) Patrick Glynn. Look at the damn website name...its an 800 number!

It just a long strain of quotes taken out of context and unsupported claims. What's more they claim to refute Darwin!!!

It is supposed that the proofs for this will be discovered in the fossil record, the petrified remains of living things. But fossil research conducted in the course of the 20th century has presented a totally different picture. The fossil of even a single undoubted intermediate species that would substantiate the belief in the gradual evolution of species has not been found.

Apparently they deny the existence of humans as well. Consider that in the fossil records no humans could be found more than one million years ago. Of course there is an increasingly aspeciated set of prehumans who are period specific. So according to the article humans must have been created later and ironically all similar human forms must have been destroyed at the same time and yet some specific characteristics were integrated into these new humans.

Read the Quran, you probably have already. But then read origin of species. If you want to subscribe to the something from nothing I can even lead you to a better version of that: Inflationary theory. What it comes down to is typical religious arrrogance: a virulent strain of stupidity.

(Q)
07-01-03, 12:40 PM
Flores sez:

There is nothing biased about reaching a conclusion that an eternally powerfull creator independant of the creation is behind the unexplained problem.

I thought that's what we do in Physics when we are about to describe a phenomena.

That’s right, physics does describe phenomenon… with observations and evidence, and not with unsubstantiated claims and misinterpretations, as does the author of the article.

SpyMoose
07-01-03, 12:43 PM
I love it when religious folks try to wrap themselves in scientific presteige. They missquote a few facts, draw a few wrong conclusions, and as theists do, make up a lot of stuff because thats how theology works.

There is a great analysiss of the argument against evolution in a book called "Why people believe weird things" did you know that if they worked like evolution does (by keeping useful changes and disgarding non useful changes) 10,000 monkeys in a room with 10,000 typewriters could recreate shakespears hamlet in about 4 days?

Flores
07-01-03, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Teg
Of course Islam has been courting the intellectual bases since its inception.


Did you say something nice, where exactly are you hiding the poison, my guards remain up.


Originally posted by Teg
Back then it was a more tolerant religion however.


Still you're nice, so the idea was tolerant. How does a conceptual idea change, does an idea wake up all night and think of ways of changing itself, or do people like yourself contribute on twisting the facts about simple conceptual ideas to beyond recognition.



Originally posted by Teg
In fact I was meeting with a group of Islamic student union members. I found the Quron to be a very dogmatic document, can't say where the specific evidence they cite as the big bang precurser theory. The truth is that if you make a book big and vague enough anyone can see anything in its pages.

I'll ship you a couple of Sesame street books, they are simple and straight forward and will satisfy your quest for knowledge.
So you have found out about the Quran from meeting with a group of Islamic student union. What did you meditate and read thousands of pages in their your one time visit and reflected on your life, 1000 years of history and science and determined that everyword has no basis. And how come PhD dissertations are big and vague including Einstein. Maybe you should just say, the Quran is a special read for those that are knowleagable in the art of understanding.


Originally posted by Teg
It just a long strain of quotes taken out of context and unsupported claims. What's more they claim to refute Darwin!!!


What are you saying, Darwin is irrefutable. Is he the new Atheist god or something. Last time I checked, scientific advancement is based on criticizing old ideas and finding errors to correct and advance. Are you saying that Darwin theoris are infaliable....He must be god then.


Originally posted by Teg
Read the Quran, you probably have already. But then read origin of species. If you want to subscribe to the something from nothing I can even lead you to a better version of that: Inflationary theory. What it comes down to is typical religious arrrogance: a virulent strain of stupidity.

I think you should say, I'll read the Quran myself before you recommend it to others. Actually, another language learning like arabic might even be more helpful, so you're not basing all your bull shit assault on another human translation.

DJSupreme23
07-01-03, 01:06 PM
I've noticed, in this thread and others: Question the moslem's world view, and they get all hostile and profane... how odd!

Prisme
07-01-03, 01:10 PM
1-All observations and experiments showed that it was, in a word, impossible for a living cell to arise within inanimate matter by random chemical reactions.

