Total posts: 78
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Unless you are arguing that muslims must exterminate all other religions, then it is based on self defense, and must be too.
Ok so its self-defense, why can't it also be based on religion at the same time? Why are the two mutually exclusive?
And for that matter, why does "based on religion" have to equate to "must exterminate all other religions"?
And for that matter, why does "based on religion" have to equate to "must exterminate all other religions"?
Created:
Posted in:
You can google definition of worship. Hint: there is more than one.
I'll help you out then, within the context of the Quran, worship here specifically refers a narrower range of definitions. Such as the ritual act of worship.
Assumption.
They aren't, the first one is based on a combination of the definition of Atheist and my personal testimony, the second is based on the same premise as the first, the third is based on the fact that, unless the individual we're talking about has some extra form of love for money, it is the same for them as it is for me, a medium for wealth and trade.
You'll have to put a convincing argument why, for the average atheist 50 dollars in their hand is more valuable to them than 50 dollars in my hand would be to me.
And please, do give an answer that's different than "because the 50 dollars is more important to them than God", that would still do nothing to explain why money would be more important to them than it would be to me.
This is nonsense argument. We are talking about people who die as atheists here.
Because of how Pascal's wager works? Very well. People who die atheists, especially those of ignorance, will be punished, but can be forgiven during their punishment, even after death. Mushriks have no such chance, at least according to God's words.
So now you pretend to know what Allah thinks here.
I am only reciting my understanding of God's words. And to my understanding God said that Shirk is unforgivable unlike other sins which are forgivable.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
That's simply a re-explanation of what averages are. I am asking what is the premise for concluding that, by default, neither outcome has a greater chance of being the case of the other.
Let me ask an example question. If the chances of Zeus existing are to be 50%, and the chances of him not existing also 50%, why is that the case?
Let me ask an example question. If the chances of Zeus existing are to be 50%, and the chances of him not existing also 50%, why is that the case?
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I know what average is, I am asking what is the premise for using it as the default. For it being the case that "There is no way to place any other percentage but average there."
Created:
Posted in:
So preference and importance is worship? You've been unreasonably stretching and reaching since the beginning of this convo. What I am saying is Atheist don't have anything that they put under such a high regard as I put God.
Even if, let's say for example, money is the most important thing to them. And God is the most important thing to me. They don't regard money in nearly as high a regard as I do God. In fact, it might even be the case that money is as important to me as it is to them.
For me, God is such a high enough being as to merit worship, for idolators, material things are of a high enough value to them for them to worship, for atheists there is no such thing, not even what is comparatively most important to them. Another way to put it is material things are not as important to atheists as God is important to me. But it can be the case that material things are as important to idolators as God is important to me.
Even if, let's say for example, money is the most important thing to them. And God is the most important thing to me. They don't regard money in nearly as high a regard as I do God. In fact, it might even be the case that money is as important to me as it is to them.
For me, God is such a high enough being as to merit worship, for idolators, material things are of a high enough value to them for them to worship, for atheists there is no such thing, not even what is comparatively most important to them. Another way to put it is material things are not as important to atheists as God is important to me. But it can be the case that material things are as important to idolators as God is important to me.
Sure, give us the quote from Quran. Forgiveness and treatment arent same things. Do you think God would forgive atheist who did many sins over a Christian who followed many more laws of Islam?
I already did.
https://islam4u.pro/blog/shirk-in-the-quran/#Shirk_in_the_Quran_God_Does_not_Forgive_One_who_Does_ShirkWhether or not God would forgive an atheist depends on that individual, depends on whether or not that atheist repents and sees the light in his future. The atheist has the potential to be forgiven depending on what he does next, the mushrik has no such potential.
So the fight was self defense rather than just based on religion, making your argument irrelevant then.
Explain your logic.
And while I am at it, why are self-defense and based on religion mutually exclusive?
And while I am at it, why are self-defense and based on religion mutually exclusive?
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
The average of all percentage is 50% for one God there. There is no way to place any other percentage but average there.
What is the premise of this logic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Strawman, and I'll correct you. I think if the God of Islam existed, and he were truthful, he would as he said not forgive the attributing of Jesus Christ with being God.
You are the one putting words in my mouth. You claim that I say God prefers people who worship themselves and Earthly goods, with the basis being your claim that atheists worship themselves and Earthly goods, a claim that you haven't backed up.
