Happy Atheist Forum

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"after driving around in Vegas  awhile I tend to think church would do those people good.  I think one needs to armor plate his vehicle to drive there.  Those people are nuts!!!

I don't subscribe to the philosophy of the "The ends justify the means". There are generally pitfalls to this.

No doubt the "Christian" morals may have improved people's behavior long ago. But now days it is a hindrance. Our society has moved on well beyond these simplistic and archaic morals. Now they are preventing tolerance of gays, the humanitarianism of euthanasia, the progress of stem cell research...

Although, even back in the day there where which burnings, inquisitions etc..., Human nature being what it is they can easily go to extremes on stuff like this.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"after driving around in Vegas  awhile I tend to think church would do those people good.  I think one needs to armor plate his vehicle to drive there.  Those people are nuts!!!

I don't subscribe to the philosophy of the "The ends justify the means". There are generally pitfalls to this.

No doubt the "Christian" morals may have improved people's behavior long ago. But now days it is a hindrance. Our society has moved on well beyond these simplistic and archaic morals. Now they are preventing tolerance of gays, the humanitarianism of euthanasia, the progress of stem cell research...

Although, even back in the day there where which burnings, inquisitions etc..., Human nature being what it is they can easily go to extremes on stuff like this.

Stevil, have you ever been to a place where the elderly stay?
It's not hard to make people wish for death.

Waiting to die from cancer is no fun. I hate that religions impose their black and white thinking onto society.

Quote from: "Stevil"I don't subscribe to the philosophy of the "The ends justify the means". There are generally pitfalls to this.

I think it depends on the situation. Sometimes the end justifies the means, sometimes it doesn't.

Quote from: "iSok"Stevil, have you ever been to a place where the elderly stay?
It's not hard to make people wish for death.

So, we shouldn't let anyone commit dignified suicide then?

Honestly, at this point, I think it's better if my grandma was just euthanized. Her life has been extended for too long -- she has many physical problems, she has a horrible memory, she's always miserable.... I think the honorable thing to do would be to put her down gently.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "iSok"Stevil, have you ever been to a place where the elderly stay?
It's not hard to make people wish for death.

So, we shouldn't let anyone commit dignified suicide then?

I think iSok is right in one sense. Old people's homes in the west and the way old people are treated is enough to make them want to end their lives. All things being equal this should not be the case. If a person wants to end their life because they are facing an end they find intolerable they should be allowed to. If they want to end their life because they have laid in their own waste for the umpteenth time that is a disgrace.

 i would always like the option

Quote from: "JoeBobSmith"When you say  "I don't subscribe to the philosophy of the "The ends justify the means"" I'm not sure what "end" you have in mind???  

For the most part society has grown up. There are a few rotton people for sure, but for the most part people are tolerant, tolerant of races, gender, age, political stances, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, cultures.
Certainly where I come from people are generally kind and tolerant. Governments have become secular.

 I am not trying to make it seem like a fairytale, you do have to lock up your house, lock the car, not respond to any get rich quick schemes, not walk down dark alleys alone. But the majority of the people are generally OK.

 I 'm not sure there is any

Quote from: "iSok"Stevil, have you ever been to a place where the elderly stay?
It's not hard to make people wish for death.

What?

Talk about missing the point.

Quote from: "Tank"I think iSok is right in one sense. Old people's homes in the west and the way old people are treated is enough to make them want to end their lives. All things being equal this should not be the case. If a person wants to end their life because they are facing an end they find intolerable they should be allowed to. If they want to end their life because they have laid in their own waste for the umpteenth time that is a disgrace.

[Emphasis mine]
You're probably right, here. It should not be the case -- but does that mean we shouldn't allow them to commit suicide?

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "iSok"Stevil, have you ever been to a place where the elderly stay?
It's not hard to make people wish for death.

What?

Talk about missing the point.

EDIT: Thanks for notifying Fester. Kardan, I found it an interesting topic to talk about.

Stevil mentioned that Euthanasie should be applied in society if people prefer this.
As you already know, I'm against euthanasie, because I see that in some context, people will be forced to do it.
Let me give you a few examples:


Most elderly, see themselves as a burden. A lot of times when their offspring offers them a place in their own house, they refuse.
They don't want to be a burden for their sons or daughters. This is one point.

Just think about the social pressure.
If something controversial as euthanasie will be viewed as something common, then the social pressure will be devastating.
Elderly who do not want to put an end to their life, will still be troubled.
And this will happen, because of social pressure:

Nurses: 'Why doesn't Miss X put an end to it, her treatment is just too hard, why does she desperately want to prolong her life?'.

This will certainly happen, if euthanasie becomes common, some elderly will put an end to it, because of peer-pressure.
They will view themselves as a burden, and euthanasie will be the way-out.
(Believe me if I say that the nurses in an elderly home are not very nice for their patients..............)

Next to that, human judgement is not infallible. Sometimes when we are terribly ill, we wish for death to stop the pain.
But when we are cured, we regret those words, and shiver by the thoughts of it.

Last, I think man is a very weak creature.
Just to think about world war 2, how easy man can be indoctrinated by just repeating a certain message.
The Jews were seen as filth, within a few years, some people were okay with their genocide.

In the seventies, there was a live experiment at Stanford University with students.
The students were all good friends, they were divided into two groups.
One group of them were guards, the other group were prisoners.
They simulated prison life, and they wanted to know what happens when man gets to power.

They had to stop the experiment just after 3 days, because the guards became too dangerous...
In 3 days, most of the 'prisoner'  friends did not recognize any longer their friends (who were the guards).
There is a movie about this, you should really watch: "Das Experiment"

So, just imagine what will happen when some people get to judge between life and death.
Do understand that we as humans are extremely weak Kardan, we are capable to do the most terrible things..
During Stalin, children would betray their own parents when they would talk ill of Stalin....

I have just a lot of concerns about issues like this. I am just afraid we will lose our humanity. (Movie: The Island)
We humans do not have the capacities to make these choices, in order to do this we might need to 'evolve'.
Time after time we are shown that we really turn into monsters because of the strangest things.
If we apply euthanasie, we can only believe that we are doing it right.
And belief is not enough when you are talking about life and death.

Surely, cancer or other painful diseases are a very hard way to leave this world.
But, most cancer-patients do not really suffer, they are most of the time high because of painkillers.

Maybe we should do more research in this way, to ease the suffering instead of giving up.
I think this is more applicable to our concept of 'being a human', to challenge and subject everything, instead of giving up.

Quote from: "DirtyLeo"1. So, to my point, muslims pilgrimage to the same place the idol-worshipping Arabs used to pilgrimage before Islam.2. It was very convenient that Muhammad's new religion didn't upset the trade in the area by making this pilgrimage one of the pillars of his religion. 3. And certainly, Muhammad himself was an idol-worshipper before Islam because his tribe took the control of Kaba before his birth. They even displaced it.

1. You are right, Muslims still visit the Ka'Ba, in the way it was visited before idol-worship.
2. No you are wrong, it did upset the trade, once Islam came, it had not many followers and all the pagan tribes stayed way. This meant the end of trade.
3. No you are wrong, his tribe was in control of the Ka'Ba. But rejecting the idols was not a tribal affair. Multiple people from different tribes rejected these idols. So among different tribes, there were people
    that rejected these idols. And among the Quraish (the Prophet's tribe) the Prophet was one of those that rejected idol-worship before his prophethood.
   While his uncle Abu Talib was dying, he tried to convince him that there was just One God.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Tank"I think iSok is right in one sense. Old people's homes in the west and the way old people are treated is enough to make them want to end their lives. All things being equal this should not be the case. If a person wants to end their life because they are facing an end they find intolerable they should be allowed to. If they want to end their life because they have laid in their own waste for the umpteenth time that is a disgrace.