Reply: No experiment ever proved it was impossbile. (thus possible)


Reminds me of a theist argument... :)

SpyMoose
07-01-03, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by DJSupreme23
I've noticed, in this thread and others: Question the moslem's world view, and they get all hostile and profane... how odd!

yes its almost as if they realize they are just playing a game of "lets pretend" and that the dirty materialistic athists actualy have a logical construct based on things that can be seen and measured, not just some vauge poorly written old book written by the sorts of people who would be locked up as mentaly deranged today. I wonder if these holy books would have been written if the anti-psychotic pharmasuticles we have today were available back then.

Flores
07-01-03, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by DJSupreme23
I've noticed, in this thread and others: Question the moslem's world view, and they get all hostile and profane... how odd!

You said:
"Then again, perhaps an objective article is too much to expect from a site called "whyislam.org" - obviously a missionary site."
"I only though christian fanatics dod that, but apparently Moslems have joined them in that undertaking. "
Others said:
"article= pure bullshit."
"What it comes down to is typical religious arrrogance: a virulent strain of stupidity."

Is that your idea of Questioning?
Is this your sharp noticing of trends?

Because cheap shot, cynical remarks, and confirming one's own narrow preconceived ideas is all that oozes out of you.

SpyMoose
07-01-03, 01:17 PM
yes, stop being so narrowminded and accept that a white man with a long beard who has existed forever and is all loving but will kick your ass if you cross him created the universe and rules our destiny.

Its the only logical presumption.

(Q)
07-01-03, 01:20 PM
Flores rant:

Because cheap shot, cynical remarks, and confirming one's own narrow preconceived ideas is all that oozes out of you.

An excellent example of the pot calling the kettle black.

;)

Flores
07-01-03, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by SpyMoose
yes, stop being so narrowminded and accept that a white man with a long beard who has existed forever and is all loving but will kick your ass if you cross him created the universe and rules our destiny.

Its the only logical presumption.

Your logic stinks......Did your grandfathers use similar logic when they corrupted the bible with their illogical interpretations?

Flores
07-01-03, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by (Q)
An excellent example of the pot calling the kettle black.

;)

Oh, do you normally hear pots calling the kettle black, because I'm sorry to tell you that you're officially nuts.

Don't worry when the TV talks back at you when you yell at sports game, that's an expected course for your diseace.

SpyMoose
07-01-03, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Flores
Your logic stinks......Did your grandfathers use similar logic when they corrupted the bible with their illogical interpretations?

well, i certainly dont think my grandfathers were buissy interpreting the bible, but FYI there is no logical way to interpret the bible being that it urges you to make war on logic by using faith. That is beleiving in something in the absence of logic.

Flores
07-01-03, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by SpyMoose
well, i certainly dont think my grandfathers were buissy interpreting the bible, but FYI there is no logical way to interpret the bible being that it urges you to make war on logic by using faith. That is beleiving in something in the absence of logic.

I defy you to define faith, and also please refute the fact that faith is the only tool motivating science and it's advancement.

Our faith and believe in protecting the human race is what drives every medical advancement.

Our faith in the idea of liberty and freedom is what drives political decisions.

Our faith in preserving our environment is the driving factor beside our study of biology and environmental sciences.

Our faith in continuing living is the driving factor in procreating and preserving our lives.

Without faith, we are robots. Below animals, for even animals have faith to a certain degree.

SpyMoose
07-01-03, 01:35 PM
faith makes people into robots, its the belief of something without any evedence. Faith is what the church and other faith based orginizations use to control people without any good reason.

All those things you chalk up to faith are self interest. We research medical technology because we want to live longer.

we protect the environment be cause we like how it looks, and its got its own usefullness.

we protect political freedom (sort of) because we dont want to get pushed around by a government. There isnt anything of faith in these things.

and no, animals dont have faith, they dont believe in anything as thats a little high minded for them. Animals are a pretty layed back croud, not much philosophising among them you know.

Mystech
07-01-03, 01:47 PM
Well, so long as every human being in the world is born an atheist, I assume that at least some of them will manage to make it through early life without being indoctrinated, or brainwashed, so I doubt very much that Atheism will ever die out completely. You just can't reach everyone, and thank god for that :p

Flores
07-01-03, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by SpyMoose
faith makes people into robots, its the belief of something without any evedence. Faith is what the church and other faith based orginizations use to control people without any good reason.


