Is atheism self-contradictory ?

[Anomalocaris]

Of course our brain isn't always reliable. D'oh.

Particularly when our brain feels our brain suddenly becomes more reliable when our brain asserts Koran is perfect or there must be allah.

---

Fruedian slip?  

How could fallacious arguments possibly prove anything...rationality, accuracy, perfection..what have you, Pars?

I mean seriously. just type the word Muhammad in your search engine and ask yourself if his biography is that of a crazy man who talks nonsense.

Absofuckinglutely, he is actually far crazier than usual and his takes more nonsensical than most of what you hear in insane asylums.

[Amarok]

1. I am only assuming that human brain must have a supernatural creator, because otherwise judgment of the brain cannot be trusted.

That is a foolish assumption without base

A supernatural creator per se doesn't need a brain because he has by definition all the absolute attributes. Is our brain perfect ? No. Is it reliable ? We are compelled to answer yes. And we should provide a rational justification of our answer, whichever it is.

Which is circular and question begging. And you cannot just define things into being. And your justfication is no justification at all it's just assertions.

---

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A supernatural creator per se doesn't need a brain because he has by definition all the absolute attributes.

According to the Principle of Non-Contradiction, a thing cannot be its own opposite and have existence. Thus, a Being cannot have, as you've put it, 'all the absolute attributes'. God, therefore, cannot be absolutely good and absolutely evil, absolutely just and absolutely merciful, absolutely ordered and absolutely capricious, and so on. You've just defined God out of existence.

And this, I think, is the primary reason why some of us find it impossible to belief in God - the definitions are incoherent.

Boru

[Pat Mustard]

I mean seriously. just type the word Muhammad in your search engine and ask yourself if his biography is that of a crazy man who talks nonsense.

First of all I very much doubt the stories told in the qu'ran and the hadiths are a biography, as they are clearly written long after the alleged Mohammed's death (yes he is alleged because we've no independent evidence of his existence. The only things which say Mohammed was a living person are things asserted by muslims, i.e. the claim). Secondly a man who can seriously believe in fairies and goblins and demons and supernatural spirits guiding his ever move is both crazy and talking nonsense.

Ask yourself this, if it weren't for the extremely repressive and autocratic governments of the Arab world, would you be following the "biography" of a self confessed child rapist?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I mean seriously. just type the word Muhammad in your search engine and ask yourself if his biography is that of a crazy man who talks nonsense.

I did. The answer is a resounding 'yes'.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Ask yourself this, if it weren't for the extremely repressive and autocratic governments of the Arab world, would you be following the "biography" of a self confessed child rapist?

A man who, if the story is to be believed, bathed the middle east in blood in search of whores?  

A slaver?  A sex trafficker?  A terrorist?  The butcher of Medina?  A torturer who, in his lust for wealth, had a man burnt alive..beheaded.... and then fucked his wife?

This is god's prophet? What god? What kind of god....?

This is a rational man?

[Astreja]

1. I am only assuming that human brain must have a supernatural creator, because otherwise judgment of the brain cannot be trusted.

That, in my opinion, is a very bad assumption to make.  If one examines other animals, one sees quite a few similarities and I consider it considerably more likely that the human brain evolved and was not created.

I also think that "the supernatural" has 2 basic definitions, neither of which supports the existence of your alleged god.  Something "supernatural" is either something natural that we haven't yet explained, or it's totally imaginary.

3. The universe expanded from a very high density state, the notions of space and time didn't exist in the beginning. The universe has a starting point and there must have an explanation for its existence. Because out of nothing comes nothing.

That's why I believe that matter/energy have always existed in some form.  Don't bother trying to claim that your god did it, unless you have empirical proof that your god exists and also have an explanation for where it came from.  If you're going to assert "My god was always there," I can assert "Matter/energy was always there."

I don't think it is even serious to claim that the Quran was written by an illiterate man in the 7th century, and not one of its verses seems to be obviously false with known modern scientific facts.

Well, considering that stylistically it resembles 6th century Arabic poetry, contains blatant plagiarisms from the Bible and from the Greek physician Galen ("clot of blood" embryology), and is rife with violence, misogyny, absurdities (talking ants and the sun setting in a muddy pool at the end of the day) and contradictory instructions ("There is no compulsion in religion" versus "Kill the unbelievers"), I think it considerably more likely that it was cobbled together by a committee of adequately literate imams sometime after the death of Muhammad.

[The Grand Nudger]

One wonders what use the imams had for the story of what would have to be, if he existed, the singlemost evil carpet salesman to have ever lived.  A complete madman.  Proving yet again that the worst of us come from the places one would least expect.

And then one remembers, submission. We're looking at a blatantly manufactured tool of the establishment of a state. An establishment legend. Well I'll be damned, just like the silly ass fairy tales they "borrowed". The witchdoctors who write this garbage clearly know a thing or two about the people who will read it.

[Amarok]

1. There is zero evidence for a beginning point only a point where classical physics can't go

2. The biography of Mohmand is an incoherent contradictory mess . And the Quran is clearly just a cheap stitched  together of varied sources  . It worst then the new testament

3. As for Mohmand himself he 's the definition of religious demagogue.

[Parsim0ny]

According to the Principle of Non-Contradiction, a thing cannot be its own opposite and have existence.  Thus, a Being cannot have, as you've put it, 'all the absolute attributes'.  God, therefore, cannot be absolutely good and absolutely evil, absolutely just and absolutely merciful, absolutely ordered and absolutely capricious, and so on.  You've just defined God out of existence.

And this, I think, is the primary reason why some of us find it impossible to belief in God - the definitions are incoherent.

Boru

You're right, It would've been more accurate to say that this supernatural being possesses all positive absolute attributes, thus ruling out the contradiction.

First of all I very much doubt the stories told in the qu'ran and the hadiths are a biography, as they are clearly written long after the alleged Mohammed's death (yes he is alleged because we've no independent evidence of his existence. The only things which say Mohammed was a living person are things asserted by muslims, i.e. the claim). Secondly a man who can seriously believe in fairies and goblins and demons and supernatural spirits guiding his ever move is both crazy and talking nonsense.

Ask yourself this, if it weren't for the extremely repressive and autocratic governments of the Arab world, would you be following the "biography" of a self confessed child rapist?

And what this evidence of the existence of Muhammad should look like ? How do you know that Galileo existed 5 centuries ago ? How can anyone possibly prove the existence of any historical figure whatsoever ? But still, everybody is sure that Galileo existed. And why is that ? Because so many people witnessed his existence and wrote books and biographies about him.

Similarly, an "independent evidence" of Muhammad's existence is simple the incredible amount of literature written about the man throughout centuries. 

You're not the first one to wrongly call the Prophet "a child rapist", child marriage was common in his time, even Muhammad's enemies - who would immediately notice anything that can inflict damage to his credibility as a messenger of God - didn't find anything particularly remarkable or wrong about any of his marriages. Also, Aisha was already engaged to marriage by Jubayr ibn Mut' im, a companion of the Prophet.