Evidence for Allah - contains images which may disturb

[Tigger]

1)
Look, speaking personally, my take is that there is some degree of evidence for deity generally. <snip>

2)
Why do so many different regions and eras bear witness to this startling notion of a deity? Sure, one could well maintain that a primitive hankering after any old explanation for everything is ultimately at the back of the deity notion in one case or two or three or four .... or five ............. But dozens?

Sorry about the snip there, but these key things are lost in the rest of the verbiage and it's not a quote mine.

1)

A dusty old book is not evidence. Mouse shit + mouse hole + missing cheese + mousetrap + captured mouse = extant mouse is evidence. Come back with something beyond the dusty tomes. Just because primitive people wrote stuff, it's not evidence, especially of your extraordinary claims.

2)

Yes dozens. And they are all rooted in primitive ignorance trying to explain the unknown like storms, earthquakes inter alia. Do you believe that women cause earthquakes? Some Muslims still do and how primitive is that? All atheists do is see beyond the level that you have restricted yourself to. We don't need God anymore. Let Him Rest In Peace, or in the case of Allah, piss.

[Stein]

Look, speaking personally, my take is that there is some degree of evidence for deity generally.

Please fill your boots and educate me on what this "degree" of evidence might be.

It's obvious that you didn't read one word of my previous post past that opening sentence you quote. Whatever "degree" of evidence there is you'll find spelled out quite plainly in the balance of that post -- which you plainly did not read.

Look, the question is not whether or not there is evidence for deity. The question is whether or not it is _good_ evidence. If an alternate explanation can be provided for the evidence I cite, then it is obviously not good evidence and can be dispensed with altogether. Fine. But you won't know that unless you peruse the balance of the posting first, will you?

I hold no brief for this evidence being tantamount to proof. But I do hold a brief for maintaining that anyone who ignores the aspects I discuss is merely an atheist on faith. That suggests a very uninteresting and parochial person to me. Now, faith has never done it for me. Never did. Never will. If someone tells me that he has come to any conclusion -- any conclusion at all -- on faith, I lose interest. I'm only interested in that which is objectively verifiable.

I further decline to say if I'm a theist or an atheist. What I am above all else is a researcher. I wait to see what the facts on the ground are. Those people who are not interested in that are boring and a waste of time. If you continue to decline to address the aspects I've brought to the table, then I will not respond to you again.

Read my previous and address it honestly. If not, there are smarter people on this board better worth my time.

Stein

[Stein]

1)
Look, speaking personally, my take is that there is some degree of evidence for deity generally. <snip>

2)
Why do so many different regions and eras bear witness to this startling notion of a deity? Sure, one could well maintain that a primitive hankering after any old explanation for everything is ultimately at the back of the deity notion in one case or two or three or four .... or five ............. But dozens?

Sorry about the snip there, but these key things are lost in the rest of the verbiage and it's not a quote mine.

1)

A dusty old book is not evidence. Mouse shit + mouse hole + missing cheese + mousetrap + captured mouse = extant mouse is evidence. Come back with something beyond the dusty tomes. Just because primitive people wrote stuff, it's not evidence, especially of your extraordinary claims.

Musty old tomes giving primary texts for the cultural origins of social altruism are easily dismissed were there not precisely the opposite pattern for newly introduced (for their time) self-centered doctrines. It's when the contrast between the two groups of primary texts are assessed that these dusty books take on greater significance.

2)

Yes dozens. And they are all rooted in primitive ignorance trying to explain the unknown like storms, earthquakes inter alia. Do you believe that women cause earthquakes? Some Muslims still do and how primitive is that? All atheists do is see beyond the level that you have restricted yourself to. We don't need God anymore. Let Him Rest In Peace, or in the case of Allah, piss.

No, I don't believe that women cause earthquakes. Neither do Urukagina, Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, nor John Locke -- nor many more. And Buddha does not believe that deity is any creator. And Locke does not believe that deity has any control over events on this planet. And so it goes. You are adopting a very parochial definition of deity that is plainly absurd. I don't believe in that either.

What about possible quirks in our brains? How does one account for the new scientific research into our behavioral development and our brain patterns that I referenced in my two URL links? They may be traceable to mere delusions in our brains. O.K. They may be traceable to a metaphysical reality outside our brains. O.K. I'm not arguing for either. I'm asking others what they think -- and why.

