Does God Exist?

If anyone is interested in further discussion of the issue whether or not Islam is inherently violent, I found this debate between the late, great atheist Christopher Hitchens and Oxford professor Tariq Ramadan interesting. Needless to say, I favor Professor Ramadan, whom I think is a voice of reason and sanity. Some of you, I'm sure, may prefer Hitchens, whom I think is a bit of a demagogue on this issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24J3Y0mtWZU

more germane to this thread is a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Intelligent Design proponent, William Dembski, on the issue Does a good God exist? On this one, I think Hitchens is at the top of his game on this one.
.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctuloBOYolE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctuloBOYolE

 

Yes, a concept in the minds of men but God is also the collective superego of any particular sect.

What all these Gods want is power growth and warfare.

 

but what sources? if you're talking about religious texts and concordances, this is circular "logic", see logic circular.

 

I see you want to confine the definition of religion to entries that only serve your purpose, i.e. the definition you are using. Don't really understand what the purpose for making the distinction is. Religion doesn't have to have a supernatural god but only a set of what are considered authoritative principles that are cited concerned with transcendent human development. My emphasis is on understanding phenomena in a way that can be communicated and is all inclusive or considerate of the variables, not on taking sides in an argument.

This is not off topic any more than saying buddhism is not a religion

There are twelve classical world religions—those religions most often included in history of world religion surveys and studied in world religions classes: Baha'i, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism,Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism.

The reason there are many major religions is that they emerge from a distinct cultural setting. Religious doctrines, theologies, and institutions are extensions of culture. The core truth that the person the religion is founded around comes in the form of axiomatic principles or that which commends itself as evident. Profound personal experience. There is a reason conversion happens and it is quite arrogant to think that the reason is deception as a rule. (Not saying that is what you think.)

We cannot produce an invisible or supernatural force but we can examine the visible human sense of devotion which is the demonstrable side of the equation of does god exist. In studying our human being we find all that can be said about the subject. We have a sense of devotion to our good authority/god that is ubiquitous in human beings. We all appeal to an authority to organize our lives. Sometimes that authority is no more than the way you feel but we always choose with a guide.

We are all devoted to the authority we invoke. A more pertinent question than does god exist is how does your idea of authority serve you in terms of experience. To be honest in those terms of introspection is as close as we can get to proof of life. I can say with evident truth or self honest appraisal that those who are waiting for salvation, to use an expression, in an imagined future event are simply not saved in this moment of true living color. I can honestly say that making an effort to be enlightened is like trying to supply the answer to a question you don't know the answer to and there is no resting space for the answer to light in the effort. Light is all around and the clearly open eye is enlightened as is it's function.

 

Of course I didn't mean just those sources, because that would indeed indicate a big degree of ignorance. It seems to be an atheist myth to think most religious people limit themselves to religious texts and refuse to take any scientific approach or take notice of scientific sources. Well, I guess most atheists stating such things know secretly they are grossly oversimplificating/generalizing what religious people are, do and how they think.
Anybody who actually knows enough religious people know they are very diverse. We would almost conclude they're just like non religious people For both count they can have extremists views, for both counts they have beliefs they hold onto because they comfort them, for both counts they can cling to those beliefs to the extent it can be said they live in a 'cocoon'. For both counts to state that the majority of them lives in a proverbial cocoon and this is inevitable for their kind of beliefs is a generalized statement, and if the other side (if people have taken a side, seems to be often like that) always insists on this generalisation they are bound to preach a distorted 'truth'. This is why some people can be bothered to always react when atheists claim these things. They need to be nuanced in order to fit reality.

 

Aren't that humans who want those things Be reasonable, mate. Ok you are taking some let's say poetic liberty here, but we both know humans are the full reason there is warfare and other power struggles. If there would be no belief in gods at all (people like) you would just need to find another scapegoat it seems

I'm interested in following the discussion (may even add my 2 cents) and I want to say you share very interesting books and movies (I especially dig the titles/sources that seem to be from philosophical theologists (sp? ) so thanks for all of them and keep those recommendations up! But... I don't know I am going to watch those lengthy vids (they're both over 2 hours in length! :-D). Are you recommending the whole thing or maybe have a particular part in mind?