[Emphasis mine]
You're probably right, here. It should not be the case -- but does that mean we shouldn't allow them to commit suicide?

Technically no. But ethically as a comment on the societies we live in it would be a sorry indictment upon everybody else in that society that they would want to.

Quote from: "iSok"Maybe we should do more research in this way, to ease the suffering instead of giving up.
I think this is more applicable to our concept of 'being a human', to challenge and subject everything, instead of giving up.

The goal is to stop unnecessary human suffering, not to kill people, so you have a good point. I do feel that you are biased against killing people though, so would find euthanasia a difficult answer to accept should the findings turn out that way.

If such a study is done I would say we need atheists to do the study, they have no bias towards or away from the euthanasia option. If the study was performed by theists then we would never get the euthanasia option even if the alternative was poor.

I would not agree that doping someone up to the hilt with drugs (morphine or the like) for months or years at a time (to the point that they are non functional) is a satisfactory alternative.

Of course proper processes and saftey nets need to be in place, but I don't think we should "give up" on the idea of euthanasia.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "iSok"Maybe we should do more research in this way, to ease the suffering instead of giving up.
I think this is more applicable to our concept of 'being a human', to challenge and subject everything, instead of giving up.

The goal is to stop unnecessary human suffering, not to kill people, so you have a good point. I do feel that you are biased against killing people though, so would find euthanasia a difficult answer to accept should the findings turn out that way.

If such a study is done I would say we need atheists to do the study, they have no bias towards or away from the euthanasia option. If the study was performed by theists then we would never get the euthanasia option even if the alternative was poor.

I would not agree that doping someone up to the hilt with drugs (morphine or the like) for months or years at a time (to the point that they are non functional) is a satisfactory alternative.

Of course proper processes and saftey nets need to be in place, but I don't think we should "give up" on the idea of euthanasia.

Well, many cancer patients do not suffer much, if they do, it's only in their last days or maybe weeks.
Cancer finishes pretty fast once it's not controlled.
My grandma suffered from stomach cancer, she was most of the time tired. One evening she was out with my two uncles, feeding the cows outside.
When she came back, healthy and well, she felt a bit tired and lay down. My uncle gave her a few morphine shots and within two hours she breathed her last breath peacefully.
(She died in southern-Afghanistan...with no modern medical facilities).

My central point of argument is:
Man is too weak (and too sinister...) to decide about issues like this, it has already been proven by studies and history.

Quote from: "iSok"My central point of argument is:
Man is too weak (and too sinister...) to decide about issues like this, it has already been proven by studies and history.

And you believe Allah created humanity?
I think you just shot yourself in the foot there iSok.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "iSok"My central point of argument is:
Man is too weak (and too sinister...) to decide about issues like this, it has already been proven by studies and history.

And you believe Allah created humanity?
I think you just shot yourself in the foot there iSok.

Do you mean that man is allowed within Islam to put someone to death who has done something wrong?

Quote from: "iSok"My uncle gave her a few morphine shots and within two hours she breathed her last breath peacefully.

I certainly applaud your uncle for doing the right thing, however we should look towards making this legal, people should not go to prison for doing the right thing for their loved ones.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "iSok"My uncle gave her a few morphine shots and within two hours she breathed her last breath peacefully.

I certainly applaud your uncle for doing the right thing, however we should look towards making this legal, people should not go to prison for doing the right thing for their loved ones.

My grandma did not die of an overdosis morphine.
She would get two shots in the morning and in the evening each day to ease her suffering.
When she lay down, it was time for her evening shots.
What I wanted to make clear is that cancer does not neccesarily have to mean suffering.
My grandma died a peaceful natural death in a third-world country, without the most basic medical facilities.

(It's chemo that kills the body here in the west, cancer finishes man pretty quick)

Our cancer treatments are also pretty medieval, no wonder that people suffer.

Chemo --> pumping the body with poison....
Radiation --> Burn the tumor....
Surgery --> Hack and Slash the tumor...

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "iSok"My central point of argument is:
Man is too weak (and too sinister...) to decide about issues like this, it has already been proven by studies and history.

And you believe Allah created humanity?
I think you just shot yourself in the foot there iSok.

Do you mean that man is allowed within Islam to put someone to death who has done something wrong?

No. If Man is such a fuck-up then Allah is responsible as (in your eyes) he created Man. All that is good or bad in mankind is Allah's fault, end of story. We are puppets with no free-will and Allah just gets his jollies toying with his puppets. Either that or we are evolved apes, with just enough brains to be dangerous. I vote evolved ape myself, it's a much better explanation than the myriad examples of mythology mankind has created as a sop for his ignorance.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "iSok"My uncle gave her a few morphine shots and within two hours she breathed her last breath peacefully.

I certainly applaud your uncle for doing the right thing, however we should look towards making this legal, people should not go to prison for doing the right thing for their loved ones.

My grandma did not die of an overdosis morphine.

I'm not going to use your grandmother's predicament for the purposes of a debate. My grandfather met a similar fate, but painfully in hospital.
I have suggested a possibility to you knowing that people often do not know the full story. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. But life is complex and difficult decisions are often made. Having morphine on hand presents opportunity, seeing a loved one suffer (and potentially plead for something) makes a person weigh up their love for that person against the rules that are put before them.

We should not judge and we should not paint the world black and white. Adults ought to be treated as adults and we should not look to take away their responsibilities on making adult decisions. Whether your uncle did or did not do as I suggest, at least he must have made some difficult decisions knowing that he had the ability to make a difference.

I can only speculate and it doesn't matter what I think. You do not need to defend your uncles honour. I don't even know who your uncle is. I have no ill feelings towards him, which ever choice he may or may not have made.

Part of the problem we have with euthanasia in the USA is in something that is not even a legal document... the Declaration of Independence.  Americans put such value in this document, even though it's the Constitution that is the basis for our laws.  The Declaration says we have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Unalienable right to life means that not only can your right to live not be taken from you, but also that you cannot give that right away.  Of course, despite those words, we had slavery until 1865 and still have death penalties.  However, suicide is still illegal, as is assisted suicide.  You could be prosecuted for attempting to kill yourself and failing, but most of the time they decide not to prosecute, and instead you get therapy or might even find yourself committed.  It's just another example of certain beliefs being unevenly applied.

Quote from: "fester30"The Declaration says we have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think liberty could mean liberty from unbearable pain e.g. euthanasia. pursuit of happiness could be persuit of gaining the right to end ones suffering.
I don't think the Declaration is the barrier, I think it is the strangle hold of religious influence.
If it were the worry of inappropriate use as iSok has suggested then certain measures could be put in place.
We must trust that we are smart enough to put together a robust and humane solution to the suffering of millions.

Is it fair that a terminally ill atheist should suffer because a group of muslims or christians believe that their gods won't be happy for the atheist to chose to end their life?

Quote from: "Tank"No. If Man is such a fuck-up then Allah is responsible as (in your eyes) he created Man. All that is good or bad in mankind is Allah's fault, end of story. We are puppets with no free-will and Allah just gets his jollies toying with his puppets. Either that or we are evolved apes, with just enough brains to be dangerous. I vote evolved ape myself, it's a much better explanation than the myriad examples of mythology mankind has created as a sop for his ignorance.