I think you're completely missing the point that Atheists don't have a "God" or any kind of object of worship in their hearts at all. Atheists are by definition faithless.
Are you sure it wasnt self-defense there instead?
The prophet Mohammed was forcibly driven out of Mecca after he started preaching and they also attempted to assassinate him.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
The average probability is 50% for each by default.
What is the premise of this default? Or is it just a logical axiom you decided on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
"The term shirk in Islam is used to refer to idolatry or polytheism, which means deification, or worship of deity, gods, or anything other than Allāh."Money and Earthly pleasures are atheist's deities now.
These are Idolators, not atheists, get your definitions straight. And don't say "There isn't a difference". The people the sahaba fought and/or educated in Mecca and Medina were not atheists, they were people committing actual idolatry, actual worship of statues and the material, not whatever it is you're trying to attribute to atheists.
So yeah, if giving higher importance to something different than Allah is a sin, atheist commits it.
Like this for example, you make the loosest of connections and call it """worship"""
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Ah, so it is irrespective of human perception. So how many 'Gods' possibly exist then? Potentially an infinite amount? But also in that case what are the chances for each of them existing? 1/2? 1/10? 1/1 quadrillion? And if so what is the basis for that? And what is the basis for denying other proposed probabilities such as 1/infinity?
For example, theologically speaking there is a much stronger case for the Abrahamic God than there is for Zeus or Thor, but is the dice rolled for each of them equal? Is the information at our disposal irrelevant? Does the flying spaghetti monster have a chance at existing? A chance that is more than just grasping at straws?
Like, are we really from a logical point of view just rolling some kind of dice an infinite amount of times? That's seriously the argument?
For example, theologically speaking there is a much stronger case for the Abrahamic God than there is for Zeus or Thor, but is the dice rolled for each of them equal? Is the information at our disposal irrelevant? Does the flying spaghetti monster have a chance at existing? A chance that is more than just grasping at straws?
Like, are we really from a logical point of view just rolling some kind of dice an infinite amount of times? That's seriously the argument?
Created:
Posted in:
Am I being trolled here? Not only are you saying atheists by definition commit worship, but also you say "This is just an assumption" and follow it up with an assumption. No offense intended but do you read what you write before you click 'Create Post'?
Let's put an end to the hypothetical then since clearly you lack imagination,
https://islam4u.pro/blog/shirk-in-the-quran/#Shirk_in_the_Quran_God_Does_not_Forgive_One_who_Does_Shirk (mainly the part about not forgiving Shirk)
Additionally, if one is the type of Christian that considers Jesus as God and/or the son of God, in a world where the God who wrote the Quran exists, such a person would be committing Shirk. To my knowledge this includes at the very least Catholics.
I wasn't making an assumption there, don't accuse me of making assumptions, especially when you have little to no basis for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Not really. Plus, with Islam and Christianity having basically same moral standards, atheists by disobeying one disobey both. And atheists are indeed more likely to sin. Especially sexual sins which are so strongly condemned.
I am not talking about how likely a Muslim, a Christian and an Atheist are to obey or disobey the various tenets of Islam or Christianity. I am speaking purely and solely specifically about God's orders against us worshipping other Gods.
Let us say for the sake of argument that, in the hypothetical scenario I proposed, being for example a Christian in a world where Allah existed, even if it led you to obey more of Allah's overall tenets as compared to the atheist, Allah would consider you to have sinned worse than the atheist because of the sin of worshipping a false God despite everything else you've done, and the same would be true if you were a Muslim in a world where the Christian God existed.
Now I want to be clear off topic that outside of this hypothetical in real life, it is better to for example be a Christian in a world where Allah exists, as Allah considers Christians and Jewish people as people of the book, and they are not in error of following a false God. So if hypotheticals are difficult for you, you can in the scenario I proposed replace one of the two Gods with Zeus, and say for the sake of argument that Zeus also will consider you an offender deserving of eternal punishment if you worship a God other than him regardless of how many of his tenets and orders you obeyed.
Let us say for the sake of argument that, in the hypothetical scenario I proposed, being for example a Christian in a world where Allah existed, even if it led you to obey more of Allah's overall tenets as compared to the atheist, Allah would consider you to have sinned worse than the atheist because of the sin of worshipping a false God despite everything else you've done, and the same would be true if you were a Muslim in a world where the Christian God existed.
