Simple questions need to be answered to

1 2
  • Good morning everyone

    As its known most of fans on this pages are atheists, I would like to ask several simple questions

    - Is Atheism a religion ? if no then it must be a belief. because the fact that you don't believe in anything is a belief itself,

    you don't warship a GOD, but your warship something else, like money, sex, women, fame.....this is human nature, if we have the same psychology and same medical, then the same character would be imposed.

    the anthropology and the history scientists proved, according to the study of the old civilizations, that, the human being needs to warship or at least to be afraid of some " powerful higher power " because for example those old people of the Aztec civilization never met with the Phoenicians or Egyptians or Australians, but guess what ? they all agreed to believe in this super higher power, which called GOD, doesnt matter what was, Thunder or sun or moon, or Jesus or in my case what I believe in (Almighty ALLAH), this reflects the pure reaction of human being toward believing in GOD. But maybe someone would talk to me about science, than I would ask, Is there any Scientific evidence that GOD doesnt exist ? science talks about two bases of theory , observation and experimentation, is there any proof build upon those two important elements that leads us to the belief of ( GOD doesnt exist)

    GOD doesnt exist is a belief or an escape for those who refuse to put limits in their lives, limits they're afraid of, or those who really were lost between thousands of false beliefs, but once the normal human is fallen on ISLAM, he would realize the truth and purpose of existence, because Islam talks to brains and hearts in same time. its logical because it comes from the source, and please let's not talk about Muslims, like Rougie Garoudi (philosopher converted to Islam) said : thanks to ALLAH, I knew Islam before I know Muslims

    PS : too many big scientists and professors around the world became Muslims because the fact and trust and peace they found in Islam

    I hope we will have respectful discussion

    with greetings, thank you all



    Like this post to subscribe to the topic.
  • if no then it must be a belief. because the fact that you don't believe in anything is a belief itself,

    Atheism is a belief in the same way 'not stamp collecting' is a hobby, or 'not playing baseball' is a sport. Belief and non-belief are not equivalent, it is a logical error to say that they are. It would be equal to saying that false and true are the same things because all false things are true, you lose all distinction between all claims and all logic falls apart.

  • My Dear

    you can't compare between Believe which is necessity and no one can deny it and the hobby example, the normal instinct of human is to believe in GOD, its psychologically and genetically installed , so choosing to not warship any GOD and denying them is most likely coz u chose to warship ur desires or u'r too much despaired

    please watch this video

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10202166014134010

  • you can't compare between Believe which is necessity and no one can deny it and the hobby example, the normal instinct of human is to believe in GOD, its psychologically and genetically installed , so choosing to not warship any GOD and denying them is most likely coz u chose to warship ur desires or u'r too much despaired

    It is a normal stage of life for children to believe in monsters under the bed or in the dark it is psychologically and developmentally important, does that mean that monsters must exist? Just because a lot of people believe in god, does not establish that as true.

    You make to many assumptions about me, In fact it is kind of rude of you to assume you have intimate knowledge of my psychological make up. My position regarding worship is best summed up in a quote from one of my favourite books.

    “Wise people say it is folly to think anybody perfect; and as to likes and dislikes, we should be friendly to all, and worship none”

    ― Charlotte Brontë, Villette

    This quote sums up my position nicely, I do not need to worship anything. Just because you feel you need to worship does not mean all people feel the same way. In fact I am going to call you out on this, back up that claim, show me what evidence you have which proves that all humans must worship something.



    Updated 38 months ago by the author.
  • again you compare between the incomparable, you wouldnt compare between very basic thing in life as Believe and the fantasy or very high imagination of children, I am gona make it this simple, do you have one proof that GOD doesnt exist ?

  • and by the way, as for you, denying GOD doesnt mean HE doesnt exist

  • It is not my job to prove a negative. It is the job of those who put forward a positive claim to back up their claim, if someone says god exists it is up to them to provide the evidence. To do otherwise is to flip the 'burden of proof' I could make all sorts of claims,

    Unicorns exist

    Angels exist

    Dragons exist

    Would it be fair for me to turn these claims on you and say do you have proof that these things do not exist? and furthermore, would your lack of evidence that says unicorns do not exist be proof that they do? No that is not how logic works. If you are making a claim it is you who must back up your claim, to expect otherwise is open up the door to believe every possible claim we could make because you cannot prove a negative.