First of all Tank, I guess evolution is the most plausible answer for our existence (for now). So I pretty much 'accept' the theory.
Most muslims would accept this also, if they had a bit of education.
According to Islam, as long as there's sufficient proof for something, we are bound to accept it.
I am not going to accept senseless theories, but evolution on the other hand explains a lot I guess.
So I guess the primates here, have one common ancestor.  

As a matter of fact, it would be senseless that God, who has given us intellect, would not allow us to see our past.
To see the history of this planet, to understand it and too understand that we can easilly be wiped out, that we are nothing.
Most muslims in the west, accept this theory. But there are a lot of Muslims who are not educated and see this theory as yet another attack on Islam.
(The west is pretty famous in the Muslim world as an anti-Islamic movement)
So you will see people like Harun Yahya, who reject this theory.
Evolution makes sense.

As you know, the Qur'an talks a lot about nature, to understand that the only possible way is God.
A while back I had a debate with Recusant, about the Signs in the Qur'an.
Eventually he concluded that the Qur'an does not predict science but rather reflects science like a mirror.
At first, I didn't agree with him, but when I thought about it, he had a point.

In 1400 years, science changed a lot, the Qur'an did not.
So what about the people who were not aware of theories like the Big Bang, wouldn't they be troubled when they would read this?
Recusant was right, the Qur'an indeed reflects science, and I find this even more amazing.
Let me give you an example, on what the Qur'an says about the origin of the universe and the current condition.


Qur'an [21:30] - "Did the unbelievers not realise that the heavens and the earth were one solid mass, then We tore them apart, and We made every living being out of water? Will they, then, not believe?"


When a Muslim read this before the 20th century, I think it would trouble him a bit. 'What does God mean here...?' Today we can understand this.

There's another verse in the Qur'an, verse 51:47, which can be translated in two different ways, because of One central word 'Musiqun' (which has two meanings).
The following is the first meaning:
Qur'an - [51:47]- "And heaven â€" We made it with Our Own Power and We have the Power to do so."

The scholar who translated verse 51:47 in this way adds in his tafseer (Tafseer = explanation of the Qur'an):

The word must' (pl. musi'un) may mean the one who possesses power and means, and also the one who can extend and expand something. According to the first meaning, the verse would mean: "We have built this heaven by Our own might and not with somebody else's help, and its erection was in no way beyond Us. Then how can you ever conceive that We shall not be able to recreate it ?" According to the second meaning, it would mean: "This huge universe that We have created, is not a finished work, but We are expanding it continuously, and new and ever new manifestations of Our creation are appearing in it every moment. How do you then think that such a marvelous Creator would not be able to repeat His creation.  

So today verse 51:47 is always translated in the second way (because we use the Qur'an as a mirror).
The Qur'an translation I often use, is translated in 1979 by a Pakistani scholar, with zero knowledge of science.
If he had, he would not add such an important fact in his tafseer (laymen barely read tafseer), but he would use this translation in the verse.
Just read his tafseer (the above bold red part)...

This alone should be enough to convince one of the truth, that this is the Truth.
But many of us will not accept it. The question here that should be raised is: Why?
I think there are many, many reasons, why people not accept this.

But I think there is a primary reason. You as a grandfather, Tank, you probably have grandchildren, you have also experienced your own children.
Children are naturally very curious, so are we.
When we ask a child to eat vegetables, he asks: why?
When we answer, that it's good for him, he'll ask: why?
When we answer that it'll make him healthy and strong, he'll ask: why or how?
When we answer that there are certain vitamins that'll strenghten his body, he'll answer: how?
And this will of course go on for hours, till the adult or the child falls asleep of fatique.
And we're doing this exactly, we're just like children.

So when you read a passage like that in the Qur'an, you'll not accept it.
But you will immediatly raise questions:

1. What is the soul?
2. Do apes have soul? Why do we have a soul, if we came through evolution?
3. Why are there so many religions? What about the Egyptian Gods, or the Greece Gods?
4. Why is there suffering?
5. Why are the muslims so backward and crazy if they follow God's final word?
6. Why do women wear a veil?
7. Why did the Prophet marry a 9 year old?
8. Why didn't God do anything during the holocaust?
9. Why did God choose those Arabs?
10. Why is the Qur'an in Arabic?


And so on....you will not find immediatly an answer on these questions.
Tired of the empty answers, you'll retreat once again and will reject the message.
This is why, even now you will not accept, this is exactly how it goes.
But I believe a lot of the answers can be found within Islam, only by extensively studying, because your intellect has a right on you.
You did not get this intellect just to 'walk around without purpose' and die.

As for evolution, it's interesting what the Qur'an says about this (as it's a mirror).
I'll quote a few.

Qur'an [56:61]- "Had We so wished, nothing could have hindered Us from replacing you by others like yourselves, or transforming you into beings you know nothing about."

Qur'an [4:133]- "If He wills, He has the full power to remove you, O mankind, and bring in others in your place."

Qur'an [32:7]- "He Who excelled in the creation of all that He created. He originated the creation of man from clay."

Qur'an [30:20]- "And of His Signs is that He created you from dust and behold, you became human beings, and are multiplying around (the earth)."
 
Qur'an [30:20]- "Have they never observed how God creates for the first time and then repeats it? Indeed (to repeat the creation of a thing) is even easier for God (than creating it for the first time)."

Qur'an [30:20]- "Say: “Go about the earth and see how He created for the first time, and then God will recreate life.” Surely, God has power over everything."

But let's put this aside Tank, your original question was, why did God create man so weak?


Qur'an [4:28]- "God wants to lighten your burdens, for man was created weak."

The important aspect within Islam is the journey to perfection.
Man is encouraged to go from weakness to strength.
The most important aspect within this is: Jihad (inner struggle, the battle against your instinct)

In nature we find concepts like survival of the fittest. We human beings are still doing this.
I'll use the same example as I did earlier on here.

Take the example of buying groceries. You'll see people picking the best vegetables by touching each vegetable (are they rotten or not?), picking the best and leaving the rest to others
without carring much. Islam calls this primitive behaviour which belongs in nature (survival of the fittest) and condems it. It's more appropriate that you just take the first vegetable
that you grab without inspecting it, since you are no better than other human beings.

This is a concept of Jihad, you beat the inner voice of nature: 'take it, you are first' and you replace that by pure reason 'If everyone thought like this, it would be horrible'
The inner voice of nature is the weakness of man, of course it's more complex.
So man came forward from evolution and now he has the choice to beat his inner self that came from nature

 That is the central challenge for mankind in this life according to Islam. --> Beat your nature. by Jihad (inner struggle).
It works with concepts like no sexual relations before marriage. When animals feel it's time, they just do it.
By religion we are challenged, to reject this need of nature (to beat nature), to reason that sexual relation before marriage might also have it's cons.
So marriage is seen as the 'legal' way for human beings. Something that separates us from the rest of nature.

Another aspect is controlling your anger, or your instinct. When you hit a lion, his instinct will lead to your death.
But when you hit a human being who is succesful in 'Jihad', he will think and reason before he does something.

He might think; 'Why did he hit me? Did I do something wrong? what is the most appropriate response for this person?' --> This will lead to a certain response.
If he understands that the person was hurt because of some words, he'll only smile and apogolize and won't hit back.
But if he understands that the person is an agressor and only to avoid a beating next time is by hitting back so he won't do it next time, then he'll hit back.