Now I want to be clear off topic that outside of this hypothetical in real life, it is better to for example be a Christian in a world where Allah exists, as Allah considers Christians and Jewish people as people of the book, and they are not in error of following a false God. So if hypotheticals are difficult for you, you can in the scenario I proposed replace one of the two Gods with Zeus, and say for the sake of argument that Zeus also will consider you an offender deserving of eternal punishment if you worship a God other than him regardless of how many of his tenets and orders you obeyed.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
But then does that mean that at the start of the universe the chances of God existing were zero because there didn't yet exist intelligent life to worship any Gods?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
What if the parameters for pascals wager were inversed?
For example, let us say that in Islam the worshipping of false Gods is a terrible sin, worse than being an atheist. That if it so happened that the God of Islam, Allah, existed, you would be punished if you were atheist, but still have a chance to go to heaven. But if you were a worshipper of a false God (or Gods) you would suffer eternally in hell.
And I do not know as much about Christianity as I do about Islam, but let us say for the sake of argument that such is the case for Christianity as well, so for example, if Christianity were the one true religion, but you were a Muslim, you'd suffer worse than if you were an atheist. (And yes, I know the God for both religions is the same God, but let's set that aside for now for the sake of argument)
Under such a scenario, while being without religion means that you will suffer under the case that *any* God exists. You will suffer even worse than that (and suffer eternally, the opposite of being rewarded eternally) for picking the *wrong* God if either of the Gods I described is the one that exists. And be rewarded eternally for picking the *correct* God if the God you worshipped is the one that exists. (and is one to reward worship)
For example, let us say that in Islam the worshipping of false Gods is a terrible sin, worse than being an atheist. That if it so happened that the God of Islam, Allah, existed, you would be punished if you were atheist, but still have a chance to go to heaven. But if you were a worshipper of a false God (or Gods) you would suffer eternally in hell.
And I do not know as much about Christianity as I do about Islam, but let us say for the sake of argument that such is the case for Christianity as well, so for example, if Christianity were the one true religion, but you were a Muslim, you'd suffer worse than if you were an atheist. (And yes, I know the God for both religions is the same God, but let's set that aside for now for the sake of argument)
Under such a scenario, while being without religion means that you will suffer under the case that *any* God exists. You will suffer even worse than that (and suffer eternally, the opposite of being rewarded eternally) for picking the *wrong* God if either of the Gods I described is the one that exists. And be rewarded eternally for picking the *correct* God if the God you worshipped is the one that exists. (and is one to reward worship)
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Muslim here, and while I will very gladly take any reasonable argument for the existence of God. This uhhhh..., the way this seems to work, at least from what I read of your writing, is that the chances of God existing go increase the more "Gods" (or religions) we worship. But this gives a troubling implication, the implication that the chances/odds of God existing are connected to our perception of the world. And by extension, God's existence itself is (or could be) connected to our perception of the world.
I find this a very troubling implication. God is God. If he exists then he simply does. And if it were to happen that less people (or less religions) were to have existed, that would neither reduce God's existence nor the logical probability of him existing. We're not rolling the dice for each God to see whether that God exists or not. The universe already either existed with God or without God.
It already displeases me when I see the argument "There are so many religions/Gods that it is unlikely any of them is correct", such as for example what Double_R said at the end of post 29. It's not going to make me any more pleased to read the argument "There are so many religions/Gods that it is likely at least one of them is correct".
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I understood all of that from the very start, perhaps I didn't word it very well when I used the word 'believe'.(Then again in my defense, I used 'conclude' instead on the other half, reading what you said again, I think my second half was pretty spot on so I don't know what this reaction you gave is about) What I was getting to is that the exercise is not intended to ask "If God existed, what is, according to your deductive reasoning, the most likely form and/or personality that he would have?". You completely miss the point by continuing to bring your irl lack of belief and my and Trade's irl beliefs into this topic.
Look, I am not gonna repeat myself anymore, if you don't wish to hypothetically imagine a God whose orders you'd struggle with (or hell, has any orders to begin with) that's your prerogative. But if you want to talk about whether or not God exists, what a super intelligent God would be like, and/or what we know and don't know about the universe, please do so in a more relevant topic and/or debate.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I think there might be a misunderstanding here, I do not know for sure why my understanding of the law is being brought up here but I could attempt a guess, my guess is that you might think I am making some kind of statement about law.
