(May 17, 2011 at 7:58 pm)apophenia Wrote: This is an example of the genetic fallacy, "where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. [1]" The idea that the universe was created for a reason does not imply that our creation is on account of that or any other reason. Perhaps the universe was created for the creation of hyper intelligent insects who live one galaxy over, and we're the equivalent of pond scum -- a mere side effect of the way Allah chose to create these insects (through evolution).
I understand what you're saying, but I wasn't implying that the universe was created JUST for us. It may have been created for other reasons, like for the creation of hyper intelligent insects, as you said. But we human beings could also have a purpose along with those insects. The two are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, I don't think that I made a genetic fallacy. There may even be other advanced civilations in other planets in distant galaxies which have their own separate religions.
(May 17, 2011 at 8:50 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: This is supposed to be a better choice? Thats like saying "Our purpose in life is to acknoweldge that a tree exists and praise how beautiful it is".
Yes, I think that's a better choice because God is an all-encompassing idea which is believed to be the source of everything whereas a tree is just an object. So, that's not a good comparison.
(May 17, 2011 at 8:50 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Sadly, for you, many highly intelligent scientists have proven the opposite. These are not "beliefs". They are theories based on evidences, as opposed to faith and just making shit up to make yourself feel better.
A lot of scientific concepts are based on evidence indeed - but not everything - such as string theory, the existence of higher dimensions, time travel, etc. Yet, there are many scientists who believe them. So the point is, they do "believe" in those things because there is no evidence for them although they can be supported within a scientific framework unlike religious beliefs.
(May 17, 2011 at 8:50 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: So a godless universe has to be an accident? You have to slip humanized language into something non-human? Do rocks have "accidents"? Does dirt and sand have "accidents"? So how come the universe has to be an accident? Well, because you are trying to twist words and trick us into agreeing with your delusion. How about look up the definition of "accident" for once.
When I said "accident," I was speaking of the idea that the universe just happened by chance or by a random event without ever being intended to be created. Sorry for the semantic confusion.
(May 17, 2011 at 8:50 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: I believe there is personal worth in humanity, but the denomination that you put on that worth with that suck ass purpose of "acknowledging a creator" takes away from it in my opinion.
I believe there is a personal worth in humanity also, but for me, believing in a Creator doesn't seem to subtract from that because I can accept both at the same time.
Nevertheless, if there really isn't a creator behind the universe, and if my religion is a complete bullshit, then I wouldn't be unwilling to accept that because then I'm free as a bird. I could do all the things that I'm not allowed to do in Islam and I don't have worry about all the sins that I have done nor worry about going to Hell for my sins. My life would be easier because I don't have to do things like pray, fast, and go to the mosque. So, I think that atheism is a much more peaceful thought than religion, and therefore, the common argument that I believe in Allah just because it makes me "feel better" is not true.
