Atheism and Islam

Note: Its a continuous discussion in ma facebook

-------------------------------------------- Waker Lewis Miss Ladya this is indeed a problem. People have to eliminate their illusion. It is not merely a debate. Ra tries to make a world where they will rule. But those who are free practitioners of thoughts and actions are trying to shape a free world without any hindrance must have a say so that no one can be dominated by mesmerism. If his religious argument is established then he shall try to seclude you from the mainstream society. He shall bring his religious code of conducts and shall ask you either be or be among a mess. Here by "he” I mean they who are theists. He is representing them. Look at his logic where he is trying to paralyze the opponents of religion, “What they don’t say in public is that free sex, free abuse, freedom to lie, freedom to abuse, Freedom to grab foreign lands, freedom of their uterus, free alcohol, freedom to exploit, freedom from family”.

I am not a Face booker but I made this face book at his request, as he believes he still can convince me. Once Rasheed was an upper hand atheist, I don’t want to tell further about him, as he doesn’t want to say it. I can still recall his performance in P.... Rashie shall I say more? Haha. People are social phenomenon so they have a society and they have their social laws. He shall try to neutralize it. So when someone shall call them an atheist in front of these theists especially in front of this talented ass Ra, they must have their welcoming philosophy.

As I said him here before that, this religion is the opium of the people helps them forget the pain for time being but this apathy can’t fix the problem. So this is a social problem. Religion is a hypnotic induction. Atheism is not only the way of a life but it is the actuality for every living things.

I known Ra, now you shall bring ontological argument then your cosmological evidences even teleological or moral arguments.

Let me tell you in advance as you said me one year back that everything in this world is found to be contingent,dependent,relative and perishable therefore there must be some permanent imperishable substratum wherein these contingent reside and derive their meaning. The logic of yours accepts the fact that God is analytical and synthetic. Analysis has variables so God varies and synthetic statements seek to carry information about some facts and must be variable. Analytical statement is alike logical deduction. Isn’t it mathematical equation?

Your cosmological argument emphasis on the casual relation and postulates God as the uncaused first cuz. Hahaha then if the causal relation is pushed backwards, then it will be pertinent to ask,

“Who made god”? We see no reason why the process should arbitrarily stop at a particular point. Hmm your teleology? The intelligent creator from the innumerable marks of design, selection, and gradation scattered through the universe? Do you want to bring Eddington to justify it? Haha My boy there are many signs of maladjustment and mal-adaptation in the universe.You must be aware of these things. Thursday at 3:23am · Unlike · 1 -----------------------------------

Waker Lewis: Dude morality is just rationality in the sphere of social conduct. It comes from the idea of the good. Come on my son. So where your God stands? Thursday at 3:28am · Unlike · 1

-------------- ME: Lol Waker thank you for understanding me that I am trying to codify the rules from messes. However, it is not my rule it is the rule of God. My Stand on God is more relevant than your stand for your mother. You have not seen when and how your mother gave you birth or more decisively about your father whom your mother said he is. Is there any solid evidence? Have you seen it? You have heard about them and you want to trust them cuz you have your intuition to believe.

I admit Prophet more reasonably than you do to your mother as He experienced Allah and said us about the hereafter. Come one man you talk about reason? can you take your reason? How Far?

Have you seen Karl Marx, your guru? No, you have read his books and your intuition tells you about him. Yes, people talks about Karl Marx and you believe them. I read Quran the ultimate and I know the infallibility.

I naturally shall talk about religion to negate mischievous behavior in the name of freedom. Come on tell me what is the sphere of freedom of thoughts you people talk about? I took the words from feminism as they appeal for freedom of their uterus. Is freedom of thoughts for lesbianism or home sexuality? You shall marry and then you shall talk about free life to jump from one tree to another to eat its fruits. You shall take all advantages from the people who believe in religion and again you shall lead a messed up life. You shall talk on love and justice but you shall enjoy freedom and lust.

This is hypocrisy. If you don’t believe in God then you have to admit that you need not to marry. As Karl Marx believed, “Children should be raised by the state, marriage and inheritance should be eliminated, and noncommital sex should be the only form of relationship”.

So marriage should be eliminated for making women as public property? This is the views of atheists. The universe is a creation so there is a creator. But if you argue that the universe is an accident than the burden to prove is upon you. Prove me the universe is an accident. If you ask me to prove the creation of the universe then I have a ready made example among many and that is BigBang. No? Then you have to prove Big bang was an accident. Even Steven Hawkins could not vilify his own observation in the book, “A brief history of time”.