  • the proof is the Creation simply, you can't deny creation of universe and humans and all beings

  • God created all things;

    What is your proof of god?

    that things were created

    Loop: See Circle

    Circle: See Loop

  • "GOD doesnt exist is a belief or an escape for those who refuse to put limits in their lives, limits they're afraid of, or those who really were lost between thousands of false beliefs, but once the normal human is fallen on ISLAM, he would realize the truth and purpose of existence": BULLSHITS. Is God a cause? If yes, it produces permamently or time to time? In either cases it is illogical, here I am not bringing stupid "scientific" arguments like people reading them in some magazine or book.

    If the God is permanent it would produce permanently its result. Being so its result would never be completed because the production would be never ended (completed). Also, the result would be permanent since it depends on a permanent cause. If God is a permanent cause it would produce permanently so the results would be permanent until the cause (God) is permanent. Of course this is not the case because every "thing", phenomenon, is impermanent. And deceptively conceived. Where are you Mamhoud? Where do you exist Mamhoud? Where can we find you? In your head? In your beating heart? In your harms or legs? In your skin? In your flesh? In your bones? In your name?? So is Mamhoud, Mamhoud? Skin, two legs, two arms, one head, flesh, hears, etc. are all diffrent things and are many too: where we find Mahmoud then in these parts? Is Mamhoud as one, is he identical with all these parts? So one becomes many? How? Your person as one cannot said to be same as the skin or the hear but is only in these things where we can search Mamhoud, right? So if there is no Mamhoud, if Mamhoud is only a label imputed as a convention on all these parts, the real Mamhoud (which never existed in the first place) never knew its production since there was never any production of a non really existent Mahmoud, hehe...

    So what God produced? Or maybe you want to say that Mamhoud is its soul? Yes? Well, where is located this soul? Is it permanent or impermanent? Is your soul wishing to go in heaven with the fear of the hell? Well well, so we have an impermanent think here: in time it perform abstract actions of fearing and wishing! It must be composite as well as your body then, this is logical! So to your soul we can apply the same reasonings that prove your soul to be empty and deceptive like your body which exist as a conventional name imputed on a multitude of parts, elements etc! So your soul is as illusory as the body and in this way "God" never really produced but there was a merely apparent production based on parts on which someone imputed a name, an identity, which is of course a conventionality. For now is enough for your brain, waiting for your reply.

  • Things are created by other things like a table is created by four legs and a platform. I've never seen anything existing by itself like an independent table which would not need four legs and a platform. Would be more than amazing to see such thing, wouldn't be? And as is for the table it is for everything. Find something truly existent without depending on something else, can you? This is to refute theistic concepts which are illogical and impossible and refutes very elementary "Atheistic" concepts which are on the same ground of the theistic ones by conceiving a true existence of something or everything we might know. Got to go, chat tomorrow ( if someone wants to chat)

  • @ Choedrak Sangpo,

    I agree with you on the basis that we need something other than ourselves in order to exist, but not sure what you exactly believe. I'm assuming your not an atheist and you don't believe in a deity so what do you believe?

  • I am an atheist because I reject completely the concept (instinctual or learned somwhere) about a God who is in power and rules at his will our world and our lives. It is simply illogical and when I say "illogical" I man this word to mean that everything to be existent or even possible must be logical. What is illogical cannot exist even at a level of owns conception and thinking, it cannot make sense even as a mere concept.

    I am Buddhist and therefore I am atheist as a natural consequence. If something exist it need other things to exits like the table. his is valid for the body and all the object of the external world and it is the same for our minds.

    Look at yourself: just to write me this question, how many factors where necessary to be in place? your body, your computer, your eye faculty, the money which allowed you to buy a computer, your decision to subscribe to facebook, your being interested in Atheist republic page, having read my posts, having developed interest in making me a question, having born while I am still alive so you can ask me, and other infinite conditions for "just to write me this question".