 

Generally speaking, in the first debate I like the parts by Ramadan, who argues that the question "Is Islam a Peaceful Religion?" is the wrong question, because "Islam", like Christianity, is just an umbrella for a wide diversity of flawed individuals trying to interpret a book. I put the second debate on here because it is germane to the topic, although I don't think the content adds a whole lot to what we've already been saying, and I think both of the debaters are somewhat off base. The fact that Hitchens was dying and knew it gives a poignant quality to his remarks, and he is clearly more articulate and smoother than Dembski, who seems more note bound. I'll try to go through them again to see if I can identify highlights, although I found it all interesting. As you may have detected, I'm a junkie when it comes to this stuff.

 

Everyone is flawed, that's a given and an irrelevant point. What's relevant here is what ideology best suits mankind to make the best of our lives and worlds. Is there really any question that an ancient superstitious oppressive religion is a bad way to go? One that always produces some number of horrifically violent fanatics? Even if Islam was always in a stagnant state of peacefully oppressive ignorance, is there any real virtue in defending this as a viable way of life for any human being on this planet? Do you want YOUR kids to live their way? Do you want to live under sharia laws? Even Christians in this day and age are not out slaughtering people because of some cartoon Jesus parody. The levels of fanatical terrorism, barbarism and inhumanity in Islam are unmatched with any other religion or culture today.

 

One bridge at a time, mate.

We're dealing with the God "bridge" here.

So my collective superego God is unreasonable?
What IS reasonable then?

An eternal supreme being with an infinitely complex consciousness that just happens to intrinsically exist. Is that reasonable? Does that answer anything? That's MORE likely than space-time-energy and some intrinsic wave physics.... eternal supreme consciousness that decides to intelligently design, with insight, some immensely inferior finite imperfect lifeforms... that relentlessly slaughter each other in his fucking name for the duration of their pathetic existence???

 

I watched the first half hour of it. I found Hitchens a way better speaker than his writing in God Is not Great. I thought Ramadan's initial presentation was pretty weak. He wants to deflect the question of Is Islam a Relgion of Peace? or Violence? yet then when he addressess the Quran he wants to say that it's open to interpretation. Why can't he interpret the damn question instead of deflecting it? I also think his deterministic assumption of human nature as weak insofar that we are inherently violent beings is not a good notion, it's not that dissimilar from the Christian view that we are born sinners.

I will attempt to watch the rest of it when I find some time.

I think some of MeAgain's ideas in the previous post do a good job of approaching these issues with some worthwhile questions to ponder.

 

It depends on what people see in their religion. I see in mine the meaning of life, and would certainly be devastated if some atheist took that away from me because a slack-jawed inbred Klansman claiming to be Christian burned a cross on someone's law. Most most Muslims don't run amok anytime somebody draws a cartoon about the Prophet Mohammed, although that might not be apparent on the evening news. Professor Ramadan models an understanding of Islam that's inconsistent with that kind of violence. He, along with many others, have been active in denouncing such idiocy. The media doesn't notice. Many Muslims were attracted to such organizations as the Muslim Brotherhood as an alternative to the emptiness of secular, materialistic, technocratic "modern" society. Until atheism can offer a viable alternative that addresses this spiritual void and the emotional needs of humans (humanism is a bit tepid as an alternative), it faces and uphill battle. As for Sharia, there is wide variation in what it means and how it is applied, ranging from the conservative Hanbali school of Saudi Arabia and Northern Nigeria to the relatively liberal Hanifi school in Turkey and Central Asia. A federal court overturned an Oklahoma law banning Sharia on Equal Protection grounds. Not all Muslim countries follow it, and most consider it inapplicable to non-Muslims. From some of the comments on this thread, I wonder do the people posting not know many Muslims personally?