The person who cannot control himself after someone hits him, will immediatly respond with violence without a second of thinking.
There's no difference between the lion with no reason and this person, he's lead by instinct just like the lion.

So this is what Islam teaches. Man should go from weakness to strength by controlling himself and surpressing nature by reason and intellect.
This is what God calls: True succes.

Qur'an [5:35]- "Believers! Fear God and seek the means to come near to Him, and strive hard in His way; maybe you will attain true success."
Qur'an [26:89] -"but only he that brings to God a sound heart will attain to success."
Qur'an [26:89] -"Such people are on the right way from their Lord and such are truly successful."

Nonetheless, this of course works on an individual basis. Not on the basis of a society.
Within society, there will be people that will be far from nature, others will be very close.
Because there will always be people, who will stay weak, and they cannot be controlled.

Introducing concepts like Euthanasia is dangerous, because there are individuals within society that do not use reason and intellect the way it should be used, and they may do something wrong.
Like I said; Man is too weak to judge about this.

EDIT: I just found out, I worked 30-40 mins on this....

Quote from: "iSok"So I pretty much 'accept' the theory.

May I just point out that the "theory" here is not "just a hypothesis", it is a scientific theory.
Here are two meanings of the word "theory" from the Oxford Dictionary:

1. A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed

2. A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.

Even though the first meaning of the term is the correct one in this context, some religious people use the second meaning.
I just wanted to point it out.

Yea, I don't really understand people who deny scientific theories purely because of their religion. Usually the two can be reconciled, especially if you look at the theory as an explaination of how their god does things.

Quote from: "DirtyLeo"

Quote from: "iSok"So I pretty much 'accept' the theory.

May I just point out that the "theory" here is not "just a hypothesis", it is a scientific theory.
....

Even though the first meaning of the term is the correct one in this context, some religious people use the second meaning.
I just wanted to point it out.

It didn't seem to me like that needed pointing out in this case.

Quote from: "iSok"A while back I had a debate with Recusant, about the Signs in the Qur'an.
Eventually he concluded that the Qur'an does not predict science but rather reflects science like a mirror.
At first, I didn't agree with him, but when I thought about it, he had a point.

In 1400 years, science changed a lot, the Qur'an did not.
So what about the people who were not aware of theories like the Big Bang, wouldn't they be troubled when they would read this?
Recusant was right, the Qur'an indeed reflects science, and I find this even more amazing.
Let me give you an example, on what the Qur'an says about the origin of the universe and the current condition.

 Sly, but not quite accurate, iSok.  In fact what I was talking about is how recent translations of the Quran have been crafted to reflect modern science.

Quote from: "url=http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6732&start=45#p101301]Recusant[/url]"]In fact the Quran did not predict modern cosmology, rather the translation was changed to reflect modern cosmology.

And again:

Quote from: "url=http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6732&start=45#p101434]Recusant[/url]"]You (and others who subscribe to these ideas) may try to say that infidels such as myself should see the fact that the verse can be re-translated to reflect modern science as a sign of the miraculous nature of the Quran. I do not see it that way. When words can have so many meanings (as is the case in Arabic) then it's inevitable that people will change their understanding of the writing to reflect the modern world when it suits their agenda. This is not miraculous, and is not a sign to me of a divine origin for your holy book.

For a third time (same thread):

Quote from: "url=http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6732&start=60#p101455]Recusant[/url]"]...the meaning which was chosen by the later translator was chosen to reflect modern science. This is not a prediction of modern science.

You corrected me by pointing out that though the translation from which you were deriving these "miraculous" ayat was relatively recent, there seems to have been no way that the translator could have been aware of modern cosmology.  I concede that point, yet remain dubious (to say the least) regarding the relevance of the Quran to modern science.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "iSok"A while back I had a debate with Recusant, about the Signs in the Qur'an.
Eventually he concluded that the Qur'an does not predict science but rather reflects science like a mirror.
At first, I didn't agree with him, but when I thought about it, he had a point.

In 1400 years, science changed a lot, the Qur'an did not.
So what about the people who were not aware of theories like the Big Bang, wouldn't they be troubled when they would read this?
Recusant was right, the Qur'an indeed reflects science, and I find this even more amazing.
Let me give you an example, on what the Qur'an says about the origin of the universe and the current condition.

;)


For a part you are right Recusant, translators indeed change the translations so it will reflect modern science.
But this translation that they present, is not grasped out of thin air. It has a basis in the Qur'an.

When I quote verses here from the Qur'an, they are most of the time from this website: --> http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php
It's a 1979 translation by a Pakistani scholar with no knowledge of science (If you read his tafseer, you'll understand that)

Let me give you once again the example, he translates this verse in the following way.

Qur'an [51:47]- "And heaven â€" We made it with Our Own Power and We have the Power to do so."

But in his tafseer, he adds the following about the same verse:
The word must' (pl. musi'un) may mean the one who possesses power and means, and also the one who can extend and expand something. According to the first meaning, the verse would mean: "We have built this heaven by Our own might and not with somebody else's help, and its erection was in no way beyond Us. Then how can you ever conceive that We shall not be able to recreate it ?" According to the second meaning, it would mean: "This huge universe that We have created, is not a finished work, but We are expanding it continuously, and new and ever new manifestations of Our creation are appearing in it every moment. How do you then think that such a marvelous Creator would not be able to repeat His creation.

To me this is amazing. That a layman with no background in science actually wrote this down in the mountains of Pakistan.
So the translations are not just picked out of thin air or crafted, they have a foundation in the Qur'an. The tafseer above should be enough to prove this point.

Translators before this would choose for the 'Power' aspect in 51:47 (Because it makes more sense, for their worldview --> Qur'an reflects)
Today they choose for the 'expanding' aspect --> their worldview, it makes more sense.
Both 'Power' and 'Expanding' are equal in this verse.
And that is what I find so amazing, that the Qur'an does not disturb the reality of man by shocking him, it grows with man during time. It's timeless.
(50 years ago, scientists thought that the universe was eternal and steady)

We are very curious creatures, truth seekers. We can see this aspect in the life of children.
Sometimes they can make your head spin when the 'why?' and 'how?'  questions are fired continuosly.
So if we set the parameters of truth, we can accept truth, rather than walking around in the dark.
And demanding the explanation of the explanation of the explanation. Or proof of proof.

The Author of the Qur'an claims that He was always present and that He created everything.
If He can make one point clear, then I have to accept the truth. But He doesn't just make one point clear, but many.....
I have no other reason than to accept this. The only reason I sometimes doubt is because I find the concept of eternal life terrifying....
The Why and How questions should be still followed, and we should do as much as possible to understand more.

But if we can't answer it, that should not mean that we should retreat from the Truth, just because our hunger for answers is not stilled.
A child should not stop eating brocolli or stop visiting school, just because he does not understand it.

(I agree that people like Harun Yahya are going a bit extreme, by even saying that the basis of the eiffel tower can be found in the Qur'an, it gives this topic a bad picture.)
You are right in the essence, that one should not go in the extremes of pointing out that everything that science reveals is stated in the Qur'an.



Qur'an [3:58] - What We recite to you consists of signs and wise admonition."

It's a book of Signs with the theme off: 'You did not know this before, so believe that this is the Truth'
The Qur'an also admits that some verses we can't understand at this moment.