    Mamhoud should look at himself: so there are two Mamhouds? One existing as Mamhoud and one composite by limitless conditions, parts, elements, causes etc.? Where is Mamhoud? amhoud is one, right? hen why he cannot exist without his bones, skin, hears, internal organs, brain, breathing, eating, sleeping? Legs, arms, head, back, frontdide, chest, shoulders,...? Do you find any Mamhoud as one in this multitude of these things? Where? Is he the same thing with this multitude of things? Where? His Brain? But doesn't need his brain to be "fed" by blood/oxigen and other substances? It can exist alone? No. So is dependent and therefore not an absolute at all. Or his skin is amhoud? ake it out and send it to me because I am courious to have a conversation with mamhoud which is his skin.... of course this is a bullshit, something we know is impossible. So mamhoud doesn't exist except as a name on numberless things like organs what he eats, all his parts, elements, needs etc. Mamhoud is "empty of his own existence", is only deceptively illusorily mistaken considered as true. But whe you search where is the real Mamhoud, his essence, you cannot find it.

    If Mamhoud is existent as a deceptive appearance empty of himself, was mamhoud created or produced? Again, which Mamhoud? Because we probably saw that Mamhoud is non existent in reality, is existent only in a deceptive reality which bound us to wrong conception about our selves, this worlds, what we have and what we are.

    Please feel free to answer me if you have questions or comments to do

  • I agree you need several components to make something work the way you want it like a table, but I believe this to be a very elementary way of trying to explain what makes someone who they are. We should all know that it's not your leg , arm , hands , skin that make us who we are, sure it shapes are appearance and will limit us in terms of what we can do but that doesn't make us who we are.

    Who are you really? What makes you human ? Now I'm asking you what makes us who we are?

  • "Human" is another conceptual label made by someone's mind. The label "human" is not given by the label itself, it needed someone's mind to cal me human. Without any label, what I am? Think well about this please

  • What makes what we are? Our ignorance which clings to a never existed true existence of things, look at Mamhoud: he is not in any part of his body and mind nor exists independently from these. So is empty of his own existence,lacks essence, and he is appearing only in a deceptive way from the point of view of a non analytical mind (correctly analytical)



    Updated 38 months ago by the author.
  • Give me a few , got to run out and do something but I want to interact with you because you are interesting, specifically since you have said what you have said and being an atheist. I'll be right back and will respond!

  • Sure, don't worry but |i will able probably to answer you only tomorrow

  • Alright I'm trying to grasp what it is you are trying to say. Are you saying that we really don't exist ? You said "what makes us who we are is our ignorance", does this apply to you as well or do you feel you found the truth about our existence ?

  • What makes us to be what we are is not really what we are, is what we conceive to be. Tell me: without any label of any kind what you are? And the labels about you are self-imputed naturally or was someone, you or your parents or your friends to give you a label? After receiving labels about what people and yourself suppose you to be, do you believe most of them, right? On what basis do you believe those labels are really you? If you were to be really what those labels say you to be in that way, why label you again? Would then be immediate to recognize you as what the labels are supposed to define you so why need people to label you again? So there are two John Torres: the one who is defined by the labels inherent to John and the would be a John Torres who need the labels to what he and the others think him to be like. This of course is illogical! You are empty of your own essence, of your own identity and this is the primordial freedom actualized from beginningless time, you are not boxed in a character. Your being empty of your own inherent nature places you already in a condition of freedom from extremes beyond existence and non-existence. You are not existent since if we search where you are we cannot find you truly, John Torres except as a convention that makes me call you John but that's it. You are also not non-existent since you anyway appear even if deceptively on the relative level of composite empty phenomena. Our existence is apparent to a deluded mind, nonetheless it works in a conventional world. We ultimately do not exist anywhere since we are composite by parts, elements and denomination so our "nucleus", "core", "essence" never existed so we never existed, only apparently existing by the power of illusory conceptual fabrication. What are you if no one nowhere ever seen you? Are you endowed of your own self-labels of what you are? You are already empty of essence but you never knew it so you suffered a lot many times thinking to be real. This attachment to relative deceptive reality creates al your suffering and limitations since you are already free from extremes of being this or that and free of limitations that yourself put on you. Once you realize this your suffering and ignorance ends, and you are truly free beyond any grasping to true or false, existent or non existent, arising and ceasing. We call this Liberation. Liberation from what? From suffering and conditoned illusory states that you conceive as real



    Updated 38 months ago by the author.
  • @Choedrak: You have just provided a somewhat more gibberish-laden version of several philosophical thought experiments regarding reality.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

    Quite frankly, outside of an intellectual discussion of whether we can inspect the metaphysical realms beyond that which we can experience and inspect directly, these notions are utterly irrelevant to any meaningful discussion of being. These are fundamentally unanswerable questions - they cannot be inspected, nor can the proposed answers be validated or falsified, which puts them completely outside the realm of meaningful, objective examination of the world in which we all live.