Stein

[Stein]

I think you may be on target in much of this. The only aspect in which further scrutiny may be needed is when you say ========================>

Look, speaking personally, my take is that there is some degree of evidence for deity generally.

What evidence might that me?

But even that is "some degree of" only, not proof. Furthermore, I see no clear evidence at all for deity being specifically Allah, or Yahweh, or Jehovah, or Brahma, or Ningirsu, or Baal, or Jove, or Jupiter, or Zeus, or Tian -- or what/who/ever. Whatever evidence for deity there is -- and again, such evidence is distinct from proof -- is only rooted in huge historic cycles showing cultural transformations within the homo sapiens species among various communities and societies throughout the ages, not connected with any one take on deity within any one region or any one era. Instead, it's what "goes down" in era after era and region after region -- all taken together -- that is ultimately useful to this question.

Why do so many different regions and eras bear witness to this startling notion of a deity?

Nobody knows for sure. It seems to me to be one way for people to try to make sense of their existence. People seem to universally ask themselves "why am I here?" How did I get here? And, not being able to fathom a natural explanation, they personify things like lightening, thunder, volcanoes and other natural phenomena. After all, the earth doesn't just move itself, water doesn't just fall from the sky by itself and lightening doesn't just happen on its own.

=============================>

Sure, one could well maintain that a primitive hankering after any old explanation for everything is ultimately at the back of the deity notion in one case or two or three or four .... or five ............. But dozens? That's what history gives us. And if there isn't something more concrete and relevant at the back of this deity notion, as would appear by its staggering level of recurrence in culture after culture, could there be something basic in our brains instead that is invariably present and induces this deity notion across the eons?

Well, people share almost the same genetic characteristics with each other, so it's not surprising that most people's brains would operate much the same way. It's not really surprising that a god-notion would be common to most human cultures and then tailored to their circumstances.

==============================> -- which therefore raises the question as to whether or not there is any other similar evolutionary process intrinsic to the development of human community in general that also entails a symbiotic relationship with a delusion of some kind just in order to flourish. There may be. There may not be. Can we come up with any other? Maybe we can, and I'm just overlooking it.

Seemingly small minds like Mandelson's (whom I'm beginning to think is not really a Muslim at all but is just having us on) may have trouble dealing with this huge question simply because his outlook -- whether genuinely Islamic or not -- seems terribly parochial (to me). One has to view this question globally and historically to get a proper grasp of its huge dimensions.

Recent scientific research suggests some symbiotic connection between gluing community together and the notion of the metaphysical and/or the divine. Why?

Because if people believe the same things and perform the same rituals they feel like they are members of the same group and share a commonality that outsiders do not share.

I'd be interested in your take on the balance of my initial posting: the new research shown in the two URL/links, and the patterns among primary texts for paradigm-shifting altruist versus self-ist doctrines.

Thanks,

Stein

[charlou]

Look there must be a God because My fragile little ego would just shit itself If I thought that I was not 'special ' and since there are lots of people just like me then god must decide on how to judge us on a weird set of counter-intuitive rules about God loving me more than others or what I'm allowed to do with my genitals ,or for that matter with the genitals of other people . Funny that the idea's of god that seem to have stuck are ........... FUCKING STUPID !

Indoctrination

[charlou]

I was thinking about the abhorrent views and the violence of people with a primitive world view after reading about the 16 yo Bangladeshi girl who received 101 lashes for conceiving during rape, and then to all the other horrendous things people do to each other as part of their culture. These people really are still on the lower memetic rungs of humanity.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Evidence for Allah

There is none and therefore no justification for the horrendous acts carried out in the name of islam.
Shame on you, Mandelson, for endorsing such vile crimes.

[JimC]

Evidence for Allah

There is none and therefore no justification for the horrendous acts carried out in the name of islam.
Shame on you, Mandelson, for endorsing such vile crimes.

And an equal amount of shame if you are pretending to do so for an unpleasant little wind-up...

[Feck]

Evidence for Allah

There is none and therefore no justification for the horrendous acts carried out in the name of islam.
Shame on you, Mandelson, for endorsing such vile crimes.