Qur'an [3:7] - "It is He Who has revealed the Book to you. Some of its verses are absolutely clear and lucid, and these are the core of the Book. Others are ambiguous. Those in whose hearts there is perversity, always go about the part which is ambiguous, seeking mischief and seeking to arrive at its meaning arbitrarily, although none knows their true meaning except God. On the contrary, those firmly rooted in knowledge say: 'We believe in it; it is all from our Lord alone. No one derives true admonition from anything except the men of understanding."

Islam in my opinion is a religion of knowledge. A life time studying is not enough to understand every aspect.
A religion of God should be that way, too stimulate the greatest gift that God has given us: Intellect.


Qur'an [3:7] - "Surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are signs for men of understanding."

Quote from: "iSok"Islam in my opinion is a religion of knowledge.

In my opinion it is impossible to have a religion based on knowledge.
Religions are based on faith and belief. The requirement of faith and belief is accepting something to be true without knowledge. With knowledge, concepts become facts. Science would be the closest to having a religion of knowledge, but then again science isn't a religion.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "iSok"Islam in my opinion is a religion of knowledge.

In my opinion it is impossible to have a religion based on knowledge.
Religions are based on faith and belief. The requirement of faith and belief is accepting something to be true without knowledge. With knowledge, concepts become facts. Science would be the closest to having a religion of knowledge, but then again science isn't a religion.

What I want to make clear is that Islam is not only. --> Believe in God.
It's also to understand why God wants certain things, what our purpose is.
For example the Sharia.

Why do women inherit 1/2 of a man? Why should a women wear a veil?
What are the ethics of war? In what cases is war allowed?
How should the laws be applied?
How should the economy be set up? Why is interest forbidden?

These are just simple examples, but it certainly demands knowledge to understand Islam.
Understanding this is trying to understand what God wants from us.
(In this reality we will never understand God, it's beyond our perception. When I quote the Qur'an I talk about the Qur'an, not about God, we can only try to understand what God wants from us)
This is the knowledge I am talking about for which you need your intellect.

Quote from: "iSok"What I want to make clear is that Islam is not only. --> Believe in God.

These things that you have listed all seem in essence very similar to the other religions. Building upon your belief in a god, well then, what does god want from us? Oh, to live a Good life. What does that mean?, Oh, follow these morals as described in this book, Good Oh!

Quote from: "iSok"what our purpose is.

yes, Christians keep arguing that there is some kind of objective purpose, although I am yet to hear them say what it is.

Quote from: "iSok"Why do women inherit 1/2 of a man?

This is interesting. What does it mean? Can you please elaborate?

Quote from: "iSok"When I quote the Qur'an I talk about the Qur'an, not about God, we can only try to understand what God wants from us)
This is the knowledge I am talking about for which you need your intellect.

This is not knowledge, it is speculative belief. How can one know what god wants, when one can only believe that there is a god and not know.

Quote from: "Stevil"yes, Christians keep arguing that there is some kind of objective purpose, although I am yet to hear them say what it is.

A quick answer: The purpose of a Christian is to love God and to love his fellow man as he loves himself. That's it. Now you can stop wondering.

And by the way, The God of the Bible isn't the god of the Qur'an. Don't let iSok fool you by his use of the word ''God.'' He means ''Allah.''

Carry on.

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "Stevil"yes, Christians keep arguing that there is some kind of objective purpose, although I am yet to hear them say what it is.

A quick answer: The purpose of a Christian is to love God and to love his fellow man as he loves himself. That's it. Now you can stop wondering.

That's a subjective purpose...Stevil was commenting on objective purpose.

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "Stevil"yes, Christians keep arguing that there is some kind of objective purpose, although I am yet to hear them say what it is.

A quick answer: The purpose of a Christian is to love God and to love his fellow man as he loves himself. That's it. Now you can stop wondering.

And by the way, The God of the Bible isn't the god of the Qur'an. Don't let iSok fool you by his use of the word ''God.'' He means ''Allah.''

Carry on.

They are all gods.
It is arrogant of Christianity to simply claim that god with a capital G means the Christian god. The Christian god has a name, YHWH.

The purpose as you claim seems transient. Since the love only comes from you towords your god then it doesn't improve or add value to the universe. It seems to be only an aspect of a personal relationship that you think you have with your god. The love towards "fellow man" only applies if there is "fellow man". Near the beginning of time, when there was no man, there there was no need for love of fellow man. Hence it seems this purpose is quite circular in nature and doesn't add value into a grander scheme. It doesn't seem that there was a purpose driving god's creation of humans, it certainly wasn't so that the humans can fulfill this purpose god has ordained onto humans.

Quote from: "Stevil"These things that you have listed all seem in essence very similar to the other religions. Building upon your belief in a god, well then, what does god want from us? Oh, to live a Good life. What does that mean?, Oh, follow these morals as described in this book, Good Oh!

You have a point there Stevil, but there is a difference that you've left out.
Indeed, the steps within Islam are as followed.

1. Believe in God.
2. Follow His guidance. (Qur'an, Hadith and the Sunnah)

Believing in God(s) is very similar to other religions. So there's almost no difference between Islam and other religions. Like I said, almost.
Islam is the only religion which holds the two concept of the Oneness of God and the Oneness of Man. It has a monopoly on this.

By knowledge, I mean point 2. It's true that you say that religion demands from man to be a 'good' person.
But there are a few problems, let me give you an example.
Christ for example said that you should turn the other cheek if you're hit (good moral law). We can ask ourselves this: Was there any Christian nation that actually applied this?
The answer is short: No. Do you think AreEl would turn his other cheek if I'd hit him, even if Christ told him to do this? The answer is short again: No.

Islam recognizes this, instead of just giving moral guidance, Islam also gives laws. Law for family, society, economy, war, politics..etc.
So it does not abandon man, by asking him to do the impossible. It understands that society is complex and provides laws. No other religion gives this.
Islam does tolerate war for example in certain contexts, but it's economy strictly forbids trade in arms.

And this what I mean by saying: Islam is a religion of knowledge.
In the first place you are of course right: A religion is a religion, something based on belief what other people might not have.

But once you belief in God, then you can study His religion for life, you will not be dissapointed if you have a hunger for knowledge.
And by studying this, you can try to understand what God wants from us. I hope it's more clear now.

Quote from: "Stevil"This is interesting. What does it mean? Can you please elaborate?

My English is unfortunately not well, I think I made a huge grammar mistake.
Women do not 'inherit' men.
What I mean is that a woman inherits just 1/2 of what a man inherits according to the family law of the Sharia (=the path).

If two siblings (male and female) would inherit 1000 dollars. Then the male would get 666,66 and the female 333,33.

Some people would immediately conclude that a woman is seen as 'less' within Islam.
But it takes knowledge to understand why this is the way.

Once finding out what the true reason is, we might conclude that the man should inherit even more than twice as much.

Quote from: "AreEl"

Quote from: "Stevil"yes, Christians keep arguing that there is some kind of objective purpose, although I am yet to hear them say what it is.

A quick answer: The purpose of a Christian is to love God and to love his fellow man as he loves himself. That's it. Now you can stop wondering.

And by the way, The God of the Bible isn't the god of the Qur'an. Don't let iSok fool you by his use of the word ''God.'' He means ''Allah.''

Carry on.

If Jesus was here, would he appreciate your behaviour?

'Allah' and 'God' are the same. Arab Christians call God, 'Allah'. Allah means in Arabic: 'The One God'. Hindu's call God 'Vishnu', other's call Him 'Baghan'.
In Hebrew, I thought it was 'Elah'.