Faith into ideas, provide vision, which makes us see outside the box. It's the rope that delivers you to the future. Without faith, we are robots stuck in our own vomit or ideas.


Originally posted by SpyMoose
All those things you chalk up to faith are self interest. We research medical technology because we want to live longer.

And what is selfinterest drawn from. Isn't believing in the important of self, the reason that we develop the need to protect our self interest. So we have faith in ourselves, and that's what drives us to build casteles around us.


Originally posted by SpyMoose
we protect the environment be cause we like how it looks, and its got its own usefullness.

Ditto, our interest in environment stems from a vision and faith of how the environment should be. Our faith in doing the right thing is what motivates us to preserve.


Originally posted by SpyMoose
we protect political freedom (sort of) because we dont want to get pushed around by a government. There isnt anything of faith in these things.

Again because of our faith in liberty and freedom. Why do people build things in their names and try to make their names known to the future, it's due to their belief in themselves, their lifes and their mission.


Originally posted by SpyMoose
and no, animals dont have faith, they dont believe in anything as thats a little high minded for them. Animals are a pretty layed back croud, not much philosophising among them you know.

So if animals don't have faith and Atheists don't have faith, does that equate an animal to an Atheist. Pretty accurate I would say. Try to steal a baby animal from it's mother and you'll see belief and faith in the animal world. Animals have cares and interests.

(Q)
07-01-03, 01:50 PM
Flores

I defy you to define faith

The theist definition of faith is a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny while the non-theist definition is a complete confidence in a person or plan.

I’d be very interested in knowing which animals’ exhibit either definition.

SpyMoose
07-01-03, 01:55 PM
Its a carnival! Watch as strongman Flores streches and warps a word past all meaning!

I guess the problem here is that Flores has faith that god is on his side so he can do whatever he wants in the argument, including agree with me for a whole post and say he was right and act as if i was agreeing with him.

thats another thing about faith, since its not based on any evedence or logic you cant argue with somone with it, because like the robot they are they arnt open to new ideas, its all about the programing.

Flores
07-01-03, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by (Q)
The theist definition of faith is a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny while the non-theist definition is a complete confidence in a person or plan.


How can an Atheist have complete confidence in a person or plan while only two things are certain to an Atheist, that they are born and that they'll die. Don't you think it's an over exagetation to think that you're in contol while you can't even control your coming and leaving of this earth.


Originally posted by (Q)
I’d be very interested in knowing which animals’ exhibit either definition.

Salmon for example, travels thousands and thousands of miles without knowing anything about the route or destination to cold waters of Europe, then they swim back upstream to the little creek they were born in so they can die. How does science explain this?

Flores
07-01-03, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by SpyMoose
Its a carnival! Watch as strongman Flores streches and warps a word past all meaning!


It's is Strongwoman Flores please, 29 mother of two, civil engineer, MS, PE. Speciality in the area of hydraulics/hyrology and stream restoration/sediment transport. And thanks for the compliment. I indulge in giving words new meanings.


Originally posted by SpyMoose
I guess the problem here is that Flores has faith that god is on his side so he can do whatever he wants in the argument, including agree with me for a whole post and say he was right and act as if i was agreeing with him.


She please, and I don't do the god is in me and on my side and that crap. God forbid, I would ever agree with, and if it seemed like it for a second, please take it back.


Originally posted by SpyMoose
thats another thing about faith, since its not based on any evedence or logic you cant argue with somone with it, because like the robot they are they arnt open to new ideas, its all about the programing.

Interesting. And you with all your might aren't able to find the simple convincing words to undo my bad programming. I used to say in college that a teacher who can't deliver the most complex idea is hiding behind complexity and doesn't understand the basics himself.

SpyMoose
07-01-03, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Flores
Salmon for example, travels thousands and thousands of miles without knowing anything about the route or destination to cold waters of Europe, then they swim back upstream to the little creek they were born in so they can die. How does science explain this?

Its instinct, the fish dont believe anything about it either way, they just do it. Faith, despite being illogical still requires somone to be able to hold concepts in thier minds. The fish arnt thinking "The lord wants me to go back to this stream!" they are just doing it because the behavior is hardwired into them. This behavior is probably useful because if a stream sired one genereation of salmon it can probably do it for the next.