And an equal amount of shame if you are pretending to do so for an unpleasant little wind-up...

I'm a lot more worried that there are people out there with a similar faith in that revolting book and similar IQ's .

[JimC]

Evidence for Allah

There is none and therefore no justification for the horrendous acts carried out in the name of islam.
Shame on you, Mandelson, for endorsing such vile crimes.

And an equal amount of shame if you are pretending to do so for an unpleasant little wind-up...

I'm a lot more worried that there are people out there with a similar faith in that revolting book and similar IQ's .

Unfortunately, we know there are shitloads...

[mandy]

what you said here is what i already believe from Allah. He already told us that mate

Coito ergo sum:

Well, if we believe the same thing because "what I've said here" is "what you believe" then what are you fucking arguing about?

you the one who is arguing with me. Allah already told us what science is saying. so stop messing around and just admit Allah is right.

dont you even know that science and Allah are one. they never ever diagree on facts. but if you gonna bring all that unkown bollocks and keep saying to me if if if or but but but then you aint not talking science mate, you are chatting utter bollocks.
can you get it now? use your head for once.

I was completely honest.

i know but always at the end of your little story. please mate, do it at the start if you got balls.

Why can't you digest more than one sentence at a time? Too much for you?

oi!!. i can understand better than you think. i can small shit when i see it. when you chat bollocks sometimes, i tell you and you cant take it. dont you like people telling you your mistakes. you aint affraid of being proven wrong are you?

You love to mischaracterize things, and make false assumptions.

what the hell. i never did not do no such thing. you are just making it up now coz i got you by the balls.

when i proved you wrong and you got angry. you aint very calm are you.

I'll make a deal with you. I will make the statement you just asked me to make, if you will make the following: "I don't know if ANYONE made the universe."

but i cant lie to my self can i. i believe that Allah did it. He made the entire universe. you cant prove me wrong can you. so to me Allah is the best and most logical answer about all this big universe. but you believe you dont have a clue who did the universe. you said you dont know. so no need for a deal. i do know where as you dont know.

i haven't beaten around the bush: I have no idea if anyone made the universe.

Thank you. thank you very much. thank you very very much. much appreciate your honesty finally.

So, why don't you admit that you just can't think of a natural explanation for the existence of the universe.

well, there isnt any proper scientific explanation is there. there are only guesses.
you yourself said you are not sure. so the only logical thing left is Allah. no ifs and no buts. its Allah. so mate, until you can be sure who made the universe, dont knock Allah down.

one day scientists will all agree that after it was Allah who was being all this massive universe. Allah said so himself that one day he will knock some sense into scientists thick skulls. then they will all see it was Allah all along. duh.

I'll make my arguments in any way I please, got that mate.

alright fine. have it your way. i aint stopping you, i was just advising you not to be sly.

You really need to get an education.

im educated i can read things i can write stuff i can count numbers and do all sorts with them. but you, you need to learn to think logically and admit clearly that you dont know when you dont know. dont pretend to know when you dont know jack shit.

I don't like you.

i like you.

I'm not perfect, not by a long shot, but I am better than you (but, that's easy to do).

why you getting more and more and more angry everyday. its no good for you.
just dont be mad at me. i aint never done nothing to you.

[mandy]

Stein:
Look, speaking personally, my take is that there is some degree of evidence for deity generally. But even that is "some degree of" only, not proof.

Allah be praised in sky and on earth. Allah O Akbar.
you chaps just not reading what this einstein is saying are you. eg pawiz and Coito ergo sum still asking for evidence when bro Stein gave some of the evidence for God.
you boys just dont like God. go on admit it. Feck not even read one sentence. you are a laf fecking feck.

[tattuchu]

Meh. This isn't even funny anymore...

[PsychoSerenity]

Meh. This isn't even funny anymore...

Yeah nearly 200 posts and it hasn't gone anywhere. Bit disappointing really.

[Tigger]

Meh. This isn't even funny anymore...

It's pathetic isn't it? He's not very good at whatever it is he's up to. He reckons he's educated too, but I have yet to see much evidence. I suppose there's a little, but I think on the basis of what I've seen, I'd put his IQ around 105, which isn't good. He does know some biggish words, though.