I happen to use the English word for the Creator, which is 'God'.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "Stevil"This is interesting. What does it mean? Can you please elaborate?

My English is unfortunately not well, I think I made a huge grammar mistake.
Women do not 'inherit' men.
What I mean is that a woman inherits just 1/2 of what a man inherits according to the family law of the Sharia (=the path).

If two siblings (male and female) would inherit 1000 dollars. Then the male would get 666,66 and the female 333,33.

Some people would immediately conclude that a woman is seen as 'less' within Islam.
But it takes knowledge to understand why this is the way.

Once finding out what the true reason is, we might conclude that the man should inherit even more than twice as much.

I think you already know my stance on this, no point me typing it out.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10715552
Euthanasia clinic proposed

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "AreEl"A quick answer: The purpose of a Christian is to love God and to love his fellow man as he loves himself. That's it. Now you can stop wondering.

And by the way, The God of the Bible isn't the god of the Qur'an. Don't let iSok fool you by his use of the word ''God.'' He means ''Allah.''

Carry on.

If Jesus was here, would he appreciate your behaviour?

'Allah' and 'God' are the same. Arab Christians call God, 'Allah'. Allah means in Arabic: 'The One God'. Hindu's call God 'Vishnu', other's call Him 'Baghan'.
In Hebrew, I thought it was 'Elah'.

I happen to use the English word for the Creator, which is 'God'.

The Hebrew title of God is "Elohim;" in Arabic it's "Allah." These two words for God have a common bond that most people don't understand. Both of these words have their origin in pagan deities of the ancient past.  Webster’s Dictionary gives the definition and etymology of Allah as follows. Allah is the Muslim name for "the God." Allah is derived from two words "al," which means "the" and "ilah," which is related to the feminine Hebrew word for God, "eloah."  Now the Hebrew title or name for God is 'Elohim' and it is the plural form of eloah. It is made plural by adding "im," which is masculine. This corresponds to adding "s" to make a word plural in English. So the commonality between Allah and Elohim is "eloah" and "ilah."  According the Huston Smith’s book The World’s Religions (p. 222), it states: "Allah is formed by joining the definite article al meaning ‘the’ with Ilah (God). Literally, Allah means ‘The God.’ … When the masculine plural ending im is dropped from the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, the two words sound much alike." Eloah (Hebrew feminine) is similar to Ilah (God). Both Elohim and Allah are titles and not names. http://www.plim.org/1Allah.html

So... in one way, it would seem Jews (and by extension Christians) and Muslims worship the same god.  At least Islam and Judaism both claim the god of Abraham.  In another sense, Elohim and Allah are both titles instead of names.  Sorta like walking up to a man named Larry and calling him Dude.  Jews don't speak the name of god, YHWH.  Not sure if Muslims actually have a name for Allah, or if the title has become the name.  Also, both the Hebrew god and the Muslim god were previously worshipped by pagans as one of many gods.

So what does all this mean for Euthanasia?  Does that mean it's okay to kill old people who are terminally ill and want to die?

Quote from: "fester30"

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "AreEl"A quick answer: The purpose of a Christian is to love God and to love his fellow man as he loves himself. That's it. Now you can stop wondering.

And by the way, The God of the Bible isn't the god of the Qur'an. Don't let iSok fool you by his use of the word ''God.'' He means ''Allah.''

Carry on.

If Jesus was here, would he appreciate your behaviour?

'Allah' and 'God' are the same. Arab Christians call God, 'Allah'. Allah means in Arabic: 'The One God'. Hindu's call God 'Vishnu', other's call Him 'Baghan'.
In Hebrew, I thought it was 'Elah'.

I happen to use the English word for the Creator, which is 'God'.

The Hebrew title of God is "Elohim;" in Arabic it's "Allah." These two words for God have a common bond that most people don't understand. Both of these words have their origin in pagan deities of the ancient past.  Webster’s Dictionary gives the definition and etymology of Allah as follows. Allah is the Muslim name for "the God." Allah is derived from two words "al," which means "the" and "ilah," which is related to the feminine Hebrew word for God, "eloah."  Now the Hebrew title or name for God is 'Elohim' and it is the plural form of eloah. It is made plural by adding "im," which is masculine. This corresponds to adding "s" to make a word plural in English. So the commonality between Allah and Elohim is "eloah" and "ilah."  According the Huston Smith’s book The World’s Religions (p. 222), it states: "Allah is formed by joining the definite article al meaning ‘the’ with Ilah (God). Literally, Allah means ‘The God.’ … When the masculine plural ending im is dropped from the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, the two words sound much alike." Eloah (Hebrew feminine) is similar to Ilah (God). Both Elohim and Allah are titles and not names. http://www.plim.org/1Allah.html

So... in one way, it would seem Jews (and by extension Christians) and Muslims worship the same god.  At least Islam and Judaism both claim the god of Abraham.  In another sense, Elohim and Allah are both titles instead of names.  Sorta like walking up to a man named Larry and calling him Dude.  Jews don't speak the name of god, YHWH.  Not sure if Muslims actually have a name for Allah, or if the title has become the name.  Also, both the Hebrew god and the Muslim god were previously worshipped by pagans as one of many gods.

So what does all this mean for Euthanasia?  Does that mean it's okay to kill old people who are terminally ill and want to die?

Man is a a social creature. It does not like loneliness and most of the time follows others.
Very much like cattle you could say, we are like cattle too be more honest.
So naturally we are affected by what other people think, do and say.We copy them and act that way.

Now, what happens if you introduce the concept of Euthanasia?

At first, it won't be a problem, not everyone will use this.
But after time progresses, it won't be a controversial topic anymore.
When this happens, the strict rules will be more smoothed. To make it more easy for other people to make use of this possibility.
This will happen inevitably if you allow it.

After some while, it will be very common. When this happens, it will affect other's.
Elderly will be seen as selfish if they don't end it after living for 80 years. So they will perceive a certain social pressure, a type of norm.
"You end it after 80 years, otherwise you are selfish."
Some will see it as an escape, out of their depression....and so on..

The reason, that religions forbids is because man is lead by emotions and not reason.
And sometimes heavy emotions can have a massive impact.


Why I am against?

1. If we allow it, the laws will be more and more smooth as time passes. Eventually it will be something common.
2. We are very weak and most of the time we are lead by emotions instead of reason.

Quote from: "iSok"2. We are very weak and most of the time we are lead by emotions instead of reason.

Religious beliefs are based on emotions rather than reason. Going by your logic we should outlaw religion.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "iSok"2. We are very weak and most of the time we are lead by emotions instead of reason.

Religious beliefs are based on emotions rather than reason. Going by your logic we should outlaw religion.

That's true, but everything is based on emotions rather than reason.
Your standpoint too.

If we had a supercomputer and we would enter all the parameters and values that we know.
The supercomputer would caculate the existence of God, probably it would be higher than 50%.
So it would be reasonable to believe.

But many of us, don't believe. We might ask ourselves why?
We kind off reason this way:

1. I follow smart people.
2. Most smart people don't believe in God.
3. Dumb people believe in God.
4. The smart people are always right.
5. God does not exist.

Exactly like cattle.

We should ask, how step 2 came into existence.
Why do 'smart' people not believe in God.