Also athists arnt "Only certain of two things". Athisits come in flavors, some would say that those two things arnt even certain and others would say there is a hell of a lot more that is reasonably certain. Not to mention that most everyone believes you dont NEED to be absolutely certain about something to take action based on it. If what you do turns out wrong then you know that maybe you need to investigate that thing you were almost certain about a little further.

Flores
07-01-03, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by SpyMoose
Its instinct

Are you crazy or something. Please explain scientifically instinctal powers of forces. Where exactly in the fish brain do we pragram travel routes from US to England and mark all the current exists? It doesn't occur to you for a second that an instinct is obeying external forces.

And yes, the fish exactly goes like that, the lord wants me to go from here to there. They are obeying an external natural force, that we call god. Just like planets are obeying those forces and revloving around orbits, but your brain seems to be less efficient than fish and deny obeying the external forces. You probably thought that planets are singing ringing around the rosies with your weak Atheist knowledge, because I defy you to give me the single cause for planet continuous movement.

DJSupreme23
07-01-03, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Flores
Are you crazy or something. Please explain scientifically instinctal powers of forces. Where exactly in the fish brain do we pragram travel routes from US to England and mark all the current exists? It doesn't occur to you for a second that an instinct is obeying external forces.

And yes, the fish exactly goes like that, the lord wants me to go from here to there. They are obeying an external natural force, that we call god. Just like planets are obeying those forces and revloving around orbits, but your brain seems to be less efficient than fish and deny obeying the external forces. You probably thought that planets are singing ringing around the rosies with your weak Atheist knowledge, because I defy you to give me the single cause for planet continuous movement.

No, hes not crazy. Insting starts out in the small, and evolved over thousands and millions of years.

Flores, do you really need that mystical old man in the sky to explain all of these "scientifically unexplainable" phenomena in this world?

Flores
07-01-03, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by DJSupreme23
No, hes not crazy. Insting starts out in the small, and evolved over thousands and millions of years.

Flores, do you really need that mystical old man in the sky to explain all of these "scientifically unexplainable" phenomena in this world?

I see you also indulge in making shit and justifying things because you are sooooooo scared to even think that there is a universal force in charge of you. You would attribute Salmon complicated trips to evolving. I see, so the Salmon used to take hikes to the Carebean, then they evolved to taking brisk runs to the Atlantic, then now a day after thousands of years, they finally make the full trip in sprints. Wow, your justification is as good the Ring around the Rosie justification of planet movements. And I assume, your Darwin have been following fish migration patterns for thousands and millions of years to arrive to such a speedy nonsense justification.

SpyMoose
07-01-03, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Flores
you are sooooooo scared to even think that there is a universal force in charge of you.

i dont know, you seem scared to contemplate that there is not. But really if you are going to start cursing a lot and talking a lot of nonsence then why should we take you seriously? Who said anything about fish hiking but you? Who said anything about planets obeying some kind of mystical nonsencical force but you? Yet you seem to accuse other posters of doing it.

Flores
07-01-03, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by SpyMoose
i dont know, you seem scared to contemplate that there is not.

I don't know, but common sense says that it's the presence of something that causes the fear, not the absence of. I don't hear of people scared of the absence of ghosts and the non existance of monsters......


Originally posted by SpyMoose
But really if you are going to start cursing a lot and talking a lot of nonsence then why should we take you seriously?

If you want me to curse, all you have to do is ask or make blanket ignorant comments. Don't entice me so much, I'm a human with limited patience.


Originally posted by SpyMoose
Who said anything about fish hiking but you? Who said anything about planets obeying some kind of mystical nonsencical force but you? Yet you seem to accuse other posters of doing it.

Well, then don't let my imagination run wild and explain to me in detail how does evolution result in modified fish migration patterns and modified instinctal behavior. And who said mystical nonsencical force, I merely said external forces, but you seem not to be able to get your mind out of the gutter it's in. And by the way, the tide obeys gravitational forces which are external forces, and we don't call the tide movement crazy for obeying such forces.

Flores
07-01-03, 03:30 PM
Guys,
Keep the thread alive, I'll be back tomorrow. I have suicide bomber training camp and praying sessions at the "Muslim Moms for War" center that I can't miss. Plus, my three other cowives are expecting me to cook dinner tonight.