    Unless you have some kind of objective evidence (ideally proof, but since we are talking about metaphysics, I'll settle for objective evidence) that substantiates the philosophical stance you are taking that you have failed to produce here, what you are postulating regarding reality and existence wouldn't even get a passing grade in a first year philosophy term essay.

  • I just noticed that Mahmoud Pain Aux Olivesstopped commenting or arguing and just shut up. His challenge were a chicken challenge

  • To Michelle Shaw: is false that we depend on things like material things and labels? If yes what are you contradicting? It can be said instead, that without a label and an aggregation of parts and elements nothing can exist and what exist in this way is EMPTY of its own nature, I think it is quite clear. You are empty, you thing to be what you want but this is an illusion, you work as you think to be, this depends on labels and conceptualization, dualistic deceptive conceptualization about an inherent nature in phenomena, an inherent nature or essence which in fact never existed except as a conceptualization about phenomena yourself included. You are empty of essence thus you are free from limitation and extremes of existence and non existence, arising and ceasing and so forth. If you don't get this point you will be your character which you have been most of your life even without knowing this fact. Nothing can exist without depending on causes and conditions thus everything is empty. Being empty of inherent nature implies natural freedom from extremes, labels, and so forth. If you insist in playing your own character until you die, be free to do it. Please, let me know if you have something else to say. By the way, you used the word metaphysic or something liker that: I reject such term since to me there is nothing metaphysical. Never read something little advanced about Buddhist logic? You should give to it a try, would be interesting

  • Now I have to go, chat tomorrow, here is night and raining...

    Have a nice day (or night wherever you may be). It could ber possible for me to chat with my mobile but is not sure, byeeee!

  • @Choedrak:

    You appear to be asserting a very sloppy version of the "reality isn't what we perceive it to be" argument.

    At best such positions are mildly interesting thought experiments. At worst, they represent sloppy reasoning and an profoundly flawed understanding of the point of the original philosophical points that they were intended to address.

    Telling me (or anybody else) that "without a label and an aggregation of parts and elements nothing can exist" is basically ridiculous. Labels are an intellectual tool that we use to help us classify and identify things (be they objects or concepts), but the existence of a label has absolutely nothing to do with an object's existence in reality.

    For example, I may well be walking down a path and see a plant that I have never seen before. I have no label for it, but it is real quite apart from whether or not I have a label for it. The object exists independent of whether or not I (or anybody else) has a label for it.

    As for the notion of "essence", I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here - it is about as meaningful a term as the notion of "aether" in 19th century cosmology. The term is neither defined in your writing, nor is it meaningful.

    With respect to the broader question of objects existing as a result of some set of causes, I don't dispute that there is a set of causal paths which result in any given object's existence in reality. However, conflating labels with the causality of existence is ridiculous logic that leads you into a logical loop where the object itself appears to depend on the label and vice versa, which seems quite ridiculous and tends to turn the rest of your argument in to gibberish.

  • Not to mention the fact that we have loads of evidence which shows that for example the sun and the earth are much older than the human race. Is it reasonable to assume that these astrophysical bodies sprung into existence when something conscious could name them? No that is simply absurd.

  • Michelle very well said.

    @Choedrak Sangpo Let me say this to you , If I'm empty and who I am is an illusion than this conversation must be an illusion so everything you stated to me is an illusion so based on your assumption you havn't said anything because it never really happened!!! You see how that belief is self defeating!! See I believe in reality and in Truth, In both Reality and Truth I can trust because I'm sure you want me to believe that you really stated something and I'm sure you want me to believe that the point your trying to get across is True.

    You need reality and Truth in order for your entire premis and statements to be taken seriously!!!

  • @ Michelle Shaw: "Telling me (or anybody else) that "without a label and an aggregation of parts and elements nothing can exist" is basically ridiculous. Labels are an intellectual tool that we use to help us classify and identify things (be they objects or concepts), but the existence of a label has absolutely nothing to do with an object's existence in reality": this is good, if is ridiculous that without parts, elements and conceptual label nothing can exist then dissect yourself, throw all the parts and components away and come to see me because isn't then ridiculous to exist without depending on other (things, labels, opinions...).