As I explained earlier here, most holy books demand absolute submission.
The message is: "I am God, you are nothing but an ant, I do what I want, so now bow and obey".
For most scientists this message is not really appealing.
They are the top 1% of society, and now some invisible Being demands their submission.
I think that people like Dawkins or Harris are a good example. They talk as if they are the world, and they are right.
They will never put their forehead on the soil of the earth for God. Because the part that makes them who they are (frontal lobe), should never be the lowest part of their body.
That is what God demands (within Islam). There is no place for ego within this gesture.

When people attain knowledge, they also attain ego. It counts for religious people and scientists.
They find themselves better than everyone else because they are 'learned'.
A little voice in their head says: "Look what you have achieved! You did it all by yourself, you don't need anyone! You're independent and better!".
This voice is also in my head, but I'm trying to kill it and hopefully it won't  take over me.

You could read the books of Imam Al-Ghazali, even if you are not religious.
He describes the life of man, just like the flight of birds.

He narrates a story about birds, looking for the Phoenix.
So this group of birds are going on a journey to the Phoenix.
The journey is rather long and on their own, they can't make it, they will never reach the Phoenix.
So they exactly do what birds most of the time do when they are on trans-continental journies.

They fly in a V-formation, to make the flight more durable. The one on the front, has the suffer the most, but the birds
change position regurlary. So everyone has their turn to fly in the front position.

Once they reach the Phoenix, the Phoenix asks them: Who made this long journey possible?
All of the birds scream at once and say: 'I made it possible!!'.  Not one of them said: 'We made it possible".

When a journalist asked Peter Atkins why he was so selfish, he answered: 'What's wrong with being selfish if you are right?'
It tells enough...

Nonetheless, if science truly destroyed the concept of God.
Then there wouldn't be any religious people in science. Polls show that 20% of scientists, still do believe in a personal God.
I find that still amazing. Peer pressure, ego and the need to follow others within your community still result in 20% of religious people.

But 80% of the scientist do not believe in God and it attracts the masses.
Many of them have never examined their statements or why they do not believe.
Simply they think it's alright not too believe is because the majority of the 'smart' people don't believe either.
"So they can't be wrong!". It results in 25% of the population swallowing prozac.

I find it reasonable to believe in God, because of certain signs in nature.  You see that as reason not too believe in God.
We both mark it as reason, but it's actually emotion.

A top argument, what I have is: We do need God.
You might want me to explain.

Quote from: "iSok"If we had a supercomputer and we would enter all the parameters and values that we know.
The supercomputer would caculate the existence of God, probably it would be higher than 50%.
So it would be reasonable to believe.

But many of us, don't believe. We might ask ourselves why?
We kind off reason this way:

1. I follow smart people.
2. Most smart people don't believe in God.
3. Dumb people believe in God.
4. The smart people are always right.
5. God does not exist.

Exactly like cattle.

Is that really why you think people don't believe in god?

How about this:
1. Are there any photo's of God? No
2. Are there any sound recordings of God? No
3. Can God be detected by any physical equipment? No
4. Are there any detectable observations that can only be attributed to God? No
5. Is there a consice definition of God, including anything that can be observed or measured? No
6. Is there a universal agreement with regards to what God looks like? No
7. Is there a universal agreement with regards to how God can be recognised? No
8. Is it possible for an intelligent being to exist before existence itself? No
9. Is it possible for a being to be intelligent before existence? No
10. Is it possible for a being to be made of non material stuff? No
11. Is it possible for a being to be made of nothing? No
12. How do we know of the story of God? Bible, Koran, ...
13. Do these documents contradict with each other? Yes
14. Do these documents contradict themselves? Sometimes
15. Do these documents present imposible ideas? Yes
16. Is there an alternative to the possiblity of God? Yes
17. Is there money/power motive for promoting God? Yes

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "iSok"If we had a supercomputer and we would enter all the parameters and values that we know.
The supercomputer would caculate the existence of God, probably it would be higher than 50%.
So it would be reasonable to believe.

But many of us, don't believe. We might ask ourselves why?
We kind off reason this way:

1. I follow smart people.
2. Most smart people don't believe in God.
3. Dumb people believe in God.
4. The smart people are always right.
5. God does not exist.

Exactly like cattle.

:bananacolor:

Quote from: "iSok"Why I am against?

1. If we allow it, the laws will be more and more smooth as time passes. Eventually it will be something common.
2. We are very weak and most of the time we are lead by emotions instead of reason.

So if I'm not mistaken, you are going with the slippery slope concept.

I can't say I am wise enough in my young age to know whether euthanasia will go down that path.  I can say if we're going to go with the idea that it's a woman's body, therefore it's a woman's choice (abortion) than why shouldn't we use the same concept with everybody when it comes to suicide or assisted suicide?  We could have assisted death clinics (that would probably get bombed by some crazy).

Quote from: "fester30"Now that's just unfair.  God is so powerful he can exist everywhere without being seen, smelled, heard, or measured in any way.  He's cooler than Houdini.  But not cooler than that guy ====> (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyMVFf.png&hash=52fd32acb1f39e43fb170d802b06968a0364c6d9)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyMVFf.png&hash=52fd32acb1f39e43fb170d802b06968a0364c6d9) (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyMVFf.png&hash=52fd32acb1f39e43fb170d802b06968a0364c6d9) (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyMVFf.png&hash=52fd32acb1f39e43fb170d802b06968a0364c6d9)

Quote from: "Stevil"Is that really why you think people don't believe in god?

That's exactly why I think that people don't believe.
Even laymen today try to talk in an intellectual 'fashioned' way just to assume that God does not exist.
(In the past it were some of the intelligent people that did not believe).
Today it's a trend, to follow intelligent people because they are always 'right'.

Quote from: "Stevil"How about this:
1. Are there any photo's of God? No
2. Are there any sound recordings of God? No
3. Can God be detected by any physical equipment? No
4. Are there any detectable observations that can only be attributed to God? No
5. Is there a consice definition of God, including anything that can be observed or measured? No
6. Is there a universal agreement with regards to what God looks like? No
7. Is there a universal agreement with regards to how God can be recognised? No
8. Is it possible for an intelligent being to exist before existence itself? No
9. Is it possible for a being to be intelligent before existence? No
10. Is it possible for a being to be made of non material stuff? No
11. Is it possible for a being to be made of nothing? No

You naturally asume that God should be within your perception. Otherwise He does not exist.
That's like saying that you can see everything, the Absolute. You assume that God is made of matter.
You think that God should be submitted to the scientific method, since you believe it's the only method to understand everything.
I believe we should submit to God and to see that science gives a lot of understanding but not everything.
That our method is not perfect, that we are not perfect. That only God is perfect.
That is true submission, and ego has no place in that.


I have to confess that I don't know what God is made off, wether He is made of something.
Or if He is a mind. I understand very well that, it's beyond my perception to understand God.
I can only try to understand what He wants and I hope I am right.
So yes Stevil, at those points you can ridicule me.

Quote from: "Stevil"12. How do we know of the story of God? Bible, Koran, ...
13. Do these documents contradict with each other? Yes
14. Do these documents contradict themselves? Sometimes
15. Do these documents present imposible ideas? Yes
16. Is there an alternative to the possiblity of God? Yes

In detail they might contradict.
But every religion today has one thing in common.
"There is One God and do good to go near Him".

Just take the example of Hinduism.
They believe in One God, but they just think that He comes to earth in different forms/incarnations.
I believe the people, that they are talking about --> Brahma, Krishna or Ram were actually messengers. Because of their high moral
character, people are now worshipping them. Christ for example had such a high moral code, that he is also seen as God.