 

there can be no definitive certainty, and i fail to see how this can be other then obvious.

but being capable of being proven is not a prerequisite of existence. it is also not a reason to expect the unknown to resemble what anyone thinks they know about it.

i choose to believe that non-phyisical things do exist, are not infallible, are not hierarchical, have no wish to be worshiped, and are not at war, with anything at all what so every, neither among themselves nor beyond themselves to anything to do with us.

so what would a god be in my belief. simply a very powerful non-physical thing, more so then other non-physical things.

if that sounds like a "so what?", well, perhaps it is.

why would a god have to be a non-physical thing? because if it were physical, it would be subject to entropy, like every other physical thing is.

is there power there we should be concerned about. possibly there is.

but in what way is unclear. certainly any desire to be feared or worshiped, is itself, at best, morally questionable.

 

Well I guess you could say that some assumptions produce a picture of god that is unhelpful. The one posited is difficult to make sense of and I think obviously stillborn.

What is moral responsibility?
It is moralizing, judgement, persecution, and the attending fear, animosity, and suspicion that causes us to think in negative terms about anything.

Beliefs about only contend with other beliefs about, they do not contend with the truth.

To the question how do you know, you know by the taste of your own experience. You can't know by strength of belief but you can become familiar by trusting there is something to find.

As long as you moralize you will have strife. Regardless whether you look for divine arbitration or not you are still being arbitrary or not using sound judgement. Therefor the fundamental premise, do not judge, (moralize.)

Our protections extend naturally to those things we call our own, to be safe in the world then love your brother as yourself. As you conceive of him so he is to you, the measure you give being the measure you receive.

 

40% of british muslims want shariah law in britain. 20% of young british muslims (17-24 I believe, 2nd and 3rd generation brits!) believe that the penalty for leaving islam should be death. Please do not gloss over this, this is hard data from reliable polls, and it is reflected every time we poll muslims. And these are the most progressive ones, one can only imagine what the results would be in countries where the polling was not even allowed by the government.

I will kindly point out to you that you still have yet to reply to my personal message from several weeks ago in which we discussed this very issue in depth and to which you could offer zero retort. In a situation where you cannot find a retort to simple, brute empirical data, it is customary and wise to seek to incorporate this data into your worldview and adjust your theories and attitudes accordingly.

We are NOT talking about a "few bad apples". Islam is a tree which is rotten to the core, and it will reliably continue producing very, very bad ideas.

 

I did not forget, it is just hard to get around to when the conversation(s) keep going on and on and I am following them as well, and because I come on here primarily to chill and conversate (instead of posting stats or other people's evidence that I would have to look for on the internet first in order to supposedly make a completely convincing argument). I feel a bit bad I neglected replying to you as well, because I said I would (and still have that intention!).

The ones that want sharia law in countries like the UK aren't the most progressive muslims. And even when they would be the majority it would still say more about those specific people, and most likely the situations they are in, than it would say something absolute about islam. Well, sure it says something about islam as well, but to state the primary reason muslims in the UK would like sharia law there is because the islamic religion is rotten to the core is very wrong and simple. Basicly it tells us that for you it is clear when you look at the negative aspects of this religion and the bad examples of practices and thoughts of muslims that this religion must be completely rotten. But have you looked and searched to the same extent for other examples and aspects?

 

They can't answer our questions because they can't accept the facts of the real world and what is written in black and white in the religious text.

"You must not know any Muslims personally"

Most people are generally nice, especially to your face. Continue to ignore the facts that these nice people happen to also believe in a religion that calls for your death or slavery and total control of the world. Fail to understand that most will not personally put a blade to your throat bit will breed a certain percentage that WILL, and when their population gains controlling numbers enough of them will also turn a blind eye to your bloodshed. Human nature 101 folks.

 