    You are entirely depending for your existence on parts, elements, "things" of all sorts to exist. If this were not to be the case you would never be born by non depending on other to exist as "yourself". You also would be permanent because only what is composite is impermanent and can arise dwell and cease. So my arguments are sloppy? Tell me something less sloppy then by establishing logically to me the way how can be a thing exist independently: if something exists by depending on other things is logically "empty" of its own being. If This thing is thus empty, our thinking of it as existing truly is the already mentioned "deceptive reality". You didn't understand what I was saying and you told me that I wouldn't pass a first year of university: looks like to me instead that by asserting that something entirely composite is nonetheless truly existent by its own nature, you are the faulty one. Now I have to go to practice martial arts, I am late as I was yesterday evening when I wrote here to you all. Sorry but I am a busy man. Check for the continuation of this debate later if not tomorrow, is my schedule. In the meantime find for me the answer I asked you

  • @Choedrak:

    Seriously? You want me to "disprove" your arbitrary claims linking labels with an object's existence in reality?

    News flash for you: It is you that is making the assertion under question here. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with you. Provide the objective evidence that supports your claim.

  • Sorry Michelle, you you did assertions as well, do you I paste one of yours here"? Look at this:

    "For example, I may well be walking down a path and see a plant that I have never seen before. I have no label for it, but it is real quite apart from whether or not I have a label for it. The object exists independent of whether or not I (or anybody else) has a label for it."

    [/i]

    .....so it is quite real that that plant is real even if you have had no label for it: look, you just labeled something as a "plant", isn't this a label, a conceptual imputation? If that plant were to be enjoying a real status as a plant, of course you would no need to call it in anyway because it would be clearly a plant even without your label, and self-imputed since it would according to you, existing by itself in a real way. But you nonetheless have to label it to develop a knowledge about it. Your labeling is not simply arbitrary, is a mere convention which you need for yourself and for everything else. Without labeling something you would never have any knowledge of that something like "it is a plant, so it must be so vegetable in nature etc.": all this is of course arbitrary, a convention is arbitrary by nature, a number, a big number of people agree in some way to call a big number of things in a particular way and consider that their use (of such imputed things) if for some other purpose which is a label as well, a conceptualization, not an on objective knowledge.

    I think the core of this discussion is this: if things are ENTIRELY COMPOSITE (I challenge you to disprove this), they are not found in their parts and labels so what is found is their empty nature. They are composite, this shows their emptiness. Because of their being ENTIRELY composite and THUS EMPTY they are subject to arising through the assemblage of parts (which, each one of them, is not are not the the composite object itself) dwelling, be able to perform function through their changing, and finally ceasing. This is opposite of what you quite ridiculously state, that they need actually exists through a set of components, still they have "objective existence": your assertion is a complete contradiction, don't you notice it? "Truly existent by its own nature" is opposite in meaning with "dependently existent by dependently arising through a numberless number of components gathered together" which would reveal or show such object(s) as falsely true and empty of its/their own existence without depending on others (phenomena). You state at the same time two different things: a phenomenon is composite (thus it would be empty of inherent existence) but it exist truly as itself (or him/her self)! Do you notice now that you put together fire and water in the same bucket at the same time thinking that they will be able not to contradict each other?

    "Objective reality": how we know if there is a reality "objectively existent" if no one labels it and thereafter comes to know this, his own label, considering it as true? You "create" your "reality" and based on your conceptualized labels you work on them thinking to work with reality.

    REALITY HAS NON MEANING NOR EXISTENCE BY ITS OWN WITHOUT THE LABELS THAT PEOPLE IMPUTE ON WHAT MERELY APPEAR TO THEM! Tell me something less sloppy if you can and show me that your contradictions are solvable! From my side I have nothing to doubt on what I asserted since it makes perfectly sense.....

    CHEERS....

    Ps: ""For example, I may well be walking down a path and see a plant that I have never seen before. I have no label for it, but it is real quite apart from whether or not I have a label for it. The object exists independent of whether or not I (or anybody else) has a label for it."

    [/i]: YOU DID A POSITIVE CLAIM AS WELL SO THE "BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH YOU AS WELL! (hehe)... Cheers again

1 2