SpyMoose
07-01-03, 03:32 PM
you arnt talking about external forces like gravity, you are talking aobut god. You arnt implying that fish are pulled back to thier home stream by gravity are you?

how evolution works has been explained by people far more knolegeable about it than me. pick up a book by stephen j. gould. Is it the entire idea of evolution that you reject or just the idea that instincts are subject to it as well?

DJSupreme23
07-01-03, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Flores
Guys,
Keep the thread alive, I'll be back tomorrow. I have suicide bomber training camp and praying sessions at the "Muslim Moms for War" center that I can't miss. Plus, my three other cowives are expecting me to cook dinner tonight.

Well, you sure have a sense of humor :D

BTW, is it possible to train for suicide bombings more than once? :D

SpyMoose
07-01-03, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by DJSupreme23
is it possible to train for suicide bombings more than once? :D

i immagine that it is, you dont have to use live explocives because i bet even an amature suicide bomber could do pretty good at the part after you push the detonator, you just kind of splatter all over the place, its easy. But before that there is some sneaking around with a large bulk concealed under your cloths, and you have to have a good idea of where to go to kill innocent people for your all loving god.

(Q)
07-01-03, 03:58 PM
I heard they train with firecrackers.

Teg
07-02-03, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by Flores How does a conceptual idea change, does an idea wake up all night and think of ways of changing itself, or do people like yourself contribute on twisting the facts about simple conceptual ideas to beyond recognition.
I assume since this was in reply to my statement concerning the current state of intolerant Islam. Following from this I can say that Christianity is one of the biggest contributing factors. 1400+ years is a long period in which to try to maintain a tradition. In fact any scholar who has studied culture or religion will tell you that in fact no practice can survive so long. So it is the fault of the human life cycle and not my own that change exists.

In this case intolerance is actually a rejection of change. So in fact it is self-defeating. The Christian religion on the other hand has always been intolerant. So in fact they lose nothing. Remember too that there are more complex geopolitical reasons for their frustration/condemnation of Christian states. Those things can lost in the syncopation of time. Religions always survive, but can only do so by adapting to change.


Originally posted by Flores So you have found out about the Quran from meeting with a group of Islamic student union. What did you meditate and read thousands of pages in their your one time visit and reflected on your life, 1000 years of history and science and determined that everyword has no basis. And how come PhD dissertations are big and vague including Einstein. Maybe you should just say, the Quran is a special read for those that are knowleagable in the art of understanding.
No actually I met once a week for an hour and a halffor 2 months with them. I did research on the internet and brought my questions to them. In the end I found that they were really just like Judeo-Christians with some cultural/syntactical differences. In fact I read much of the Quron. I read praise for it and criticism of it. I even made clear to them my perspective. They were always agreeable and responsive to my questions. I found the book to be more dogmatic in its structure than the bible and less narative based. In fact it sort of reminded me of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. Their claims of scientific parallelisms seemed spurious to me. Actually one of the students, or perhaps more, whom with I engaged was from Palestine. In that she was typically anti-Israeli, and generally persuasive in her arguments against the occupation as am I.

Let me not seem biased against the Quron in particular. Certainly there can be good and bad PhD dissertations and vagueness is a good indicator of this quality. In fact there are many deficiencies in Einstein and Darwin, yes I am a Darwinist that admits he is not perfect. But actually those deficiences do not exist because of vagueness. Rather they are borne of specificity. Darwin went into this long debate on aspeciation within modern day man and boy did he come off as a racist. In that we must remember the context of time. The problem is that religious documents don't take any chances and don't cite any evidence. Darwin and company use a system of footnotes, recreatable data with description of experiment, and otherwise form of proof. They had the courage to take a position. In the bible and the Quron there are no positions. They are indeed full of meaningless axioms and childish literature.

What are you saying, Darwin is irrefutable. Is he the new Atheist god or something. Last time I checked, scientific advancement is based on criticizing old ideas and finding errors to correct and advance. Are you saying that Darwin theoris are infaliable....He must be god then.
No in fact I just admitted to some of the failings. The difference froma religious text and a scientific theory is that theories can be revised. Just because one component is deemed wrong doesn't mean we throw the entire theory out. In a religious text repitition rules the day, can't say whether it is audience awareness or failings on behalf of the author, so when I remove a chunk the entire thing falls apart. When Darwin asserts something he tells you why. When the Quron asserts something no explanation is given.