I am not, to me God's orders and the law of man are completely separate. In fact, even within the context of Islam and Sharia law, God's orders and what God orders us to make law are separate. For example in Islam God orders other to pray 5 times a day, and God also orders us not to kill another without a just cause. The former is not part of Sharia law but the latter is. The distinction can be made as such, it is because God orders us to pray 5 times a day, but does not order us to prevent or punish offenders of this order (God alone holds the right to deliver such punishment, if he wishes). Whereas God orders us not to kill another without just cause, and also to prevent and punish offenders of this order.
I think this is probably the case in Christianity too, for example God might order you to go to Church on Sundays, but does not order you to force others to go to Church on Sundays.
Sorry for the long tirade that's not that relevant to the topic exercise, but I believed it'd be best to clear things up regarding how I view God and Law.
On another note, you are correct that God does what he does with intent and with reason, God would not out of no where ask us to kill infants. The exercise is not intended to answer why God does what he does, and, partially as you guessed, is intended to demonstrate why one would or would not obey God, and to what extent of outrageous orders would one stop obeying God.
And so far the answers are largely binary and, at the risk of offending everyone who answered here(yourself included), unimaginative.
Atheists answering that they'd disobey God, imagine only the God of our most popular religion and declaring him incoherent(and maybe potentially implying that I am Christian, lmao), or imagining a God that agrees with them and doesn't give orders.
Theists simply answering that they'd obey God, and in your case, declaring(or at least implying) that in our real world, outside of this hypothetical, God's existence is an easy to determine fact. (And while, as Muslim myself, I'd argue for this also, this particular exercise is not intended to tackle that particular question, though I do still appreciate your comments)
There hasn't been a more nuanced answer that was something like "I would obey God unless he ordered me to do xyz", this exercise is also partially intended to invoke exploration into the new and/or uncomfortable. And in small part to kind of semi implicitly ask others, in a world where God exists, whether God would be morally good because he follows and adheres to what is moral, or because he decides what is moral.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Is that what you believe God should be like? or what you've concluded is most likely the personality God would have if he were to exist? The exercise is not meant to tackle either of these questions. It's meant to tackle something like, for instance, if God ordered you to kill innocent infants, would you do it? Assuming hypothetically that there is no room for misinterpretation that this is one of God's orders and that God exists. There is not much mental interaction with the exercise or internal challenge if the God you imagine is one you already agree with.
Back to my main question though, and I apologize for continuing to try your patience, but I still don't understand what what you said has to do with the relation between God's expectation of us and God's order/message to us. I suppose minus the part where you concluded there wouldn't be orders.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I think I am lost somewhere in your explanation. What is the connection between God's expectations of us and his orders/message to us?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
For the purposes of this exercise, you're intended in this hypothetical to yourself imagine what God's orders to us are, one of the reasons being to determine, at what point (if any) would the orders be outrageous enough that you would refuse to obey these orders.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The exercise is not necessarily intended to examine the bible or the God in the bible. You can either examine in this "in a world where God exists" hypothetical scenario one of the other religions we have like Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and so on. Or you could even instead imagine a religion that does not exist in our current world.
In fact, I'd argue that "In a world where God exists", it only makes more sense that the message of the God you're imagining is without contradiction or error. If you wish to regardless examine the scenario in which case the message is full of contradictions and errors, you can. Especially if you'd find that makes it more interesting. But from the sound of your comment, it sounds like that would only make the scenario less interesting to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Sure. How is that relevant to what I said?
It demonstrates that your response does not display any errors or contentions in my original statement. Nothing I've said discourages loyalty to Allah or implies that that be secondary.
When it comes to Law, yes. When it comes to Politics, no. State actions are, by design, collectivist.
That's still a shallow way of looking at things. Even if the nation populace are the blood and meat of the state, and the low ranking military soldiers are the muscle of the state, those at the top, are the brains of the state, the decision makers. The people at the bottom are just the wheels and the engine of the car, but the people at the top are the true drivers, the ones who decide where the car goes.