I think I mentioned here earlier on about Brahma and his wife Saraswati.
Saraswati is the goddess of fertility within Hinduism and Brahama is her husband.

Abraham - Brahma
Sara - Saraswati    

Notice, how much the names are a like, it's just unbelievable.

1. Names are almost the same
2. Both refer to a couple
3. Brahma is the husband and Saraswati is the wife.
4. Saraswati is the goddess of fertility (note that Sara gave birth on a very late age).

Do you see this as coincidence?
So Stevil, their are some amazing facts here... where religions almost look the same.

Qur'an [6:42] - "And We did indeed send Messengers to other nations before you and then We seized those nations with misfortune and hardship so that they might humble themselves (before Us)."

Quote from: "Stevil"17. Is there money/power motive for promoting God? Yes

There surely are scams. But the majority of religious people give more than they take.
Just take a look at Christian aid-organisations. They are everywhere. We muslims give 2,5% - 3% of our income to the needy.
The mosque I usually attend, raised a little less than 5000 euro's at a friday afternoon for Japan.

Quote from: "fester30"

Quote from: "iSok"Why I am against?

1. If we allow it, the laws will be more and more smooth as time passes. Eventually it will be something common.
2. We are very weak and most of the time we are lead by emotions instead of reason.

So if I'm not mistaken, you are going with the slippery slope concept.

I can't say I am wise enough in my young age to know whether euthanasia will go down that path.  I can say if we're going to go with the idea that it's a woman's body, therefore it's a woman's choice (abortion) than why shouldn't we use the same concept with everybody when it comes to suicide or assisted suicide?  We could have assisted death clinics (that would probably get bombed by some crazy).

Yes, the slippery slope concept.
Actually this whole discussion would not be needed if we changed one thing.

Do you know what the largest group is that will ask for Euthanasia? It will be the elderly.
It's sad...sad fact that we  treat animals better than the elderly here in the west.

They are disposed like trash, sitting in a room 3 by 3, waiting for death. While their dear son or daughter
visits them once a week (if they are fortunate enough). Visiting them is almost like a burden for the family and the elderly
know very well this fact. A whole week long they are longing to see their family but their family just sees them as a burden.
When they come, there is no love, no bond, only the feeling of: 'I do this because my conscience will not leave me alone otherwise'.

It's a sick thought, that they ask for Euthanasia, because they are lonely and in missery.
This discussion interested me, and I visited a few pro-Euthanasia websites, to see what their target was.
So they post multiple stories of people, that long for Euthanasia.

It shocked me that, most of them are elderly who are just lonely.
In Belgium for example, there was a couple. The husband was 83 and he had terminal prostate cancer. So he was about to die soon.
The woman was not ill. But nonetheless, both asked for euthanasia and it was approved.
The woman did no longer want to live, because she would be lonely.

It's the slippery slope concept, the weakness of man and the peer pressure that will be here.

I think you must have heard of terminal dehydration. You stop giving patients fluid, so death will come soon.
This was introduced in the 90's here. And in some elderly homes, where the elderly were suffering from dementia (memory loss), they were
terminal dehydrated without asking their permission. They just didn't give them any water because they assumed it would be better for them to die soon.
One man (63) was saved by his family and they filled in a lawsuit.

These are just examples of why I'm against it.
Are you going to introduce it because it's ethical? I don't agree.
Is it a good way to get rid of population ageing to save on expenses? I agree.

This whole discussion would not be needed if we just took our responsibility to care for our parents.
To care for them like they have cared for us,
to treat them like they have treated us,
to love them like they haved loved us,
even if they turned into children because we were also children.

Not get rid of them like animals just because we see them as a burden.
If we do that, no doubt that the cycle will repeat and you will also end in misery.

Qur'an  [46:15] - "We have enjoined man to be kind to his parents. In pain did his mother bear him and in pain did she give birth to him."

Quote from: "iSok"So yes Stevil, at those points you can ridicule me.

I have no intent to ridicule you. My disbelief in gods has nothing to do with you.
My disbelief is because I can't see the logic as to why a god would be necessary or possible.
The only "proof" is the books/scripture written by people thousands of years ago. These books are riddled with holes and contradict and show no reason why the authors came to the conclusion of their stories. I am not following trends or some arbitrary "intelligent" person. My disbelieve is personal to me and has come about throuhg much thought and consideration. Please don't tell me that I am lieing to you.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "iSok"So yes Stevil, at those points you can ridicule me.

I have no intent to ridicule you. My disbelief in gods has nothing to do with you.
My disbelief is because I can't see the logic as to why a god would be necessary or possible.
The only "proof" is the books/scripture written by people thousands of years ago. These books are riddled with holes and contradict and show no reason why the authors came to the conclusion of their stories. I am not following trends or some arbitrary "intelligent" person. My disbelieve is personal to me and has come about throuhg much thought and consideration. Please don't tell me that I am lieing to you.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
My English is very weak, one of the reasons why I came here is too improve my English.
What better is  way there, then to be a Muslim on an Atheist forum and talk about religion

What I meant with 'ridicule' is the large gap within my argument you could say.
'I believe in something I don't understand'. So it gives you space for a 'counter-attack', I admitted that I am aware of that.
And I can't back that up in any proper way.
Not in the way of a personal attack.

(Can you share your experience? How, why, when and what faith did you leave? What was the difference when you believed and when you did not, what made you belief?
I understand it's personal, you can ignore this request if you don't feel like replying.)

Quote from: "iSok"My English is very weak, one of the reasons why I came here is too improve my English.
What better is  way there, then to be a Muslim on an Atheist forum and talk about religion

What I meant with 'ridicule' is the large gap within my argument you could say.
'I believe in something I don't understand'. So it gives you space for a 'counter-attack', I admitted that I am aware of that.
And I can't back that up in any proper way.

There are many reasons why we participate on this forum. Not just to talk about Atheist concerns.
I don't care to attack your belief. I am happy that you believe in what you believe, as an individual that is your right and only you know what is best for you.
I will debate, discuss and explore ideas if they seem interesting. I am an opinionated person, so often have a desire to say things about topics. I can only offer my opinion, I cannot tell you what to do or think.

Quote from: "iSok"(Can you share your experience? How, why, when and what faith did you leave? What was the difference when you believed and when you did not, what made you belief?
I understand it's personal, you can ignore this request if you don't feel like replying.)

I've never really been a theist. There was a stage in my early life where we had a bible teacher come into school a few times with a fluff board and those pictures of people that she would stick on their and talk about. I was of a very young age at the time and tended to believe everything I was told by the adults at school. When discussing with my parents, my Father didn't believe in gods, my Mother thought that the Christian god existed. This opened the possibility to me that not everything I am told by adults at School is the truth. After much thought I decided it was unlikely that there were any gods. Much later in life I joined this forum and learnt a bit about Christianity and the Bible and was quite surprised and shocked to hear how vile some of the stories of the Bible are and the actions depicted by the Christian god. I have learned through this forum that Christians tend to believe that their god created existence and is non material, I am struggling very much to understand how that works. I am very much struggling to understand how anyone who has read the bible can be a Christian. With regards to muslims, I haven't had much exposure. My wife comes from Malaysia but is a Chinese and does not believe in gods, her family is tending towards Bhudism, one of her good friends is a Muslim but we don't discuss the topic.

Thank you, for your elaborate reply.