Since when you peeps are talking on reasons? This is actually to enjoy your life into lawlessness flaw. If you r not a part of the disciplined life then surely you must be treated as virus of the society and need to be quarantined.It is not Laden but you are trying to introduce the reign of terror as a set of irregularities.

When you was inside the womb of your mother you had to be within the biological laws of the uterus when you was born you had to follow the laws of your family then you became the unit of a society where you was abide by the social norms .Off course when you live in a country you must follow its constitution. When you drive your car you must follow traffic laws Are you free in these cases? Wot ur freedom of thoughts stand for Now you are young so you want to follow your instinct and fool around? No way.

Lol,I am not going to use any one of the tools you mentioned.

==== Our awareness of God is an intuitive experience. It is not only intuition alone even not only experience but also It is both as intuitive experience. Knowledge of ‘things’ is supposed to be gained through acquaintance or experience and correspondence with some experience is accepted as the test of truth of such knowledge. This is reasoning to accept anything as truth.

Therefore, the knowledge is always requiring to find out the truth. Our knowledge of truth about God is gained through intuition and as such self-evidence is accepted as the test for truth. Is there any reason to differentiate between idea and reality?

Are you ready to advocate on reason? What is the reason in your sense? You must know reason has its basis on intuition or instinctive faith. The laws of science like Causation, uniformity of nature are based on intuitive faith.

Einstein said about cosmology , “There is no logical path to see these laws; only intuition resting on sympathetic understanding of experience can reach them”.

Suppose we are confronted with a brown rectangle table, which appears to be smooth to touch and produces a sound when rapped with finger. Now as regards color, it may, and indeed, it does differ different at least in intensity to different persons according to the distance from the table and angle vision.

Even from the same point of view, the color will seem different to different people according as one sees in normal light or artificial light, with naked eyes or through colored glass. Still the table exists but the conception to believe changes. Thus, rationality varies. When rationality varies, it is lost in emptiness.

Similarly in the case of with texture. The table, which appears smooth and even to the naked eye, will prove rough and uneven under microscope. From all these it is evident that the real table, if there is any, is not the same as we can immediately see. Thus, Russell asked two questions. Is there any such thing as a physical object: and if so, what is its nature?

Lol waker I am not in illusion in fact those who like to depend on their senses are living in illusions. I shall refer to see the optical illusions. Bertrand Russell admits it illusory dream. Even Berkley, Leibnitz had assumed independent existence of external objects. The quantum mechanics is hypothetical idea and can be called as relativity. Thus, do not talk about reason.

Things appear different from different scales observers. That’s is why Charles Eugene Guye said, “It is the scale of observation which creates a phenomenon.

There is one immense harmonious phenomenon on a scale which in general escapes man because of the structure of his brain, a structure that divides things into arbitrary compartments cutting them into their antithetical parts”. Cral Jung and Bergson admitted it.

When reason outgoes its own bounds it lands in ludicrous futility. Reason can at best take note of a vague intimation of the mysterious infinite; but for it to attempt to gauge the magnitude of infinite and to spell out its shape and size would be a fruitless adventure. It is not by accident that German materialist Ernst Haeckel was constrained to admit the existence of “Nous” or spirit. Intuition led Russell at times to a faith in what he called ‘the very mysterious infinite”.

Among agnostics and atheists, who admitted the existence of God directly or indirectly at some time or other are also such celebrities as Michael Faradey,Romanes, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru even Leonid Brezhnev. Nehru the father of so-called secular India admitted in his discovery of India,“Whether we believe in God or not, it is impossible not to believe in something inherent in matter.”

Brezhnev your guru exclaimed, “If we fail in our responsibilities, God will not forgive us” (SALT-II talks in Geneva, 1979).

Lol one of the father of the Bill of rights Mr. Emerson said, “God enters everyone’s heart through a private door”. U ask me to believe you don't hv anything private all are public? lollol

The Quran emphatically says, “Am I not your Lord? They said: Yes! we bear witness. Lest you should say on the day of resurrection: Surely we were heedless of this”. (7:172). Thursday at 9:12am · Edited · Like · 2

----------------- ME Now Mr. Waker where your logic and reason stand? Thursday at 9:13am · Like -----------------