You would be correct if you were to, for example, say that the Zionists in charge of Israel are our enemies and are enemies of humanity as a result of the terrorism and war crimes and other offenses they have committed.
But even then, even in politics, we should be acting in an individual case-by-case basis. State actions should not be considered as collectivist, especially as far as culpability is concerned.
You just need to learn more History. They knows yours & convinced you they have none. You have to come to the realization that different peoples have different origins, identities, histories, national memories, faiths... each are ultimately loyal to their own, & you must be loyal to yours. This does not diminish from the inviolable & dignified quality of humans in general –unless hostile.
Firstly, I have never said nor implied that Jewish people don't have their histories, cultures, etc. , this is a short-sighted assumption you've made about me.
Secondly and more importantly, no, just no, loyalty is not the key important factor here, whether it comes to human progress, societal progress, or theological and spiritual progress. Reason and logic is the key important factor to these things and more. We should not be followers of Islam because it was the faith that we were brought up in and grew up with and learned and raised in, we should be followers of Islam because it is the one true religion of the one true God containing his one true message to us.
On the contrary, according to the platonic aspects of Islam. Sticking to tradition, history, origin and/or upbringing, merely for the sake of them having these qualities, is an unislamic notion, because Islam came to the world educating pre-Islamic Arabs against their polytheism, against their ignorant and outdated traditions and customs. Not only is there no inherent merit to loyalty to what you grew up with. But it is also a negative characteristic, both logically and spiritually, to say that one must be loyal to their identities, histories, origins, etc. , Islam might not necessarily be anti-tradition(especially since it, in itself, is a tradition now), but it is, at the very least, anti-blind loyalty to tradition.
You are correct that these things hold weight in peoples minds, and that many of them will be loyal to them, but that does not mean that we 'should', let alone 'must', be loyal to them as well. That is just a non-sequitur.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Not necessarily, its up to you whether or not the message of the God you are imagining is coherent. And, as I mentioned previously, whether or not there is possible room for misinterpretation in said message.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
Our loyalty is with Allah & His prophet (pbuh)
Yes, and Allah highlighted to us our unity with them in monotheism and in believing in the one true God, and ordered us to be kind and generous to them and conduct peaceful dialogue with them, except for those who commit injustice.
Given that we're ordered to be generally kind, and to deal with injustice in a case-by-case basis that focuses on the individual's actions. I feel like generalizing them, and/or 'othering' them as "this group that is a threat to our society, values and/or future" in a not case-by-case that focuses on the group/demographic, I feel like doing that would only make it more difficult, if not become contradictory, to the set of orders Allah gave us that I mentioned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Yassine
I feel like we're doing a lot of confusing Jewish people with Zionists here.
And sure, Jewish people and Christians are heretics and heathens to each other and to us Muslims and vice-versa. But all three of us, true believers at least, are supposed to be brothers in the struggle against human corruption. Should we really focus more on our differences than on what we have in common? The biggest enemy will always be the devil and his influence.
Created:
I am contemplating on making this a debate topic(where I argue that, given such a scenario, we should obey God), but for now I'll post it as a forum topic to maybe get more/various views in lighter format. Though feel free to write long paragraphs if you'd like to.
The world we're examining
The scenario here presents that the world we're examining is a world where, for the sake of argument, God 100% exists without question beyond room for doubt. For example one day everyone in the world all at once hear God talk to them in their mind, say at exactly 2/26/2025 5:00 pm gmt time, regardless of whether you're awake or asleep/unconscious. And then again at exactly 7:31 pm gmt time the next day. (If the scenario doesn't prove it to you, then use your imagination to imagine a scenario that can prove God to everyone. The scenario itself does not matter as much as constructing a world where, for the sake of argument, God's existence is known beyond possible doubt)
God's message
In the world we're examining, I'll present that we know what God's message is, be it what is written in the Bible, the Quran, a different religious book, similar to one/several of them, or a completely different message or set of messages from any of the holy books we have.
I'll personally recommend for the purposes of this exercise that we examine it as if, for the sake of argument, we know without room for misinterpretation *exactly* what God means by his words. But you're free to examine it instead where we could potentially misinterpret God's message if that interests you.