I think you should say, I'll read the Quran myself before you recommend it to others. Actually, another language learning like arabic might even be more helpful, so you're not basing all your bull shit assault on another human translation.
I have, not the entire text, for that would be too painful, but rather enough. Translation isn't really a factor in anything outside poems where rythm can be lost. In fact even if I learned Farsi I would still, because of my brains codevelopment with language learning I would, be forced to translate only as the tranlator instead of the one reading translation. So you see it can't really be bull shit.

James R
07-02-03, 01:29 AM
Flores:

<i>None of the points mentioned are errors. You are simply commenting on other possibilities that should be considered that is also unproofed.</i>

No. The author makes definitive statements that science has proved this and that, that certain theories are linked to atheists ideas and so on, which are simply not true. These are not simply errors. They are lies deliberately crafted to create a certain false impression.

If you disagree, please show me why I am wrong and the author of the article is correct.

<i>An error is a clear mistake resulting from miscalculations or wrong reporting of facts.</i>

The article twists the facts and draws conclusions which the facts do not support. In several instances, it directly lies about the facts.

<i>There is nothing biased about reaching a conclusion that an eternally powerfull creator independant of the creation is behind the unexplained problem [of the origin of the universe].</i>

Well, that is arguable, but it doesn't really matter here. The point is: the article attempts to create a false dichotomy. Science doesn't know everything about the origin of the universe, therefore God must have done it, according to the author. That does not follow. But the author goes further, asserting that science actually admits that god must have done it. That is an outright lie which cannot be put down to mere naivete on the part of the author. No, this man has an agenda.

And so, it seems, do you.

Proud_Syrian
07-02-03, 03:57 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by James R
[B]This is not true. Showing that the universe has a beginning in no way mandates the existence of god. The universe could be self-caused - perhaps a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum.
=============================

Just to reply to one of your llogical explanations:

You said the Universe could be self-caused..this is utter nonesense, it is like saying a storm passed through junk yard and made BOIENG 747 by chance or saying the BOIENG 747 was self-caused !!!!

Do you reallu believe in such nonesense ???

DJSupreme23
07-02-03, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by Proud_Syrian
[QUOTE]Originally posted by James R
[B]This is not true. Showing that the universe has a beginning in no way mandates the existence of god. The universe could be self-caused - perhaps a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum.
=============================

Just to reply to one of your llogical explanations:

You said the Universe could be self-caused..this is utter nonesense, it is like saying a storm passed through junk yard and made BOIENG 747 by chance or saying the BOIENG 747 was self-caused !!!!

Do you reallu believe in such nonesense ???

Just because it's an incredible coincidence, doesnt mean that it's impossible or untrue.

Regarding, nonsense, I'll call the biblical Genesis, where the world was created in 7 days, nonsense. But that's just my view.

James R
07-02-03, 04:42 AM
Proud_Syrian:

<i>You said the Universe could be self-caused..this is utter nonesense, it is like saying a storm passed through junk yard and made BOIENG 747 by chance or saying the BOIENG 747 was self-caused !!!!</i>

No, it's not like that at all. The initial state of the universe did not include complex, differentiated objects such as boeing 747s. For a long time after the big bang there were only atomic nuclei and light. Combine those with the known laws of physics and you can begin to work out how the universe came to be as it is.

<i>Do you reallu believe in such nonesense ???</i>

Who cares what I believe? Why is that relevant? A bad argument is a bad argument, regardless of how many people believe it.

Zero
07-02-03, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by James R
Proud_Syrian:

<i>You said the Universe could be self-caused..this is utter nonesense, it is like saying a storm passed through junk yard and made BOIENG 747 by chance or saying the BOIENG 747 was self-caused !!!!</i>

No, it's not like that at all. The initial state of the universe did not include complex, differentiated objects such as boeing 747s. For a long time after the big bang there were only atomic nuclei and light. Combine those with the known laws of physics and you can begin to work out how the universe came to be as it is.