Do you have Muslim friends? Why don't you ask them what they think about this? I'll say this. I agree with Harris that beliefs have consequences, and that if people believe the violent passages of scripture, all other things being equal, it is likely to increase their propensity to hold extreme beliefs. We have centuries of experience with Islam, and some of it was good times, especially in comparison with western Christendom. Under the Abbasids in Mesopotamia, Christians were particulrly prominent in astronomy and medicine. The Muslim state of Al-Andalus was a beacon of learning, and its capital Cordoba became a leading cultural and economic center in Europe as well as Islam. The Qur'an certainly has its dark passages, as does the Old Testament, and those who emphasize those can come to nasty conclusions. So can we say that if there weren't any Qur'an or Old Testament, folks would be more peaceable? Not necessarily. It might be that people would turn to other dangerous books for their inspiration--secular ones by eugenicists, Marxist-Lenninists, etc. Historically, that's what they have done. Even Sweden, poster child for secular enlightenment, has a a virulent neo-Nazi movement that has committed more acts of terrorism than any Muslim group in the EU. For an account of the rise of neo-fascist and National Front parties in europe and the dangers they pose to minorities, see http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/06/11/neo-nazis-on-the-rise-in-europe-jews-and-minorities-must-take-action/
and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V47RmCHcAQ
Secular governments have found no shortage of excuses for horrendous violence. Anthropologist J. D. Eller concludes that " virtually every form of religious violence has its nonreligious corollary." Over 25 million religious believers perished from anti-religious violence in secular states during the twentieth centruy. (J.M. Nelson, Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality ( 2009) Springer. p. 427). Most wars since the seventeenth century have been motivated by non-religious causes, including the Two world wars, the Korean war, and the Vietnam war. I think the best strategy to follow in dealing with Islam is to try to encourage the more rational, progressive elements in the Muslim community, rather than demonizing them and driving them into the arms of the extremists. Same goes for Christianity.

 

But they are muslims, right? They are following their religion? Is someone still a muslim if they don't want sharia? Is someone a christian if they don't think jesus was the son of god?

Islam is part of the "situation" they are in. These aren't catholics who want sharia law. These aren't african animists, or eskimo elders. This isn't hassidic sharia law, and this doesn't come from the teachings of Buddha.

Listen to yourself. How does a muslim, wanting sharia law, say nothing about islam? Then what does say something about islam?

That's not what I said. The reasons for why they want sharia law are manifold; most would say it is because it is the will of Allah, it is ordained in the Quran, and it is the destiny of the world to be under the banner of Mohammad. Some might say they want sharia law because thieves should have their hands cut off. Some might say they want sharia law because they are misogynists, and wish for a woman's worth to be only half of a man's, in law.

But just stop for a second and think; why would a muslim, want his muslim politique to be the law of the land? Could it be that he actually believes in islam, and wishes to follow its precepts? How is this being "wrong and simple"? Am I missing an infinitely complex snowflake of islamic theology? Or are you just uncomfortable to speak frankly about matters of faith, beliefs, and actions, for fear of offending people? Are you afraid it will make you a fascist? A nazi? I am neither. I have had many muslim friends growing up, my city has a VERY large south asian population. This has nothing to do with smearing people, unless you make it about that. No one is saying all muslims are terrorists. No one is saying all muslims want sharia. But to want sharia, you must be muslim. You must grant this, otherwise your position is ridiculous. Sharia is just one bad idea from the rotten tree of islam.

You mean have I explored all the GOOD that islam has to offer? I am a student of philosophy and religions. I can tell you that there is not a single iota of contribution which islam offers us in the 21st century. Not a single scratch of a good thing. Not one little itty bitty moral precept, which is not offered by countless other systems, or derivable from simple contemplation and compassion. Islam may have rocked the world a thousand years ago, and given much peace and stability to those regions of the world which it did not annhilate and obliterate, but to say that today, after thousands of years of philosophers and true moral scientists like the buddha, to say that today islam offers some good for us . . . this is a declaration of ignorance and only highlights a deficit in education and literacy. Do not waste my time with islam. Have YOU delved into the quran? Have YOU looked at what sharia law ACTUALLY is? Your primary goal in these conversations seems to be referee for the underdog, whilst unknown to you, the underdog wields more power than you can imagine and has dark plans for you, your freedoms, and your women.

Don't be a knee-jerk apologist. Be ruthlessly honest and demand the same from any bumbling idiot claiming to have a book authored by god (who only speaks arabic) and who wishes decaptitation upon those who would put themselves above the book. Don't be naive. I truly hope you are a young person, otherwise you should know better from people.

 

The border around the Caliphate shall be a circle , and motor vehicles shall be banned there-in .
This defines decapitation . Please forget horrific abhorrence .