Muslim medical students boycotting lectures on evolution

[falcon786]

apples and oranges. You can show him. "hey there is an option to unhide a folder".

You can't show God. - fact.

Er ya we humans are the users not the techies so to use newbies there is no "hey theres an option to unhide a folder". You know why?Because no matter how intelligent we think we are,we are still relatively wet behind the ears when it comes to unraveling the mysteries of the universe....theres just SO MUCH THAT WE DONT KNOW.

Can you say that we know everything?No, because we don't and sure as hell haven't hit that "unhide folder" option yet and possibly may never as it may be hidden from us also.

Faith seems to be just another word for guessing. Please disprove my all knowing fly tea my that is orbiting the sun. You have to realize that any belief in fantasy, myth or fables is just as good as believing in a God. I can have the best faith in the Lord of the Rings, fact is if I can't prove that mordor exists (apart from Drop zone in Pretoria) then there is no LOTR.

Er thats a movie,even the creators of the movie know and will admit its a fantasy so invalid point.

Well not "safely", just logically. I don't see how one can logically claim that there is/are no god(s), just as I can't see how one can logically claim there is/are god(s).

I'm sure there are some atheists that take the "there are definitely no gods" position. I'm guessing they are in the minority though.

Nicodeamus seems to be taking that stance.

@ falcon786

The only way to prove something exists or does not exist is via deductive logic. For example, I can prove a married bachelor does not exist as follows:
1) All bachelors are not married.
2) All married men are not bachelors.
3) Therefore a married bachelor does not exist.

Similarly, Aquinas' five ways or other arguments for the existence of God can be used as proofs. Read up on them. Sure, one can say not everyone will accept them, this is perfectly normal. A person may not accept the proof for the Pythagorean theroem by claiming that 2D planes don't exist or that it is just all made up nonsense or whatever. But that does not mean there are no proofs for the existence of God or proofs for the Pythagorean theroem. There are, just not everyone will accept them for whatever reason.

Interesting.....maybe i should look it up further.

 

[TheHiveMind]

Then I guess you must all pick between spaghetti monster and the other gods

 

[STS]

Then I guess you must all pick between spaghetti monster and the other gods

"God is not limited to the way he appears to you by making Himself
appropriate to your ability to receive Him. Therefore, no other
creatures are obliged to obey the God you worship, for He appears to
them in other forms." - Lbn Arabi

"Don't hang on exclusively to any particular creed so that you
disbelieve the rest, or you will disregard much that is good and miss
the real Truth. Allah is omnipotent and omnipresent and is not
contained by any one religion, for he says in the Qur'an 'Wherever you
turn, there is the face of Allah.'" - Lbn Arabi

 

[TheHiveMind]

First you must decide whether you believe in any god. If you do, then you must try to determine the nature of God. I do not believe in Zeus because there are more rational explanations for where lightning comes from. I do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster because it is a recent human invention by atheists with which to mock theists.

Is he though? Or did he reveal himself to us out of the very heart of scepticism?
Some might view it as evidence that he does not exist, but it is obviously his way of testing our faith in him.

 

[porchrat]

Is an atheist someone who believes in the nonexistence of God, or is an atheist someone who does not believe in the existence of God?

These two are not the same.

If it is the former then atheism is actually a religious belief system.

Most dictionaries include both definitions but note that if an atheist is someone who does not believe in gods that automatically includes the people that believe in the nonexistence of gods.

I go with "not believing in gods" as my definition. It makes more sense considering that the word "theist" doesn't differentiate between which gods you believe in and don't believe in or which individual stances you take. I don't see why atheism must now be nailed down to a specific rigid stance.

 

[alloytoo]

First you must decide whether you believe in any god. If you do, then you must try to determine the nature of God. I do not believe in Zeus because there are more rational explanations for where lightning comes from.

Really, that doesn't exclude Zeus from being able to toss lightning bolts, it merely allows an autopilot.

I do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster because it is a recent human invention by atheists with which to mock theists.

And the Abrahamic god is a slightly older invention intended to control the masses.

 

[Nerfherder]

Is an atheist someone who believes in the nonexistence of God, or is an atheist someone who does not believe in the existence of God?

These two are not the same.

If it is the former then atheism is actually a religious belief system.

Yawn..... this is about as arrogant as Muslims believing that you are born Muslim and if you take another religion then you will revert back to Islam.

You are born Atheist, then someone puts ideas in your head and you believe in god. If you took a newborn kid and then put it on an island and never told it about god... what would it believe ?

Atheism is not a creed or a belief, there are no tenants or rules other than one unifying idea. Not believing in god.

 

[copacetic]

Believing that God does not exist is a belief system. Not believing that God exists is not a belief system.

Actively asserting that god does not exist is a belief indeed, a very irrational one at that.

 

[CoolBug]

Recently I came across an awesome resource for learning called khanacademy.org, here you can learn anything from basic maths to biology to advanced physics.

But the difference is that it's free and based on short easy to understand videos, obviously you cant start at something advanced, you'd have to start at the basics.

here is the basic one on Evolution, hopefully it might help anyone that could be interested to learn more about it.

http://www.khanacademy.org/video/introduction-to-evolution-and-natural-selection?playlist=Biology

 

[CoolBug]

Actively asserting that god does not exist is a belief indeed, a very irrational one at that.

Of course, it is about as irrational and ridiculous as going around actively asserting that Unicorns, or Tokoloshes do not exist.