God's qualities
The scenario also presents that God has at least these qualities. Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence. And that we know beyond doubt that God has these qualities. And that God created the world and everything in it. Typically God is also associated with Omnibenevolence, however, for the sake of this exercise we won't assume that that is a known quality about God. That whether the God you're imagining in this exercise is in fact Omnibenevolent or not, such a thing would not be verifiable by us. For example God could be one that orders us things we find evil like killing innocent children, or one that promises us heaven if we obey him but actually lied about that and sends us all to hell no matter what we do. (Although you are free to instead attribute God to being known as Omnibenevolent if you find that more interesting)
Additionally, only one God exists, if any other powerful entities exist (Angels, Satan, etc.), even if they're more powerful than us, they wouldn't be to able to do anything or make any changes to the world that God doesn't allow, and that all their powers combined would still be infinitely less than God's power.
The question
Under such a scenario, should we obey God? (And how much/to what extent should we obey him?) And in whichever case the answer is, would that answer be because of ethical reasons, pragmatic reasons, and/or whichever else other reasons you can think of? Additionally can you imagine variables that would change your answer to this exercise? (Such as for example the specifics of what God's message is)
Created:
Posted in:
I am sorry, but am I seriously reading here some people saying great replacement rhetoric? Aside from the ones that are joking, these should be red flags.
Created:
-->
@Mall
No because my answer, response and elaboration follows. 'Non-sequitur' is not a hereditary condition.
Created:
-->
@Mall
I believe in what there is in common between them and the Quran. And among the things in common between them is discouraging pride and encouraging humility.
Besides, even an atheist, even if they're incorrect in their belief(or lack thereof), even those that don't believe in anything in the scripture, are still correct in pointing out your hypocrisy. You hold other people to standards you don't hold yourself to.
Also your question is a non-sequitur but I have answered it regardless.
Created:
-->
@Mall
The scripture also encourages humility as a virtue. You're making the mistake of thinking that confidence and learning from others are mutually exclusive.
Additionally, if everyone emulates your level of confidence and standing your position, except for their position. Then not only would people be less likely to learn from each other. When they interact with you, they would be doing *exactly* the very thing you are criticizing them of.
Created:
-->
@Shila
While Mall's general attitude is of putting you down. I'd disagree that debates are generally involved in that. In my mind proper constructive debates ideally end with either or both parties having grown or learned even just a little bit at the conclusion of the debate. Even in cases where neither of them moves from their main held position.
That said, its perfectly valid to not participate in debates, and your unwillingness to debate does not (necessarily on its own) reflect on your position poorly. I just merely wanted to voice my disagreement to your viewpoint of debates.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Hey, dodge the challenge if you can't defend your belief or position strongly enough.. I think the scripture say seek not what is above what you could understand.....I think it says .....if the way be too long for thee.
An ironic thing that irks me about you is that you carry so much of your dialogue (and debates) in such a way that, people (are supposed to) have something to learn from you. And so little of your dialogue (and debates) is carried in such a way that you have something to learn from others or from whoever you're talking to.
You preach for others to seek out the correct answers but don't do much of that yourself, carrying yourself in such a way as if you already have the answers.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I think Shila might've interpreted your statements as "Critical thinking is the domain of atheism and not theism" or "Critical thinking is more so the domain of atheism than it is the domain of theism" and was objecting to that.
Created:
-->
@Mall
I can't say any of those statements are true for the agnostic I'm taking about.
In that case that, combined with your answer of "No." to the question I gave, allows me the ability to say that neither statement is true of the atheist either. Or at the very least, that your dichotomy is insufficient on its own to conclude that one of the two statements must be true for the atheist.
As far as atheists, people that learn and are taught things of the world, science, academics, biology, etc., begin to question, receive answers and so forth come to a conclusion and decide how God enters into the secular realm of understanding, they decide to reject there is a God which is different from a theist rejecting that there is not a God.
Could you elaborate on what "reject there is a God" means exactly?
And could you elaborate on what "rejecting there is not a God" also means? Additionally, does "rejecting there is not a God" always necessarily require "affirming positively that there is a God" ?
Created:
-->
@Mall
If you believe I don't properly understand what you mean I'll give you the opportunity by asking, what do you mean when you say atheists come into the knowledge of the world?
Additionally even with this, I'll still want an answer to this also.
Agnostics believe there is God.
Agnostics believe there is no God.
Which of the statements is true and which is false?