<i>Do you reallu believe in such nonesense ???</i>

Who cares what I believe? Why is that relevant? A bad argument is a bad argument, regardless of how many people believe it.

Hurrah to James, keep it up.

It's not about believing, it's about having physical evidence and empirical research to prove it. The Big Bang theory, and that complexity comes from non-intelligent sources have all been proven.

Ever heard of the amino acids coming out of the "primitive earth" simulation? How many times do I need to repeat that? Sheesh every time a n00b staggers in here and declares "atheism dead" I have to do this. Same old same old.

Flores
07-02-03, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by James R
No, it's not like that at all. The initial state of the universe did not include complex, differentiated objects such as boeing 747s.

James, you were doing so well until you spoke this nonesense. Do you dare compare the complexity of the design of the ant with the simplistic machine named boeing 747s?


And you Zero, I understand that your invisibility and lameness by nature is causing you deep Phsycological problems......I forgive you for harrasing me, You can't help me, but don't envy me, I was born that way, It's seldom that I enter a room without turning all heads and attention to me.

Zero
07-02-03, 09:45 AM
Flores, it's okay to be a hassled, frazzled mom, especially if you are a very busy one. I see people with their hands full with just one baby. But a mother of two? Ah. No wonder you are grouchy.

But that doesn't prevent you from sounding like a menopausal virgin to me :p

Balerion
07-02-03, 01:48 PM
Moderator edit.

Sorry JD, but just a shade too much profanity and with zero content.

everneo
07-02-03, 02:22 PM
menopause, **** and what else... go ahead and prove the atheistic ideals of sexism.. even her assumed intolerence does not warrant this.:m:

Zero
07-02-03, 07:08 PM
Aww, are the kiddies getting mad? Party on.

Mucker
07-02-03, 07:55 PM
A good article, and some good writing!! I would like to shake this Harun Yahya's hand! :)

James R
07-03-03, 12:24 AM
Flores:

<i>James, you were doing so well until you spoke this nonesense. Do you dare compare the complexity of the design of the ant with the simplistic machine named boeing 747s?</i>

Er... I didn't. Proud_Syrian mentioned boeing 747s. Nobody mentioned ants, as far as I can see.

What on earth are you talking about?

wesmorris
07-03-03, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by Flores
That was very informative and unbiased. Thanks Proud Syrian for the good read.


Conclusion

We are living at an important time. Atheism, which people have tried for hundreds of years to portray as “the way of reason and science,” is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance. Materialist philosophy that sought to use science for its own ends has been in turn defeated by science. A world rescuing itself from atheism will turn to God and religion. And this process has begun long ago.

The time is fast approaching when many people who are living in ignorance with no knowledge of their Creator will be graced by faith in the impending post-atheist world.

Harun Yahya. September 2002


You call THAT unbiased? You're very very wrong. Oh man, I can't believe an intelligent woman such as yourself would be so hopelessly brain-washed.

The entire article is written with the premise that this conclusion is the only reasonable assumption based on the evidence presented. That's simply ridiculous. You merely find something halfway intelligent seeming that re-enforces your shoddy belief system and think "wow, this justifies everything" when in fact it's just mortar to patch up your failing and huge brick crock of shit.

wesmorris
07-03-03, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Flores
It's seldom that I enter a room without turning all heads and attention to me.

And you're suffering poor judgement from the intoxicating sense of power you get from that...

Hmm... isn't that one of the "seven deadly sins"? Which one is it again?

Crunchy Cat
07-03-03, 02:24 AM
Hmm... isn't that one of the "seven deadly sins"? Which one is it again?

Thou shalt go to hell if thou has not a fucking clue? :)

Balerion
07-03-03, 04:47 AM
No problem, Cris. I regretted posting it about an hour after the fact.

JD

wesmorris
07-03-03, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
Thou shalt go to hell if thou has not a fucking clue? :)

hehe... if you say so... did you catch that the question was rhetorical?

Crunchy Cat
07-03-03, 09:25 AM
yep, but that was a boring answer... I had to do something to
set it free!

wesmorris
07-03-03, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Crunchy Cat
yep, but that was a boring answer... I had to do something to
set it free!

GOD DAMNIT. I thought I was the freakin pinnacle of entertainment and you go bringing me straight down. ;)