But I think it's slightly less irrational and ridiculous than actively asserting that these things do exist.

 

[Nerfherder]

Believing that God does not exist is a belief system. Not believing that God exists is not a belief system. Believing that God does not exist is a particular case of not believing that God exists.

How can NOT believing be a belief system ?, there is no "faith" in Atheism. There are many belief systems out there.... I don't believe in any of those systems, I HAVE NO BELIEF.

I think it is rational to believe in the nonexistence of unicorns, tokoloshes, etc.

I have often seen atheists compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, unicorns, etc. In my opinion this is not a fair comparison because Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, unicorns, etc. would inhabit the Earth in a physical form if they existed, therefore it should be possible to observe them if they existed. This is not the case with God as understood by the Abrahamic religions. Hence I think it is less rational to believe in Santa Claus, unicorns, etc. than it is to believe in God.

How ?

So because you can never see god there is more of a chance that he exists ? Your logic fails horribly !

How about just believing in things you can see.

How about getting back on the topic ?

 

[copacetic]

I think it is rational to believe in the nonexistence of unicorns, tokoloshes, etc.

I have often seen atheists compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, unicorns, etc. In my opinion this is not a fair comparison because Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, unicorns, etc. would inhabit the Earth in a physical form if they existed, therefore it should be possible to observe them if they existed. This is not the case with God as understood by the Abrahamic religions. Hence I think it is less rational to believe in Santa Claus, unicorns, etc. than it is to believe in God.

God (Abrahamic) is very clearly able to, and has manifested in physical interaction with our world according to the bible (for example).

There is no empirical evidence for this whatsoever. In precisely the same way, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for the existence of unicorns.

 

[Nerfherder]

God (Abrahamic) is very clearly able to, and has manifested in physical interaction with our world according to the bible (for example).

There is no empirical evidence for this whatsoever. In precisely the same way, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for the existence of unicorns.

Ye.. pretty much.

Let me just add for clarity that I consider most of the bible a work of fiction, as with most myths there are partial truths then the rest is embellishment.
The reason being is that historical evidence and recorded history does not back up the bible. Also we know that the bible was altered over time... so even if it was the true word of a god it is not now.

Hence god and unicorns are on the same level.

 

[porchrat]

I think it is rational to believe in the nonexistence of unicorns, tokoloshes, etc.

I have often seen atheists compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, unicorns, etc. In my opinion this is not a fair comparison because Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, unicorns, etc. would inhabit the Earth in a physical form if they existed, therefore it should be possible to observe them if they existed. This is not the case with God as understood by the Abrahamic religions. Hence I think it is less rational to believe in Santa Claus, unicorns, etc. than it is to believe in God.

There is no such thing as "less rational" rationality is binary. Something is either rational or irrational.

Being "less rational" is like being "less not pregnant".

Besides Santa and unicorns and stuff are magical. Obviously they use their magic to avoid detection, duh. Just like the Abrahamic god.

Strikes me as a little weird claiming that saying one magical entity exists is more or less rational than saying another magical entity exists.

 

[Nerfherder]

Analyse the syntax of what I wrote carefully.

Symantics.

You are still wrong.

EDIT: You have a belief... I don't, its as simple as that.

 

[copacetic]

If unicorns existed I would be able to observe them living in nature. Since no uncorn has ever been observed living in nature I conclude that they do not exist.

If God exists I would not necessarily be able to observe God living in nature. So the fact that I have not observed God living in nature does not lead me to conclude that God does not exist.

Hence I consider the questions of the existence of God and unicorns to have different statuses.

Do you disagree with what I wrote:

God (Abrahamic) is very clearly able to, and has manifested in physical interaction with our world according to the bible (for example).

There is no empirical evidence for this whatsoever. In precisely the same way, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever for the existence of unicorns.

 

[porchrat]

If unicorns existed I would be able to observe them living in nature. Since no unicorn has ever been observed living in nature I conclude that they do not exist.

Unicorns are undetectable because of their magic.

If God exists I would not necessarily be able to observe God living in nature.

Same with unicorns. (see above)

So the fact that I have not observed God living in nature does not lead me to conclude that God does not exist.

It is if you want to be consistent with your approach to unicorns.

Hence I consider the questions of the existence of God and unicorns to have different statuses.

Then you're using special pleading.

 

[copacetic]

Can you clarify what you mean by the word "empirical"?

The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experimentation.[1] Empirical data are data produced by an experiment or observation.

.

 

[Nerfherder]

I never wrote that not believing in God is a belief system. However believing that God does not exist is a belief system.

In other words you have a religion that does not believe in Unicorns.

You still don't get it man... why should I have any kind of belief that a god could exist.

Could a greater power exist ? Indeed.

First we thought god was in the sky... then we got to the sky and there was space, then we thought that god was in space... then we got to space and there was nothing. The same with creation, the miracles in the bible, and judgement day.

We have come to realize that all these things that we thought could prove god were a lie... hence the idea that there is a god is a lie.

Its like if some one found a story book(from now) in 20 000 years they might believe that the stories are true... because if someone put it down in a book it must be true.
The bible/Torah/Koran is a story book

 

[copacetic]

In that case I disagree that there is no empirical evidence of the existence of God. Many people have perceived the presence of God over thousands of years.

Oh?

God is very obviously schizophrenic then.

*edit*

And no, there is no empirical evidence for god, you are quite incorrect about this.