Created:
-->
@Mall
Aha but you see. Therin lies the fault in your chain of conclusion. The chains don't link. Once again you do not elaborate at all on the specific argument I asked you to elaborate on, that deals with the false dichotomy you presented, and instead opted to add additional external arguments. Not only do you, once again, fail to support the premise you've attempted to establish at the beginning of our conversation in this topic. But also by expanding upon the scope of this discussion and not limiting yourself to the (false) dichotomy you'd normally fall under due to the line of logic, you allow me to do the same. Especially when you fail to provide reasoning and nuance about (your classification of) the agnostic that I can't use on the Atheist. And additionally you allow me to use my own external counter-arguments to counter your external arguments.
Observe.
Atheists from my experience have explained themselves to not know about God. They're asked do they believe in God, they say they don't know, they're undecided. And this is true by the way, I am not merely mirroring your argument just for the sake of.
As for your statements that describe atheists "come into the knowledge of the world" and about "believing in the non-existence of God." What is your evidence for that? Within the scope of this conversation thus far you have not defended your dichotomy, and otherwise provided no other basis, so your claim currently lies without a basis.
And for the final part "when you remain neutral or agnostic", once again you simply declare your classification of the agnostic without elaboration. Throughout the course of this conversation your whole argument about your classification of the 'agnostic' has been all rhetoric and no substance.
I already presented this during our debate that matches the topic title, but regardless, here it is again.
This challenges your claim that "atheists come into the knowledge of the world" as theism/atheism does not deal with the knowledge axis, it deals with the belief axis.
It additionally challenges your classification of the agnostic as neutral. As the gnostic/agnostic does not deal with the belief axis, it deals with the knowledge axis.
With all that said, before the argument expands any further (to the point that it is less of a topic reply chain and more of a debate), I'll take us back to the start of this conversation. The (false) dichotomy you've presented and hopefully you do not avoid to address it (and mainly how it interacts with your answer regarding the agnostic) this time as the question I'll pose will be straightforward.
Agnostics believe there is God.
Agnostics believe there is no God.
Which of the statements is true and which is false?
Created:
-->
@Mall
You say it does not contradict your dichotomy yet you do not explain how. You merely reiterate your classification of the atheist and the agnostic without addressing how each interact with the dichotomy you presented as "evidence" for the atheist's "sway"
Nor do you say anything to address why I can't apply your same logic to (your classification of) the agnostic.
Ok, let's take things back from the top.
Pulling teeth but finally got you to agree that one of the statements is false.Atheists believe there is God.(False)Atheists believe there is no God .Atheists believe there is God.(False - Does an atheist believe there is the spirit of God? The answer of no is why this statement is false.)
Could you give an elaboration in regards to this argument as to how it showcases that the atheist has a 'belief', without that elaboration being something that I can use to showcase (off of your same answer of 'No.') that the "agnostic" has a 'belief'?
And, if you provide a nuance as to how the agnostic does not have a belief, can you provide one that I can not use to provide how the atheist does not have a belief?
Created:
-->
@Shila
I see the confusion. But no. Even if you identify as Muslim and obey the things said in the Quran, etc. If you are also worshipping other gods other than God, then he will not recognize you as a true Muslim.
Created:
-->
@Shila
I didn't say either of the two makes you a Muslim. I said the former incurs more of God's wrath than the latter.
Created:
I know you're meming, but I'll give this response anyway. In Islam polytheism is the greatest sin. So much so, that you actually are further away from Islam if you're a polytheist (even if Islam is one of your religions) than you would be if you were an atheist.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Agnostics are not swaying to either side of a belief as they move on evidence only. The more evidence oriented, the more logic as the two spring from one another. That's how you get that conclusion.
Does this classification of agnostic not contradict how your (false) dichotomy classifies the atheist as someone with a swayed position though? You used:
Atheists believe there is God.(False)Atheists believe there is no God.
In order to argue that, as a result of my "No" answer. "Atheists believe there is no God." must be true, and therefor as a consequence atheists have a belief system. They 'believe' that there is no God.
However, in response to your same "No" answer, I can use the same argument:
Agnostics believe there is God.(False)Agnostics believe there is no God.
In order to argue that, "Agnostics believe there is no God." must be a true statement, and therefor agnostics have a belief system. They 'believe' that there is no God. Not in a "not swaying to either side of a belief" position.
As things stand currently, to what I am aware of, you'd have to either stick to your original dichotomy and concede that "Agnostics believe there is no God." is a true statement, thus contradicting your classification of agnostic. Or, you'd have to create a third statement/option for the agnostics (for example: "Agnostics neither believe there is God, nor believe there is no God."), but thus undermining your dichotomy and allowing me to give the same response for the atheist based on our exchanges thus far.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Not what I expected, but honestly thanks a lot. I know you said all this with respect and I appreciate that. I hope to live up to it.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Clearly you haven't read the debate I linked, in there I also argue that Atheist and Agnostic are coexisting terms.
I think you're making a misunderstanding here. Just because I am using Mall's own logic against him during this particular exchange doesn't mean that I myself am adopting it.
Edit: I get that the debate is long and there's a lot to read, but that's why I provided bullet point titles. For example with Agnostic vs Atheist you can just ctrl+f Agnostic vs Atheist to skip right to the area of the debate I am referencing.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Tell you what? I'll help you out. You can see in more detail what I think about Agnosticism (and Atheism) under https://www.debateart.com/debates/5789-atheists-that-believe-no-god-exists-due-to-no-evidence-known-is-a-weak-basis at Agnostic vs Atheist (And to some extent the nearby ones Types of Atheists and Lack of belief vs Belief in the opposite)
I already went through the definitional argument with Mall, at length. Now, right now, right this moment, I am using his own logic against him so as to challenge the very premise of his false dichotomy. The logic he uses to arrive at "While atheists disbelieve, agnostics actually don't." can also be used to arrive at "While agnostics disbelieve, atheists actually don't." which contradicts his usage of Agnostic and Atheist as exclusive terms. Yeah, I can use other arguments, but right now I am electing to focus on this.
Created:
-->
@Mall
That's right, agnostics are more rational based not swaying to either side of a belief.
Now given what we've said, and both of us answering no to the same question, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
Let me repeat what can be argued using your own logic process so far.
*Ahem*
Pulling teeth but finally got you to agree that one of the statements is false.
Agnostics believe there is God.(False)
Agnostics believe there is no God .
Agnostics believe there is God.(False - Does an agnostic believe there is the spirit of God? The answer of no is why this statement is false.)
While agnostics disbelieve, atheists actually don't.
Are you going to actually respond to this?
Created:
-->
@Shila
Your statement “While agnostics disbelieve, atheists actually don't.” is wrong
I know, but you seem to be completely missing the point. I am demonstrating to Mall the internal inconsistency of his logic.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Before I properly respond, which argument are you arguing for? That Agnostic and Atheist are mutually exclusive characteristics? Or that they aren't?
Also unfortunately to us, Mall does not really partake in definitions, at least from my experience in debates with him, so that's why I opted not to take this approach.
Created:
-->
@Mall
While atheists disbelieve, agnostics actually don't.
No Idea how that was the conclusion you arrived at. It is really funny how blind you are to the irony. You said my answer of "No" eventually leads up, as evidence, to how unreasonable an atheist is, yet you also gave "No" to the exact same question when it referred to your classification of agnostic. So here's your own logic pattern thrown at you using your answer.
*Ahem*
Pulling teeth but finally got you to agree that one of the statements is false.
Agnostics believe there is God.(False)
Agnostics believe there is no God .
Agnostics believe there is God.(False - Does an agnostic believe there is the spirit of God? The answer of no is why this statement is false.)
While agnostics disbelieve, atheists actually don't.
Created:
-->
@Mall
One more time. Just answer that and I will answer your question.
Fine. You said you'll answer my question. Ok. No need for the word "promise". I'll just take your word for it. And take it in good faith you put yourself under the same "Yes or no" dichotomy you put me under. And if you don't do that. Then I can just determine that you argue in bad faith and retract my answer and move on with my life.
Does an atheist believe there is the spirit of God?Yes or no.
No.
Now it's your turn.
Does an agnostic believe there is the spirit of God?
Yes or no.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Nah just answer that question first. Appreciate it comrade.
*Ahem*
In your own words...
"If you want to avoid answering, just let us all know."
Honestly, what's your reason for refusing the promise? I am still gonna answer the question first after you make the promise. I'll give my answer before you give your answer. So what's your reason for refusing even that?
Created: