Jose Mujica - Atheist

huruf

Right, it is something like when in a previous post I asked whether one can prove love. Everybody takes for granted its existence, but finally it all revolves on what one intelectually understands as love. Nut love has more to it than intelect and nobody masters it. People experience it and there may be not two experiences that are the same, but nobody sets out to prove love. Love is not there for intellectual prowesses but to experience it or to fear to experience it. Who requires a proof of the existence of love? We may require from somebody a proov that he or she loves us, but we do not question that love exists. Same with God. Intellect is no proof of anything, intellect is a power but all power has its limits. ?How on earth can anybody proof something that is beyond his limits? Beyond our limits we cannot disprove or prove anything. But we can experience, and, as Zulf has said, we can see, we can make sense of many things, nothing extraordinary, but sense. And if that does not make sense to somebody else, that is that somebody else's problem not of the person who does see sense. I can remember long time ago people who claimed to be atheists used to look down on those who believed. Today I think atheists far more humble and they are not proud and assume that they are intellectually over you. At least those I talk with. Thank God.

And again, most of the time it all depends on what one puts within a word. For some love is this but not that or God is so and so, for others it is something else, so agreeing on something categoric when in each mind there is a different image is meaningless.

I rather look at people through the names of God, not through what they say. They may say this and then act as something else. They may say "I cannot believe" and then act out with utmost justice more than if they did 10 salaat a dar. What is that? That is remembering God by His al 3adl. They do totally believe in God through that name. In fact I think all of us have been given a name of God with which we remember Him.

Salaam

hawk99

Peace Family

@Blameless, do not be intimidated, have your say and enjoy the conversation! In regards to the topic, the Quran
is clear in it's description of God and the limitations of humans regarding God's existence. The words
"believe in the unseen" is one of the Key phrases that needs to be analyzed to bring the discussion into focus.
one cannot "prove" the unseen one can only believe in the unseen because regarding the unseen there is no
material to see, touch, measure, or observe under normal circumstances. In personal cases of supernatural
experiences, the event cannot usually be repeated as per the scientific method therefore the unseen is impossible
to prove using philosophy or science. If the atheist who takes the scientific or philosophical approach misses these
observations then I would say that the omission is born out of ignorance or emotion.

Questions Why do atheists return to question the believers that possess proof?

Is it because they think that we are as close as they can get to God?

These types of discussions go round and round because the subject is the unseen!

Definition of supernatural (adj)

Bing Dictionary
su?per?nat?u?ral

not of natural world relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws
2.relating to deity relating to or attributed to a deity
3.magical relating to or attributed to magic or the occult

Copied from How the Scientific Method Works

by William Harris

Limitations of the Scientific Method

Clearly, the scientific method is a powerful tool, but it does have its limitations. These limitations are based on
the fact that a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable and that experiments and observations be repeatable.
This places certain topics beyond the reach of the scientific method. Science cannot prove or refute the existence
of God or any other supernatural entity.

Conclusion

Could it be that religions and atheism are belief systems?

11/123 And Allah's is the unseen in the heavens and the earth, and to Him is returned the whole of
the affair; therefore serve Him and rely on Him, and your Lord is not heedless of what you do.

God bless

peace

muslims

"believe in the unseen" is one of the Key phrases that needs to be analyzed to bring the discussion into focus.

Except that Allah said "That is the Book about which there is no doubt" (2.2).

That could not refer to the Quran since . . . Allah said "no doubt", whereas the Quran has the Mutasyaabihat elements . . ie. full of doubts. This could easily be proven . . . and not also to forget "the Book", what Book ? This is chapter al-Baqarah and there are 25 chapters which have not been revealed. . .and Allah should say "That is the Book Chapter/Verses about which there is no doubt", and not referring to the whole content of that Book. Therefore, it is the following book . . .

Indeed, it is a Noble Quran
In a protected Book
None can grasp it
except those purified (from shirk, self)
(5677-79)

God did not make any man with two hearts in his body. (33.4)

Secondly . . Allah said "Those are upon guidance from their Lord, and it is those who are the successful." (2.5) , meaning Allah is referring to those who have already succeeded in becoming a True Believer through complying all the conditions in 2.1-5, not like those Bedouins who are saying "We have believed.? Say, ?You have not believed" (49.14). The Bedouins are not "Those are upon guidance from their Lord, and it is those who are the successful." (2.5). Similarly , we are not "those who are the successful" in 2.1-5.

The ayat is referring to . . .

The believers ARE ONLY the ones
who have believed in Allah and His Messenger
and then doubt not but strive with their properties and their lives in the cause of Allah
It is those who are the truthful.
(49.15)

The believers ARE ONLY those who,
when Allah is mentioned, their hearts become fearful, and
when His verses are recited to them, it increases them in faith; and
upon their Lord they rely
(8.2)

What have "those who are the successful" have accomplished ?

They have attained the true understanding of Alif Lam Meem.

Alif
Lam
Meem

They have accomplished consciousness, and "Iqra". . .not the Book, but "in the name of your Lord", and "who has created".

And He taught Adam the names - all of them.
2.31

They have seen the "unseen", not like those who are lying to themselves but have not known a single thing about the unseen. In fact, they can't even see jin and syaitan and yet claimed to believe the unseen, believe what ? funny, so blind. . . and what are these "unseen" things ? Whatever Muhammad has experienced, since he is our Messenger and he is a human being like us. . . we are his followers.
They have acquire "wisdom" and successfully established the system of balance and justice in all aspect of their life.

He grants wisdom to whom He pleases
and whoever is granted wisdom
he indeed is given a great good
and none but men of understanding mind
(2269)

They have spend their property in the way of Allah, everything.

By no means shall you attain to righteousness
until you spend (benevolently)
out of what you love (ie. give all)
and whatever thing you spend
Allah surely knows it
(392)

And they ask you as to what they should spend (sadaqah)
Say What you can spare
Thus does Allah make clear to you the communications
that you may ponder
(2219)

They have studied the Quran and previous revelations and have successfully practices the function of "Confirming Book" in every aspect of life. They have understand and live with the facts that "mankind is one single nation", ie. as Adam.

Only those who have successfully accomplished all the above "are the successful", only "Those are upon guidance from their Lord, " (Iyyaka naAAbudu wa-iyyaka nastaAAeen) and the subject matter of 2.1-5 . . . not the Bedoins like us who say "We have believed.? Say, ?You have not believed" (49.14).

Do the people think
that they will be left to say,
"We believe"
and they will not be tried?

But We have certainly tried those before them
and Allah will surely make evident
those who are truthful
and He will surely make evident
the liars

Or do those who do evil deeds think they can outrun Us?
Evil is what they judge
(292-4)

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

Because it is a noble recitation of a protected decree. That is the decree in which there is no doubt.

God bless you

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem JavaLatte,

Comfortable or uncomfortable?

Perhaps what you mean is uncomfortable?

However it is..., as long as you be honest, I think it's ok. D

Yeah, I meant to say uncomfortable there. Yes, I will try to be as honest as possible. That really helps me make my case.

Hmm... I suppose because you 'suddenly' change?

Although the change wasn't "sudden", I do understand what you are talking about. I will reason and provide evidence for the things I claim to be true. So, in essence, you just have to read and try to understand the points I am making. Unless of course in the past you were simply reading my posts and liking them simply because the posts were written by a Muslim. If the logic in my post never appealed to you and you only liked them because you thought it was written by a Muslim, then I guess I can't help you at all now that I am an atheist. Personally I find that strange as the truth of a claim shouldn't and doesn't depend on the spiritual convictions of a person. Every argument/claim rises or falls on their own merit. For example, if an atheist told you now that monkeys exist and a Muslim told you now that monkeys do not exist, who would you believe? You see, the truth is independent of where it is coming from and who is saying it. What matters is the evidence. In the example I provided, only the atheist can prove his case, therefore anyone will believe her.

I don't know the process, I mean how and when your turning point?

In the not so distant future, I will open a thread explaining my journey.

I can't find it from your posts, or perhaps it's because my lack understanding in English.

If you are talking about not finding that one thing that changed me into an atheist, you probably will never find that "one" thing. It was never "one" thing that changed my mind. Over a long period of time, the results of all my studies started pointing towards the lack of belief in a God being the position one should take. The more I critically assessed my every single religious beliefs, the weaker they became.

I don't understand why you suddenly change...

I will make a thread about that and you will get to read about it there. For now, just know that it wasn't just me waking up one day and being like "eh, I don't feel like believing in a God anymore, let's not believe anymore". It took time and boldness, it was a matter of a lot of intellectual honesty and rational thinking.

I knew you as someone who is very serious and enthusiastic sharing what you know of the Qur'an, and then one day I found that you suddenly turn become an atheist who is also enthusiastic, but now to oppose God.

Lol, yes that is correct. That happened because at the core of my being, I am still that same person. I still like the foods I liked, the music I liked, etc. It was always in my nature to try to reason, so it is no wonder that I will try to reason for my position no matter what it is at the moment.

Hey, I do see that rape is evil. I believe that my Lord forbids rape.

I am not convinced. I say that because of how you are unwilling to admit that your God giving me threats like a terrorist and burning me in a lake of fire is criminally insane!! Just because you think that it says in the Qur'an that God will do that, you are trying to defend such a monster. I am sure that if it said in the Qur'an that God will arrange a "rape session" for people who do not believe, you would have reacted just the same you reacted to your God's terrorist-like burn threats to people like me. I am sure in that case I would have given you an example from real world how its never nice to give someone rape threats. For example

Me Your God giving rape threats is evil and stupid by any standard. No one deserves rape threats simply for not being able to believe. What if someone was a doctor and I refused to believe she was a doctor? Is the doctor then justified in sending me to an eternal-rape camp for simply not being able to believe that the she was a doctor?

You

I suppose you give similar example like your previous post (about medical doctor...),

and my stance is the same, I think your example is not suitable.

That is how you will defend the indefensible. Just like you attempted at justifying the death/burn/torture threats by that terrorist desert god, you'd type the exact same things to defend his threats of eternal rape simply for not believing. The philosophy that probably damaged your sanity is the "might makes you right" philosophy. In it, one, for example your terrorist God, is justified in doing ANYTHING he wants to ANYONE simply because he is God. Simply because his MIGHT makes him RIGHT. What a disgusting philosophy!!

And about genocide... well if you also consider war as genocide, then I have to admit that as per my understanding there are times when war is ordered/allowed by God in the manner 'defensive war', that's how I understand how war is allowed.

I wasn't talking about genocides or wars in general. I wasn't talking about any defensive war either. Please go back and look at the context again. You asked me to explain my contempt for "beliefs in God". I just showed you how it acts like a gateway drug and causes many things among which is warfare.

Brother, please remember that here I am not trying to make you believe in what I said, I just telling you my opinions.

Personally I don't care what you believe. Where I feel all the agitations and get uncomfortable is when people try to come and rationalise and support horrendous evil in the name of some God!! As if that makes it less evil!! It never makes it less evil. As long as you will defend that terrorist that threatens to burn me, I will speak out against such absurdity and I am not sorry. At the very least, I stand on the moral high ground because I am only "typing" about how absurd it is to believe in such evil while you are actively promoting and supporting some infinitely insecure terrorist desert god.

I have been through many things in my live that make me realize that I will never be able to make people like you to believe in God.

I just asked for evidence. If your life testifies to the fact that "people like me" who seek evidence and reasoning for positing such beliefs will never believe in your claims, may be it is time to reconsider your faith. May be you should pause and wonder why people who ask for arguments and evidences for the existence of your God can not be converted. It tells you an awful lot about your beliefs. It tells you that they can only be accepted uncritically by non-rational thinkers based on appeals to emotion not truth/evidence/reality.

I go through a lot of sadness until I realize this, eventually I know that I am not able to change anyone to believe in God.

You should be happy, not sad. There is nothing "sad" about people not falling for your subjective feelings and believing in the same thing as you do. I am happy that the people you met were not so gullible and therefore upon you failing/refusing to provide evidence for your big claims, they rejected it!!

However, I am only human, and sometimes I have hopes for some people, including you, I hope you will one day return back to believe in God.

The only thing I hope for you is that everyday you will improve yourself and become a better person. I hope that for everyone including those I have at times considered to be my enemies. I hope everyone goes as far away from evil as possible. That is all I hope. Now whether they believe in the claims of some old Arabian book or not doesn't matter AT ALL to me. I like good people so I want there to be good people. I do not rest my judgments about people on which ancient fairy tale they subscribe to.

It's a hope, brother... my hope... and I suppose it is not a mistake to have hope.

No it is not. Like people from other cults/religions/groups, you can hope that I will one day be the member of your cult/religion/group. There is nothing innately right or wrong about hoping that.

I think what makes it either good or bad is how one acts upon what he believes.

I have gone to good lengths in explaining to you why I believe such "beliefs in God" are detrimental to our progress as a civilization. Just like you are so quick to defending the terrorist Arab desert God that threatens to throw me in a lake of fire for simply not having evidence to believe in him, other people are quick to believe in similar evils in the name of God. This results in them carrying out a host of evil activities, like I have mentioned in my last post, without any shame or remorse!! Just like you say your terrorist God is right in throwing me in a lake of fire for merely not believing. It is possible that you are mistaken about the God and God probably will not do this to anyone. However, your behavior testifies to what I was saying about the evil "beliefs in God" can result in. There will always be people like you who will try to defend PURE and ABSOLUTE EVIL just because they think its from God!!

I don't believe in Gods/Goddesses too, because what make sense to me is only One God.

Many unicorns
http//www.blogcdn.com/blog.games.com/media/2012/08/farmville-on-facebook-2.jpg

One unicorn
http//darthmojo.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/unicorn_pink.jpg

It is irrelevant if you believe there exists a team of unicorns or a single unicorn. You may believe that there is one bigfoot as opposed to many bigfoots. That still doesn't help you. You still have to demonstrate the truth and show that unicorn/bigfoot or your desert God for that matter actually exists. There is no reason as to why there can not be multiple Bigfoots/Unicorns/Gods if they exist at all. Believing in less volume of irrational things still makes your belief irrational.

No.

If you told me something like that, then I would not wonder how you know that.

But, perhaps I'll wonder why you speak such a thing to me.

May be that is where lies the difference. When the Qur'an makes big as* claims, you never wonder how it knows all these things and if its true. If that is your methodology of seeking the truth, best of luck with your arab god beliefs. When you change and become a person who actually cares about what is ACTUALLY and therefore FACTUALLY TRUE, then may be you will see my view. If you don't care about the truth of claims to begin with, then its no wonder that you accepted a baseless Arabic book as something "inspired by The God"!!

Well, to be sure about the existence of God is personal, and for me it's not instant.

Whether a God exists or not is not a matter of personal opinion. It either does exist or not irrespective what you can believe. If it is personal, may be you shouldn't discuss it on public forums. In a public forum you can not threaten people of hell fire based on your "personal belief" and simultaneously seek immunity from criticism saying "its personal". If its that personal and private, please stop any attempt at promoting/spreading/supporting it in public too. Unless of course you want to be hypocritical about the matter and are only saying its private so that you are not grilled for evidence to back your assertions.

I've through continuous process. It's between God and me. I have reasons for myself, but my reasons may not work on you.

You are correct about that. The problem is as follows

Person A (Truthful person) I have seen God.
Person B (Liar) I have seen God.
Person C (A person who is mistaken) I have seen God
Person D (Crazy) I have seen God

How do I tell the difference between them without testing? Without them backing up their claim with reason and evidence, I can not tell the difference between someone who is actually saying the truth and someone who is lying/mistaken/crazy. All of them can say that they have their "reasons" for believing. However, when it comes to me accepting their claims, I can not tell the difference between them without testing their claims and that test cannot be done on faith/feelings. Anybody can have faith or feelings for any of the options above.

If you claim something like that to me, perhaps I just smile...

I have no reason to accept or reject such claims. You can insist for 9876 alien if you like. )

AHA!! There you go!! You figured it out. In the same way, you and that old book can keep on saying for eternity that the contents of the books are "correct/accurate", I have no reason to accept them. You can go believe that an ancient book written by ignorant desert people from the past is actually from the creator of the universe. )

I suppose you give similar example like your previous post (about medical doctor...),

and my stance is the same, I think your example is not suitable.

Please explain why my example isn't suitable. While you do that, avoid the logical fallacy of "Special Pleading". That is similar to saying rape is wrong but when God says to rape, it becomes a DIVINELY MANDATED RIGHTEOUS RAPE FESTIVAL!! Please feel free to explain how your criminal-like despotic irrational hateful bigot of a God, who threatens to put me in a lake of fire, is right in being that way. While you do that, please make sure you are not committing logical fallacies.

To believe in God is not based on the fuzzy feeling...

Well, people here are talking about so many different kinds of things. I have yet to see someone who has come up with EVIDENCE. Everyone beating around the bush and changing the meanings of words, making everything vaguer and diluting every conversation in the name of "personal/private" convictions and all that. YET, I haven't seen anyone bring up Evidence. You guys go back to talking about your feelings. That is why I said "fuzzy feelings". All I have heard so far

You feel a certain way Therefore the Arabian God mentioned in the Qur'an exists. (Logical fallacy Appeal to Emotion)
You don't know how something happens Therefore the Arabian God mentioned in the Qur'an must exist and he must have done it. ( Logical fallacy Argument from Ignorance)

I cannot talk about other things when you guys are avoiding facing reality and giving me a reason to see why your beliefs are anymore credible than believing in Santa Clause.

When you feel close to God, your tears may coming out of the eyelids, the feeling is special. It is quite difficult to described.

Mass suicide by cult in Bali

http//media.brainz.org/uploads/2010/10/800px-badung_puputan_1906=resized.jpg

Self immolation by a Buddhist monk

http//media.brainz.org/uploads/2010/10/monk-burning.jpg

Suicide cult People?s Temple Jonestown Massacre, Guyan

http//media.brainz.org/uploads/2010/10/jonestown-massacre.resized.jpg

Heavens Gate cult suicide

http//www.findadeath.com/Deceased/h/Heavens_gate/heavens_gate_dead.jpg

So all these cult members connected so much to the truth they were being told by their insane leaders that they didn't mind killing themselves. People sometimes decide to kill themselves without any leader asking them to do it and they do it because of how emotionally invested they are into the cultish ideas. What now, because of that all of their beliefs MUST BE TRUE? Not to mention that I have seen people idolizing and crying for the freakin AMERICAN IDOL!!! Members of cults get emotional and are moved by whatever their leaders or scriptures say. It is the same for every cult/religion. The members of cults throughout the globe don't walk around saying "Our feelings are not special, its only JavaLatte's feelings that are actually legit!". Every such believer, including you, believes that their feeling are legit. Every god damn person who claimed to be second coming of Christ managed to get a few people who followed them and felt like their life has been changed and they were moved. Just go to youtube and watch documentaries on cults and see how people are emotionally attached and devoted to the cult and the leader/s.

I suppose you don't know for sure as to what my reaction.

I wasn't sure that you will just condemn traditional Muslims for following hadith without ANY REASON. Its not a nice thing to admit about yourself. It is prejudice and hatred. Please try to flush that out of your system if you want peace in life.

No, I won't. I have no reason to ask you for actual evidence to believe in 9876 alien life forms.

I figured as much. I understand now that you have no rational ground for holding your beliefs. Your "god beliefs" are totally baseless and isn't founded on evidence. I understand that you just go around believing things based on what you get emotional about and by that methodology, there is no reason why me making absurd claims will make you wonder at all. You aren't a seeker of "truth". At best you are a fan. You do not care about what is true. You care about what you can get emotional about while simultaneously ignoring the feelings of other people from other cults who used the same justification for their cultish beliefs. Even the religious zealots who go around killing people have the same justification for their belief like you do. Its all about feeling. They were moved by what they thought was from God, therefore they didn't mind doing this

http//www.burnmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/clark4-800x555.jpg

It is also because of your method of "going by what you emotionally feel is from God" that these people do things like

Subjugate half of the human race

http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Taliban_beating_woman_in_public_RAWA.jpg

Mutilate the genitalia ( foreskin and clitoris ) of billions of males and females

http//static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2014/1/30/1391104949425/EndFGM-campaign---video-017.jpg

http//i.ytimg.com/vi/g2povJnbcro/0.jpg

Such kind of disgusting and horrendous evil can not originate out of one who follows reason and evidence. These people are doing what they believe are RIGHT things and they believe their beliefs are TRUE and their thinking methodology is identical to yours. They don't go by evidence and prove something before committing to it. They go by what they feel is okay or what they get emotional about. It takes religion to turn ordinary loving and caring people into embodiment of absolute evil.

Hmmm... I suppose I just don't want to be like them (following man-made hadith).

I don't know what you mean about 'accept their position to be true' if they tell me such things.

I suppose I'm not even bother to think about accepting their position.

I hope they're willing to search for the truth sincerely, and if they keep insist to believe in man-made hadith, well then I suppose I better stop telling them, especially if they get angry.

Without providing evidence that your Qur'an was not man made, you can't begin to write something like you have written above. The Qur'an was written by man/men like every god damn book in the face of this planet.
Both you and the traditional hadith following muslims follow the same methodology. Both of you are blind believers. Both of you are following something based on subjective feelings and emotions. It is because of that I find it hilarious how you can even talk about search of truth!! When you yourself aren't searching for truth sincerely, how dare you hope others are doing it! No sincere follower of truth in their quest will ever use reasoning like "I feel like it because it makes me emotional". That is not a pathway to truth. Every god damn cult member /member of religion "feels" like they are right and their gods/goddesses are true!!

Did I demand evidence from hadith followers? No, I think I never demand such things, as long as I can remember.

Well then don't say crap like

It could be, but perhaps deep down inside they know that man-made hadith is wrong.

If you don't even care about the evidence they have, then please, for the love of your desert god, stop accusing them of being liars. When you don't have what it takes to ask someone why they believe what they believe, don't go around posting bulls*it hypothesis about them. If you haven't had a dialogue with them where you guys dealt with reasoning and evidence for your individual claims, then you don't even know why they believe what they believe. Be a good person and stop right there. Don't just go on and start accusing them of lying about what they actually believe.

Why should I demand evidence to follow something which already clear for me that it is wrong.

You have to demonstrate that something is "WRONG". You can't say that "I like the Bible, it brings tears to my eyes, therefore Christianity is right and other religions are wrong". You admitedly go by "feelings" instead of evidence. So you shouldn't be so quick to judge others who are essentially following the same faulty method.

When I realize that all of man-made hadith is wrong, then I leave it all.
That's what I do. I don't demand evidence in order to follow hadith again.

As I have said before, you haven't demonstrated that Qur'an isn't man made. Every book ever written was man made. Not to mention that the ignorance found underlying in the Qur'anic presuppositions testify to the truth of the fact that it was probably not only man made, it wasn't made by someone intelligent. After you demonstrate why Qur'an isn't man made, then you get to claim that you have stopped following ALL man made narratives.

I think the reasons for my belief is not bad, but I don't know about your own personal reasons.

Its actually worse than just bad. You don't actually have any "reasoning" behind your beliefs. They are based on mere feelings.

Brother, to be honest, I'm not someone who eager to do something like that.

If you are not willing to defend Qur'an then you should stop talking about it in public situations. You can come here and try to support an insecure bigoted Arab god but you aren't willing to show us how you even verified that the book that told you all these fairy tales is authentic? I didn't even ask for proofs of the claims in the book. I only wanted to see you historically verify that your Qur'an is the original one. See?? Blind belief. You should stop at this point and think about how far you have come without doing the most basic and obvious of all researches. For the love of GOD!! You don't even know if you are following some anonymous documents now!!

I don't know how to verify that the Qur'an I have is original. I admit that I don't have enough knowledge to verify such thing.

Not only you. The entire Islamic world can't possibly do that today. If you go to this thread (click me) and follow my dialogue with the people there, you will quickly realize that you are essentially basing everything on a book you can't even historically verify!!

My belief in Qur'an is personal, and I'm quite slow in learning it, but I have faith in God, so the Qur'an is very interesting to me, and I like it a lot.

Well good, study it then. However, when you claim it personal, please keep it private. This is a discussion forum and everything and anything you say may be critiqued by other members on here. Especially when you are supporting a terrorist ideology and a terrorist God who threatens to throw me in hell should I not believe in it's existence!! That is a personal attack on me and as such I feel obliged to speak out against such horrendous philosophy.

I don't feel moved to convince the whole world that the Qur'an is true and original. Because I know that I'm not able to make others to believe in the Qur'an. I will not be able to guide anyone even one single person.

Well then please don't feel "moved" to come to the support of the abhorrent terrorist-like God in front of the whole world either. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Your private beliefs are your private stuff. However, your actions based on those beliefs, such as spreading/supporting hate-philosophy, are not necessarily private. I will let your private beliefs stay that way as long as you keep them private.

God does not order me to do that. I'm not a messenger.

That is stupid reasoning. Outright stupid. You were supporting a terrorist god so I wanted you to at least show me how you know that the book of fables that you have is the original one. One has to do it to begin to know what they are talking about. It seems like you have no interest in verifying anything. It seems like you just need "something". As long as someone has given you an old book, YOU DON'T EVEN CARE if its true and intact. That is not a pathway to truth. That is a surefire way of falling for bullsh*t!!

Similar to what I said before, I do not ask from hadith followers demonstrate to me how those hadiths were actual saying. I don't ask them to do such things.

Trust me, at this point I don't think you need demonstrations of anything. Heck!! I think an Arabic leaflet will do for you, you don't even need a proper book. I am only saying that due to what you have suggested about your method of finding the truth. If that isn't true, then may be I am wrong.

Hmmm... -\ What do you mean by 'they'? Who are 'they'?

by THEY, I was talking about "God beliefs". So the sentence you quoted now reads

"In short I guess, such beliefs in God needs you to be totally uncritical about the biggest questions humanity has asked and THEY (These God beliefs) teach you to be satisfied with BASELESS assertions instead of seeking the actual answers with full honesty and unrestrained devotion to the journey towards the truth."

What I know I just telling you my personal stance. Don't exaggerate my personal statement.

I didn't exaggerate anything. You stated that the reason you believe in a God is because of you seeing and feelings some "signs". First of all, you didn't even care to show me the "signs" and prove your case. Don't get me wrong, I know why that is the case. Even you know that someone will not have their standard of evidence low enough to count them as evidence. You might have told me about your personal stance, but you can't escape the shackles of reason just because they are your personal stance. You are still guilty of basing your personal stance on all kinds of logical fallacies.

Gigantic claim? Factual? ???

Yes. God isn't just some random pizza delivery guy. You claiming that you know that a god exists, an evil one at that, is not a small matter. Thus the use of the word gigantic. I used the word factual because whether a God exists or not is not a matter of belief. Are you trolling me? If god exists or not is not a matter of opinion or belief. Either it does or it doesn't. You can believe that yes it does or no it doesn't. That doesn't change the underlying FACT of the existence or non-existence of the subject.

I just tell you the reason why I believe in God, and you accuse me making gigantic claim. (

I won't accuse you of anything the moment you agree/confess/admit that you don't KNOW if a god exists. If you say you know, you are claiming knowledge. For that, you have to provide evidence. You can then go ahead and believe in whatever you like.

Do I have to fulfill standard of evidence for telling you about my belief?

In general NO. If I asked you about your belief, I don't think you should feel obliged to provide evidence. However, when you are working for an invisible mafia boss who will break my leg if I don't kiss his as*, you have to provide evidence of your boss's existence. When you are supporting a terrorist of a God like that, you have to provide evidence. You are the one who is siding with the hideous monster of a God that will send people to camp. So yes, when you are advocating for sending people to camps, any decent human being will ask you for some rational justification outside of your subjective beliefs.

For you? No... Why should I?

http//cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/50215773.jpg

Not for me. You couldn't even test out those big claims for their truth even if your life depended on them. For thousands of years theists had the time to provide evidence. At the end of the day everyone had to confess that it is a matter of "faith". You couldn't prove anything even if your life depended on it!!

Why don't you stop being so arrogant and harsh?

I asked you to provide evidence for your God and this is your response? It actually testifies to the FALSEHOOD of your claims and beliefs. If you had evidence that demonstrates the truth of your claims and beliefs, by now, we would have seen them.

How about you being more humble before God?

So this is your response to me asking for evidence? Would you be humble before Humpty Dumpty to find his truth? Does that make sense to you? If not, why then are you asking someone who clearly doesn't believe in a God, let alone your terrorist of a god, to humble before your God? May be you can spew such garbage at average atheists you meet. You can't do that to me. I didn't create my account here after becoming an atheist. Anyone can go through my old posts and blogs to see how sincere I was in search of the truth. I really tried. As I learnt more, the bubble bursting occurred and the entire worldview shattered. That is not my fault. Religious people like you have redefined humble. Now humble and gullible means the same thing. There simply is no humble way of talking about horse sh*t!! I will not pretend for a second like there is anything good about being gullible or believing in a terrorist God like the one you support.

You are losing your humbleness before God.

And you are losing your humbleness before Humpty Dumpty!! I don't know why some religious people don't get it!! You can't be humble or arrogant before something you don't even think exists!!

My belief is not based on fuzzy feelings, perhaps that's what you feel, so no wonder you prefer to be atheist.

In your responses you have had ample opportunity to show at least ONE objective piece of evidence. You didn't. You only talked about vague feelings for "signs" and tears in your eyes. I am glad that this isn't a one on one discussion and any reader will be able to verify the truth of what I am saying. To be an atheist it didn't require proof of something. The lack of evidence for the beliefs I held at the time rendered them unjustified. Without those beliefs I am automatically an atheist.

I don't feel the need to bring my statement into existence.

So your God doesn't exist in reality? It is just a statement for you? In that case, congrats. You just proved that your god exists only as words.

Why?

You can't command me to do that, you are not my Lord, I am not your servant.

So asking for evidence can only be done by a God? You claimed the existence of some supernatural deity and also supported the horrifyingly evil view that that monster throws people like me into fire merely for not believing in his existence. You have done all that in a public forum. Now you think nobody except God can ask you to back your claims up?

I didn't command you to provide evidence. I just thought I can ask for you to provide evidence but I was wrong. Where in the world will you get your evidence from when you can't even validate if you have the original Qur'an.

I said I hope someday you'll back to believe in Allah.

My hope is not layed upon you. You cannot grant my hope.

My hope is upon God, I hope God will guide you.

If you don't want to take me seriously, then I don't mind with that. )

I actually want to take everyone seriously. I just don't have any choice in the matter when they base everything on faulty and fallacious reasoning.

I'm a person who has been accustomed being insulted and deemed as a fool. Thus is how the Lord taught me to be patient.

I can see why. Verily I say unto you. You can not begin to earn the respect of the masses, let alone that of the critical thinkers, if you give into the temptations of logical fallacies. For thinking minds see no wonder in the laziness of the fallacious non-thinkers and this is why you can not hope to win them over until you leave the path of cognitive dissonance and turn to logic. Logic Reason and Evidence shall teach you what no Arab God has ever taught you. They shall make you more bold yet honest. All this comes to you as a suggestion from the mind of Student of Allah, the rational, the thinking one.

And you don't find yourself arrogant?

You assumed that the followers of hadith are liars who know in their heart that hadiths should not be followed but say otherwise with their mouth. How does that make me arrogant?

But, you do look upset...

and fiery too...

Of course!! I spoke out against the absurdity and evil these "God beliefs" caused throughout human history. May be you don't take that seriously but I do. I wrote them for every subjugated sister, mutilated brothers and sister, oppressed intellectual, etc who suffered in the past, now and will suffer tomorrow because of these "God beliefs" that are not founded on any reason at all. Of course I will get passionate about the suffering of others. Unlike you, I do not support terrorist evil Gods who takes pride in throwing mere non-believers in a lake of fire. So of course it is a touchy subject for me who still has their moral compass not raped and in utter ruins because of religious dogma!!

After scolding God and me in such manner, do you feel better now?

I don't believe in the existence of your Arab God. Things I wrote there were for you and general readers. Having said that, its fun to see how religion affected your brain. You asked me to tell you about what about "God beliefs" can be bad. I told you as much as I could. And you respond by asking me if I am feeling better after scolding you? You don't have any genuine interest to know about the what/why/how's of things, do you? You just came in and tried to advocate for a terrorist God and now I feel like I am being trolled!!

You're like a volcano which was erupting and spewing hot lava. )

If its possible, I will become that volcano that wipes religion off the face of this planet. Mind you, I am not talking about people here, I am talking about RELIGION. I will happily do that because enough is enough and religion needs to pay for all of my sisters and brothers it so mercilessly made to suffer throughout the ages and still does.

http//www.pi-news.org/wp/uploads/2010/02/Somalia2.jpg

You may feel nothing in your core for the sister or brother that lies beneath those rocks in that photo. You don't have to. Even this one single case of a single sister or brother is reason enough for me to strike back. But don't worry, unlike cowards who fly airplanes into buildings, we won't strike that way. Our sheer intellect will bring religion down!!

Peace
--------------- Student of Allah

unknownuser

Peace,

Jose Mujica is Uruguayan president known to be the poorest president (wealth) in the world today. He rejected to stay in presidential palace and stays in his simple farm house with his wife and 3 legged dog. Donates 90% of his salary to charity (mostly for public housing), flies in economy class and drives a wolskwagan beetle from 1987. He wears lived-in clothes and well used footwear. Water in his house comes from a well. He is known to be a down to earth person who lives a very modest lifestyle.

Above all, he is known to be an atheist. Now, my question is, how does he fit into God's world or commandment? As we all (if not most of us) believe, Believing in God is the most important thing, will it be fair to say that he may not achieve salvation just because he is an atheist? To me, He seems to be an perfect example of humanity in current world and knowingly or unknowingly following God's path.

I would like to request you to kindly put your opinions in most humble manners please. I am very sensible person and does not like to be attacked even by words. This is only my curiosity and I am trying to learn from the best ones with knowledge.

did he say he was an atheist? he sounds like a believer in the sense that he understands he will not be on this earth forever and he may be too intelligent to say his work and experience in this life will simply disappear and go unaccounted for. but that's my guess for anyone with common sense. say not of anyone they are none a believer when you travel through the land, so just say your a good man and give him your vote.

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

And I can sense emotionalism. Of course religion should be wiped off the planet and horrendous crimes called in the names of God's should end.

God bless you

muslims

Peace, Student of Allah

Why referring to the followers of Islam to decide what is Islam , including Dawkins, Sam Harris etc ?

This is fallacious argument since Islam is an "idea" , and no one can be "Islam". .

Those who follow Islam is a "Muslim".

Islam is not Muslim
Muslim is not Islam
Islam is not Muhammad
Muhammad is not Islam, he is a Muslim. . . not Islam.

It is two different issues . . .

and for one to judge Islam based on their followers, then they have to answer one "missing premise" or "assumption", ie. . .

Do they follow what is taught from the Quran ? How ?

Is this valid in the rule of logic and reasoning ? ie. to ignore missing premises and assumptions. . .

. . .

This is an issue of confusing between "Causation" and "Association". Human beings have an inherent tendency to ?see? events associated or that ?go together? as ?events that cause one another?; ie. they conclude that because characteristic X (smoking) is associated with characteristic Y (death), that X therefore causes Y (death). Whereas someone may also die because of taking too much sugar (hyperinsulinism), no exercise or else.

. . .

Secondly . . why asking for proof of God existence if one cannot prove he himself existed ? (click here, quantum physics)

The Creator only exists for those who can prove that they exist. . . .

That is the pre-condition of existence. . .one must first exist.

One cannot prove to nothingness or emptiness. . .or dreams etc

So maybe it is they who don?t really exist. That?s the problem.

Therefore the issue or missing premise is . . . can they prove they exist ?

. . .

Thirdly , why making a conclusion that there is no Creator where everything is subjected to the law of causality

The law of cause and effect. . ie. the basis of scientific research etc. . .

If one can say that there is no Creator . . then one must prove; at least, one thing from the whole universe that existed out of nothing. . . anything.

If one unable to prove this. . then it is inconsistent with the law of cause and effect.

It means they reject science and logic etc.

Their whole argument has no basis at all since it is the issue touching the root of their philosophy . . . and

It is equally; or in fact. . worst than a religion. . it is equally a dogma, and belief in myth, magic and superstitions. . .

Therefore the issue or missing premise is . . .
please prove; at least. . one thing from the whole universe that existed out of nothing ? and their weight of evidence . . .

Zulf

Peace, just thought I'd jump in a place some of my own remarks. )

It is irrelevant if your believe there exists a team of unicorns or a single unicorn. You may believe that there is one bigfoot as opposed to many bigfoots. That still doesn't help you. You still have to demonstrate the truth and show that unicorn/bigfoot or your desert God for that matter actually exists. There is no reason as to why there can not be multiple Bigfoots/Unicorns/Gods if they exist at all. Believing in less volume of irrational things still makes your belief irrational.

There is a reason why there cannot be more than one ALL. The whole and all is by definition all... not fragmented. The unicorn gods are entities, and just a silly mental image we create, because this is what we can grasp... creatures, individuals. People come up with unicorn images of God, and then show how ridiculous it is, and then conclude there is no God. True, there is no SUCH god... but that's not what God is. God is not a THING we can encompass and describe, so obviously all images would be silly unicorns.

Whether a God exists or not is not a matter of personal opinion. It either does exist or not irrespective what you can believe. If it is personal, may be you shouldn't discuss it on public forums. In a public forum you can not threaten people of hell fire based on your "personal belief" and simultaneously seek immunity from criticism saying "its personal". If its that personal and private, please stop any attempt at promoting/spreading/supporting it in public too. Unless of course you want to be hypocritical about the matter and are only saying its private so that you are not grilled for evidence to back your assertions.

True. Reality is what it is, no matter what. Our beliefs won't affect reality.
I also love the following scenario you outlined

Person A (Truthful person) I have seen God.
Person B (Liar) I have seen God.
Person C (A person who is mistaken) I have seen God
Person D (Crazy) I have seen God

This shows the dilemma when different religions, or atheists, or whatever, debate with each other and each one claiming to be the wise and enlightened one. If we say that some people are mistaken, then by default we must admit the possibility that WE are mistaken. We can state that we currently THINK that we are correct in our understanding, to a certain degree, but nobody can INSIST that they are right and all others are wrong. It's like when I describe to people my physical sensations of my own energy field/aura during a reiki initiation... I know for a fact what I felt. I was not in trance, I was not sleepy, I was just sitting up, sober and alert, with closed eyes, having a physical sensation extending about 2 feet OUTSIDE my body surface/skin. Only I can know this. Some people believe me, perhaps they've also had the experience, or they just take my word for it. Others claim I was influenced by the jinn, and yet others just don't believe it. I can only try to understand their position. But there is no way for anyone to ever know what I felt, no matter how much I talk about it. The whole unseen world is like this. Those who have not seen or felt or otherwise experienced any part of it, will simply not believe in it... but when they insist it is false, well, that's also just another belief without evidence or reason.

Anyhow, I loved how you exemplified persons a thru d... very nice! It really shows the dilemma at hand. I wish more people could realize the scenario we have, and perhaps then they wouldn't argue so much about the faults of other people's points of view.

Without them backing up their claim with reason and evidence, I can not tell the difference between someone who is actually saying the truth and someone who is lying/mistaken/crazy. All of them can say that they have their "reasons" for believing. However, when it comes to me accepting their claims, I can not tell the difference between them without testing their claims and that test cannot be done on faith/feelings. Anybody can have faith or feelings for any of the options above.

Of course not. You're right! You cannot, and should not, accept anyone's claim. You may note it for future reference, filing it in your memory as anecdotal "evidence" and consider it to have potential value of truth, still undetermined by you. Nobody should accept anything blindly.

It takes religion to turn ordinary loving and caring people into embodiment of absolute evil.

No. It just takes people. Religion is just a nasty thing in that it permeates culture so much in certain societies at certain times in history. Religion is not a thing, not an external entity to throw blame at. It is our mind and weak characters who fall for group think and group pressure. Fear ruins us and makes us worse than animals. Religion does not. Religion is just an excuse. Don't blame religion just because you dislike the idea of God. Let's try our best to think straight and see things for what they are. I myself think that the closer you go to religion, the farther away from God you get. I'm no fan of religion either, but the core of the problem is the human being itself, not religion. Atheists are no better human beings, even they think they are holier than thou. It is just that they seem less organized and don't have any uniform brain washing system of indoctrination that we have in religion.

Without providing evidence that your Qur'an was not man made, you can't begin to write something like you have written above. The Qur'an was written by man/men like every god damn book in the face of this planet.

What does man made mean? Obviously all books are written by the hands of men. How about inspiration?

Not for me. You couldn't even test out those big claims for their truth even if your life depended on them. For thousands of years theists had the time to provide evidence. At the end of the day everyone had to confess that it is a matter of "faith". You couldn't prove anything even if your life depended on it!!

True. But is there a need to convince anyone? To provide proof? What if some people really perceive unseen reality, while most religions people are just following fantasies and blind faith? Who say all are right or all are wrong about the existence of the unseen?
Just because religion teach (popularly) ridiculous stories doesn't mean there is no God. The problem is what we think God is. Unfortunately, it seems religions and atheists agree on stupid images of God. One group then clings to the image, while the other dismisses it. Sometime I feel there are philosophies that are closer to God and reality than those who claim to believe in God.

I asked you to provide evidence for your God and this is your response? It actually testifies to the FALSEHOOD of your claims and beliefs. If you had evidence that demonstrates the truth of your claims and beliefs, by now, we would have seen them.

Lack of proof or evidence does not equal falseness.

Peace and all the best
sun

Birdy

Peace with you all sun

to believe or not believe is question now.
Honestly, can we proof that God exist or not exist? To believe in smth. doesn't mean to know that smth. exist.
But may be there is an evidence in our universe where happened to much accidental processes by its formation but there were too much, so they can't be called as accidents more.
Here is how some scientist declare the existence of our universe in the last time; it happened just an error. whatever

huruf

I am dumbfounded that somebody who plauds on and on that those who "believe in God" have no proof but that same entity seems to believe by blind faith that something like the 911 was the work of some religious bunch.

If I was less rigourous in my thought processes than I am, just that would convince me that to be an atheist you have to be dumb all the way and strain at gnats and swallow a camel. That kind of wide throat makes me think of someone who for some reason emotionally needs to believe that religion and godgods is bad and rotten and evil A lot of words and all of them empty. No. I am not going to prove the existence of empty words nor of false pretences nor of false flags. Those who do not see them have a problem. If they want to look into it they will, if not they won't. But it is not a proof that somebody else could bring to them what they need, it is something else, and it has nothing to do with logical thinking.

Salaam

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

True, that's why I always admire the good atheist.
They're doing good deed for the sake of good deed, not for any 'reward' such as 72 virgins..
And they didn't do the bad deed because they hate the bad deed.

Believe it or not, there are those who insist that I must go around killing everybody in sight since I no longer believe in God. Some theists seem to think that the lack of a God automatically makes someone a criminal. I think the religious inclinations of the prison populations throughout the globe demonstrates well that the lack of belief in such Gods does not make it easier for atheists to be criminals.

And not all religious group are Theist, the Buddhist for example can be the non-theist religious group.
Although they're not Atheist,

Buddhists are Atheists.

People do have thousands or million varying definiton of God.

Yes. You will tell me "there exists a God" and give me one definition that you strictly adhere to. Then there will be someone else who will come and say that they agree a God exists but give me their own definition which they strictly adhere to. It is because of this that I am unwilling to define God by myself. If you define it for me, then I can tell you whether your God exists or not. For example, if you told me that "God is the sound of a rain drop hitting the earth", I'd have to agree with you that then God exists. However, I'd be confused as to why you are giving that sound a fancy name.

Although sad to say that my God or should I say my definition of God is not new at all.
The chinese and indians came up with the same idea at least 3500 years ahead of me.
The Israelites came up with the same idea at least 3000 years ahead of me.
And many others also beats me ahead on it..

Okay.

And the majority of the people who believe in God doesn't even know what is their own definition of God..

The trouble is that everyone is defining their God and we are just creating tonnes of contradictions and just for the sake of defining God, we have created the dilemma of "religions" again. Just like there are countless religions, there will be then countless definitions of God that do that agree with each other. Anyway, my condition stays the same. I can only accept the one I have evidence for.

It's like, I believe in "KUTIZATI" although I don't know what "KUTIZATI" really is.
I just believe in "KUTIZATI" because everyone else told me to believe in it.
And if somebody said that they don't believe in "KUTIZATI" it freaks me out.
Because it will shake my belief in "KUTIZATI" because honestly I don't know what the heck "KUTIZATI" really is.

rotfl well said!!

As thus my question to you (which you haven't answered) is

WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF GOD?

As such you believe in it's non-existence.

Can you give me your definition of Kuxartylopifoton? In the same manner, I do not have a definition of God. Whenever a theist claims that there is a God, then I can try to establish the existence/non-existence of the God. Now, having said that, the generic idea of God that I do not believe in is the creator God who supposedly originated the heavens and the earth. It may be a he/she/it. There may or may not be multiple Gods/Goddesses. It may be beyond the universe or part of it. None of that matters. For all I know, the claim is that this entity exists and I am not convinced that it does. A Roman Catholic and you may disagree on how to define God, but that makes no difference for me as I will still need evidence for the existence of your God.

The problem is that there can be infinite number of definitions that I may agree with or not agree with. For example

I accept that your God exists if your define your God as

An apple
An orange
A river
The sun
etc.

I do not accept the existence of your God if you define your God as

A 9 handed individual who lives beyond this universe
An old man who impregnated a Jewish woman to give birth to his only son who he send to the slaughter so that he may forgive the sins of humanity which he himself put on them in the first place!!
A spaghetti monster
A being that looks like a Taco and craps ice-cream outside of space and time
A being that just chills outside of space and time
-etc

See? It gets difficult that way. What makes my job easier is if you state YOUR idea of God and then we talk about it. Just like you are not the one going around talking about the existence of "Kuxartylopifoton", I am not going around talking about God's existence. To respond to a theist and tell them about my opinion on the matter of their God's existence, I have to first know what they are talking about. After knowing that they are a talking about the creator/maintainer/caretaker of the universe who takes personal interest in the lives of one sub-species of apes among many species of apes who happen to be one species themselves out of millions of species who live on a planet that's one out of 8 planets that orbits it's sun which in turn is one out of hundreds of billions of stars in our milky way which is one galaxy out of hundreds of billions of galaxies out there!! Talk about the height of arrogance and self importance!! A belief without any evidence which makes you feel as though an entity like that takes personal interest in your life, what you eat, how you talk and especially "who you sleep with"!!

When I am talking about God in general, you can assume that I am referring to the creator God who supposedly originated the heavens and the earth, the universe.

On contrary, my God is both outside and inside this universe.
It's here there everywhere and beyond.

No. You "believe" that that's the case. You still haven't demonstrated that it actually exists. Take this for example

X is the creator of liar Gods who forgets their past and creates universe to not remain lonely. X resides in a hyper dimension beyond us and God. So, X created God, God created our universe. X can do more than existing in the real of God and the universe. X can also go beyond and stay in the hyper-dimension. Now tell me, does all these definitions of X make it more REAL? No it doesn't!! It is still something that I am CLAIMING. Same goes for your God which you may define in a way that helps you push it outside the scope of falsifiability. However, just because we cannot falsify it, we don't have to therefore believe it. That is for the same reason you will reject the existence of "X, the God creator". It is because of the fact that defining an non-falsifiable entity is not a demonstration of it's existence.

Given to the fact that the fabric of space and time itself is a creation.. and it/he has no dependency towards the fabric of space and time in order to exist.

Seriously big claims. First of all, if by creation you mean "done by a creator", then you have to prove it. Especially a "thinking creator entity that supposedly gives a damn about a sub-species of apes on this planet". From Big Bang cosmology, we know that the universe expanded from a singularity. We are limited in our knowledge regarding that expansion due to the current limits of our knowledge we can not probe beyond a certain point close to the point in time when the singularity started to expand.

http//archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/Images/CosmicTimeline.jpg

In the above picture, towards the left is towards the past. There is a limit of how far deep we can probe into it currently. We can not go beyond 10^-43 seconds. What happened beyond the 10^-43 is not known. I do not pretend to know that.

You also stated that your God has no dependency on space/time. You have not demonstrated that. It is much like arguing if kryptonite is actually Superman's worst enemy. What is the point of that argument if we can not even demonstrate the existence of Superman. What if now the person starts talking about how their "Superman" is all beyond our senses and beyond the universe, therefore can not be tested? You know what? My standard would remain the same. Either provide evidence or go join the club of Zeus/Thor/Spiderman/etc.

Your two statement above is correlated to each other.

Okay.

So yes, whenever I sleep I left this universe.

I don't buy that premise. You fall asleep losing consciousness. That does not mean you teleport from where you were to some other place. Your unawareness of your geological position does not entitle you to say that you have teleported elsewhere, especially OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE!! When you sleep, you stay there in your bed or wherever you fell asleep. When you sleep you do not leave the universe anymore than your water tap leaves the universe when you turn it to off position. My computer doesn't leave the universe in any way shape or form when I turn it off. When you turn the engine of your car off, your car simply stops doing what something with a similar design would do with the engine running. But it doesn't leave the universe!! That's a seriously flawed premise to base the rest of what you said on. Something not functioning to it's maximum potential is not equal to leaving the universe!!

I've lost any sense of space and time during such period.
Yet I continue to exist, or at least I'm aware that I'm exist.

NOT TRUE!! The first line is correct. The second one isn't true. It is possible and people do reach a stage where they aren't consciously aware of anything. Are you making this up? Because on top of having personal experience with sleep, I have yet to come across people who talks about being consciously aware of their own existence all throughout the night (sleep). On the contrary, people often report about having no clue about what happened. Our sensors get a bit numb and we might not respond well in certain stages of sleep. This is not to say that we will not respond AT ALL. When our bladder pressure increases, it can wake us up. We can perform certain motor functions for movements,etc. However, those things aren't done when you are CONSCIOUSLY AWARE OF YOUR EXISTENCE!!! You are making it sound like when you go to bed, all night long you are just going "Oh look, stage one of sleep begins, its soo cool!! Oh nice, stage 2 initiated, this is getting so exciting" all throughout the night.

The evidence is I experienced things during such state, human named such phenomenon as "dreaming".
During such state I lost any sense of this universe space and time.
When I returned to this universe, I need to do some 'recalling', where am I (Space) and what date/time is it (Time).

I am afraid that that's nonsensical. Just because you had to recall your position on the surface of this planet and the time that elapsed, doesn't mean that you left the universe. It means that you were not consciously aware of that information. Assuming you have a smartphone with internet connection, turn your cellphone off and go to your friend's place and turn it on. Your phone will try to sync with the network provider and use the GPS to establish it's current location.It is absurd to say that when the phone wasn't working(turned off), it must have been somewhere else. Same goes for your consciousness and you losing track of information. Just because you were not measuring time or trying to locate yourself, you can not say that you were taken out of the universe.

Some said that the 'soul' is "God's breath".. thus a sage named God as "Father", the source of existence.
Proving the "soul" existence is the same as proving "God's existence".
In a sense that both doesn't require time and space in order to exist.

Yeah, it is like "Some says that Thor's hammer was made and meant for Thor. Proving that the magical hammer exists is similar to proving Thor exists. In a sense both Thor and his hammer needs to be provable on Asgard, that is why one can not find them in space and time". You can actually make up infinite amounts of such non-falsifiable things and beings that are beyond the scope of our universe. They don't become TRUE.

I find it odd to find people who believe in existence of soul also believe in the non-existence of God.

I don't believe in a literal "soul". By "soul", as I have clarified before, I was merely refering to an individual. Just like you don't mean Thursday is Thor's day.

True all religion are human invention.

I haven't come across one which wasn't.

Yet religion has no correlation with God or God's existence..

The existence of a God or a creator deity whatever isn't contingent upon the existence of religion.

We have the answer to such question already as we speak.

No we don't. As I have mentioned before, physicists are working to further our knowledge and understand what happened at that first 10^-43 seconds and hopefully before that. We do not know the exact nature of such matters. There can or cannot be multiple universes. We don't know a lot there is to know. So, No, we do not have the answers. We just have a few answers. What keeps a scientist working is the fact that there is still so much to know. Its not that physicists and cosmologists all around the world are done and they have everything figured.

Heaven (such as stars, planet and galaxy) and earth is a matter.

I do not agree with that definition of "heaven". Stars, planets and galaxies are contained within the heavens. If you just wanted to make the point that all things are made of matter, even then I have to disagree. Space is what we get when we pump out matter that occupies the domain of a given space. So no, its not all matter. Not to mention that you almost totally ignored a lot of what we know is out there. What happened to Anti-Matter? Anyway, I think its pointless to bring that up. However, I cannot agree with what you said for the reason I outline above.

This is what causes most of the trouble. Starting with assumptions that are not only not tested to be true, they are demonstrably false.

Matter made up of atomic particles.
Atomic particle requires the fabric time and space in order to exist.
Time and space was created or initially expanded after the Big Bang.
That was the beginning. Or should I say the Big Bang was the event that is the beginning of time.
Before the big bang the fabric of time and space doesn't exist.

Well, at least time as we know it and refer to probably didn't exist.

The definition of the end of this universe is clear, it will be the destruction of space and time.
An event where space and time will no longer be exist.
Because space and time no longer exist, so does everything that depends on it, such as matter (earth, human, living being, stars etc..)

How it shall happened I subscribed to two scenario, it could be either a "Big Crunch"
Where space and time "shrink" into the state of singularity (where it was once before the big bang).
Or the "Big Rip" where space and time "ripped apart" into the state of singularity. (where it was once before the big bang).

You missed something important. There are two major ways this universe might die as I have previously talked about here on FM a few years ago

Salam,

Cant say anything with absolute certainty. But to go with our general understanding of the universe, either a big crunch or expanding till mass fades to zero volume P . It depends on the mass of the universe though !!

You missed out the forever expanding scenario. Anyway, its not important. I am just wondering where you are going with this.

The information pose another question.
What exist before the big bang and what exist after the big crunch/big rip?

We don't know.

What do you mean by it was already there??

I was referring to what you said about the expansion of space and time. What I pointed out is that the singularity was there and it expanded into the universe as we know it. The singularity is not "nothing". So, in the very least, the singularity already existed. That is a necessary precursor to the expansion of the universe. For example, lets say you started getting fat from june of last year. Does this not automatically imply that you had to exist to get fat? That was what I was pointing out. You can go back and reread what I read now.

The more correct statement is actually
Based on the information that we received now which is telling of what actually happened billions years ago, due to the billion light years distance between our planet and the observed object such as another galaxies, the universe is still expanding at least until billion years ago.

Sometimes I really fail to see your point. You do know that even your description of the event is nowhere near exhaustive, right? One can always add more details to it to the point that they end up writing books. In a communication such as the one we are having, we will not be able to proceed if we keep on doing this as it further convolutes the matter. Not to mention that given the context of the overall discussion, it doesn't even matter.

As for the "Singularity" state, such state can be observed on the center of our own galaxy.
The black hole.
Black hole is a phenomenon where space and time (and everything that depends on it) just 'disappear'.
By the word 'disappear' it means "Infinite Mass and Zero Volume".

I am still wondering where this is going.

Within the black hole, all of the (God's) law on this universe ceased to be true (or enforced).
Law of gravity, Law of Thermodynamics etc..
The black hole is mind boggling, yet it's true and it exist.

Please do not call it God's law unless you are willing to demonstrate that it is God's law. This is dishonesty, at least try to add a phrase like "I believe on faith.." before saying something like this. The laws of this universe are not PRESCRIPTIVE laws, they are descriptive. That is where your idea fails again. Firstly, it is not evidence based, its taken on faith. Then, you are treating descriptive laws like they require a prescription from some authority.

As such you have to provide proof on why you believe in the non-existence of God.
First by sharing what's your definition of God.

No. Do not attempt to shift the burden of proof. Let me get definitions clear here as it seems like theists just make up their own words and definitions. From oxford dictionary

Athiest A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

I disbelieve or have a lack of belief in virtually every single theistic claims I heard about God. I do not have to provide evidence of "no God". That is preposterous that you are trying to shift the burden of proof. If I claimed that monkey's fly out of my butt every Monday morning when nobody is looking, it is not your duty to accept it. If you don't believe in my claim, it is not your duty to prove that Monkey's don't fly out of my butt every Morning when no one is observing (non-falsifiable). I lack any belief in the existence of "ice-cream giants that sleeps around with potatoes". However, that does not mean that I have to provide evidence for it!!! The burden of proof is on the party making the claim. Please go through these links to understand the basics of burden of proof

Legal Burden of Proof
Philosophical Burden of Proof
Scientific Burden of Proof

What you have attempted to do is to shift the burden of proof on me. Let me claim that I have an invisible pet unicorn that doesn't manifest in reality. Do you believe in its existence? If not, then is it your duty to disprove it or my duty to provide evidence for it? Its always the duty of the one making the claims to provide evidence for their claims. The burden of proof is never on the other party. Another example

You claim that Mr. X murdered Mr. Y. The jury at the court asks you for evidence. You say that you "feel it strongly and it brings tears to your eyes". Therefore the jury decides that they don't have sufficient evidence to conclude that Mr. X murdered Mr. Y. Therefore, the jury doesn't believe that your claim that "Mr. X murdered Mr. Y" is true. Now would you expect the jury to go and try to prove that Mr. X is innocent? Nobody does that and thats not how burden of proof works. One may claim that they are a millionaire. If they can't prove it to me, my default position shouldn't be "BELIEVE". My default position is to not believe in a claim until there is evidence for it. Just like you won't believe in my invisible pet unicorn without me proving it. This is the null hypothesis. EVERYONE knows to use it. It is only when religion is mentioned or God is mentioned, people start raping their minds with weird distortions of things like what you did with burden of proof there. If I say that I created a watch that is now dancing with the spirit of Michael Jackson on the other side of the universe, is your default position on the matter to "believe"????? Obviously not. You won't believe it without evidence. What if I now tell you that since you don't believe it or have a lack of belief in my claim, you have to disprove it. Does that make sense?

There's a difference between Atheist (Believing of the non-existence of God) and non-Theist. (Doesn't discuss it at all).
The Non-Theist doesn't need to provide proof but Atheist does...
The Buddhist is among the "Non-Theist".

No. You are demonstrably wrong again. Non-theism simply means not pertaining to theism. Atheist means to have alack of belief in God claims. Definitions for both from oxford dictionary

Atheist A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
Non-theism Not having or involving a belief in a god or gods. (Therefore non-theist is essentially someone who doesn't have beliefs pertaining to theistic claims such as God claims )

The meanings of those words have nothing to do with them discussing or not discussing their beliefs. As I have already demonstrated, you are wrong about the meaning of those words to begin with. On top of that, your understanding of the "burden of proof" is wrong too.

Yes it could be something beyond this universe..
Infact there could be trillion of other universe..

So you just accepted that there is a shoe who lies beyond this universe much like your God does? I am talking about "actually" accepting and believing in the existence of that shoe. The answer to this question demonstrates how much a person is willing to believe without actually having any evidence for it.

There has been an experiment on the case above.
And it shows no correlation.

Just like any demonstration of God, prayers do fail on trial.

Your statement that "Praying is an act to persuade God to do human's will" is due to influence of your culture or religion.
Specifically "Mediterranean" culture and religion.

I am going by what people believe. You as an individual may not believe in that kind of prayer. But please do not try to make it sound like most people do not believe in prayers like that. I am addressing their beliefs. It doesn't matter to me if their beliefs are sound according to another authority such as Bible/Qur'an/etc. How many other theists do you want me to present to you that will disagree on the meaning and interpretation of prayers with you? I have no reason to commit the logical fallacy of special pleading and assume that for everything, your definition is ACCURATE. Both you and other theists still didn't demonstrate the accuracy of your claims. Both of you have based things on "faith" and as such, none of you are more credible than the other one. As for you personally, I have noticed that you seem to make up non-falsifiable claims and assume your claim therefore must be better. You have done that for almost all theistic claims so fair, trying to push the matter outside the scope of falsification.

Praying also known as Meditating is actually an act to prepare oneself to what shall be happening.
Also known as to peacefully accept God's will.
As God's will shall happened anyway...
The true objective of praying and meditating is to obtain peace within the prayer..

Either prove it or I can't take it anymore seriously than I took the Humpty Dumpty story.

With such understanding of the objective of praying / meditating.
There has been another experiment to test the hypothesis of "Does praying/meditating really brings peace to the prayer?"
The result is positive, praying/meditating resulted in

Lower heart rate and blood pressure
Less activity in the brain
Boost Oxytocin, the hormone who is responsible for the feelings of empathy and peace within Mammals.

That is highly subjective and doesn't prove anything about anything. We know about the effects of meditation and it works independent of the arab god mumbojumbo or any other hindu god mumbojumbo. Telling me about some study where they saw people were feeling peaceful doesn't prove anything. This isn't how you determine the existance of a god or power of prayer scientifically. Not to mention that almost every other theist will disagree with you on the meaning of prayer and how to do it.

I have said before on this forum that the Islamist God is a fake God, Islamist God doesn't exist.
Why?
Because, their God is so weak as such the God need human's help to enforce His own law / decree.
And Islamist God's law is so ridiculous that it governed meticulous thing such as "head covers", "no peeing facing Kabba" etc..

Of course those Shariah law was actually human invented law.
Otherwise all of those law will be automatically enforced, such as the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics etc..
The above is the True God's law.

That is your opinion. Your god being less falsifiable than their God doesn't make your one exist. Anyway, I do agree that their weird monster god doesn't exist.

I have pondered on why the "tone" of the Tanakh and the Quran is so harsh with "Behave or Suffer" ultimatum.
Then during watching of the video, which one member of this forum posted about the brutality of the ISIS in Iraq.
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQSDeZxrLsU

Occam's Razor Its all about competition. Religions have been demonizing other religions all throughout human civilization. I do not need to invent further complications to explain why that happens.

Anyway, I will be opening a new thread. Let's take the discussion there. I will explain my journey there and answer questions. I believe we have ruined this thread and went too much off-topic here. I will invite you to the other thread once I am done writing the title post for it.

Peace
---------------------- Student of Allah

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

I disbelieve or have a lack of belief in virtually every single theistic claims I heard about God. I do not have to provide evidence of "no God". That is preposterous that you are trying to shift the burden of proof. If I claimed that monkey's fly out of my butt every Monday morning when nobody is looking, it is not your duty to accept it. If you don't believe in my claim, it is not your duty to prove that Monkey's don't fly out of my butt every Morning when no one is observing (non-falsifiable). I lack any belief in the existence of "ice-cream giants that sleeps around with potatoes". However, that does not mean that I have to provide evidence for it!!! The burden of proof is on the party making the claim. Please go through these links to understand the basics of burden of proof

And that is a rule that someone invented. It is the same as we say that you have the burden of proof to prove that there is no god as you claim that there is no god. It is a stupid discussion to begin with. It is word against word; you cannot prove that there is no god and we cannot prove that there is a god.

You make the claim that there is no god and thus I require you to prove this claim. Else there is nothing that gives me any reason to disprove your claim. And I gave you questions in a previous post unanswered. That is more "evidence" than the ones you provide in that case, or at least reasons why the claim is harder to prove than you may think. The talk about a terrorist Arabian god I do not buy. And please do not refer to any scriptures because I do not.

And faith in a supernatural entity always comes down to faith too and there is no direct physical evidence of a maker of the universe, but there are neither ways to disprove this supernatural intelligence, and only reasons to mock it as lame which is still nonsensical because you cannot prove the non-existence of a supernatural entity either.

So it is "blind faith", but it does still not disprove the fact if there is a supernatural intelligence or not. And if you have a run-in with the supernatural force too then it is not blind faith to the one who experiences it, but it is the same issue as the one we stand in front here with the burden of proof because you cannot (at least yet) playback what your eyes have seen or your brain experienced. But we both have a burden to disprove each other. Please prove that a supernatural intelligence does not exist!

So it is quite a useless discussion that you delve into here in this thread trying to convince people that there is no supernatural intelligence when you cannot prove it, and hopefully the people in here have a faith strong enough not to buy your empty arguments, but also not the empty arguments of "religionists" that want to perform atrocities in the name of religion. I know you fight against faiths because you have seen so many crimes to have been done in the name of a god in the world as we know it, but that does not prove that there is no supernatural intelligence. It could be that the majority of people are misguided.

And it is better to be an atheist doing good than a believer that commits crimes in the world because the atheist has bigger faith than he understands him/herself while the "believer" does in fact not have any faith at all and is a hypocrite. What a "god" is is always subjective and it is absolutely not a grumpy bearded old man in terrorist clothing that wants to kill anyone that does not believe the way his followers do and anyone that does not believe will be sent into the hellfire.

The true objective of praying and meditating is to obtain peace within the prayer..

Either prove it or I can't take it anymore seriously than I took the Humpty Dumpty story.

It is in fact shown that this kind of activity does cause peace for its practitioner

"The tests were carried out on practitioners with up to forty thousand hours of meditation experience, and involved different kinds of meditation practice. They showed a remarkable range of results, such as

? the ability to reach a state of inner peace even when facing extremely disturbing circumstances, and"

Source http//www.rigpa.org/en/teachings/extracts-of-articles-and-publications/35-scientific-research-on-meditation.html

This isn't how you determine the existance of a god or power of prayer scientifically

In fact is is a way to show the power of a meditation scientifically. It does not determine the existence of a "god" however, but you still have to prove that there is no supernatural entity too, or it is just word against word.

It is a bit similar to that people may have laughed at the scientific claim that one could fly some hundred years ago. They could show the opposite later in this case. But it is difficult to prove God, but you still have to show me that a godlike entity does not exist.

Occam's Razor Its all about competition. Religions have been demonizing other religions all throughout human civilization. I do not need to invent further complications to explain why that happens.

It is merely the mischief that we demonize, just as you demonize the circumcision of females in some cultures etc.

So you just accepted that there is a shoe who lies beyond this universe much like your God does? I am talking about "actually" accepting and believing in the existence of that shoe. The answer to this question demonstrates how much a person is willing to believe without actually having any evidence for it.

Just as in many other scenarios such as the case with flying some people believed in it strongly. There was no evidence for it until they managed to do it yet they believed in it.

It was just a short leap of imagination to envision a larger version of these flying objects with a person aboard.
And while there was always some doubt about Besnier?s claims, believing them to be true only spurred the resolve of later experimenters.

Source http//www.century-of-flight.net/new%20site/frames/myths_frame1.htm

Scribbler

Dear Student of Allah,

Peace to you.

After reading the type of contentions you present, it is absolutely clear to me that your arguments are extremely, EXTREMELY weak. In fact, your arguments has made my belief in God more stronger. You ask us to give you proof that God exists, but you fail to realize that you cannot disprove the existence of God either. What is your proof that everything that happened after your so-called Big Bang (including the Big Bang itself), the existence of all the stars and planets, their positions, all the laws of the universe, all forms of life that exist on planet earth etc. has happened merely by an accident? Please prove us that it was all an "accident". Do not attempt to give any scientific theories, but give us clear, unobscure, concrete evidence that it was all an accident. Can you give? If you cannot, then are you not also blindly following your scientists just like you say that we blindly follow man-made religions? Are you not you a blind-believer too, dear brother?

You assert that the world is corrupted because of religions. But have you considered that the world could have been MORE corrupted without any religion? First of all, you use the word "religion" in your posts, but from the perspective of the Book (the Quran) which we follow, negates your definition of the word religion. The word that Quran uses is "deen", and it does not even require to be so intelligent to grasp the meaning from the usage of this word in the Quran, which simply means "a way of life".

Then you give examples of murders, rapes, suicides, mass killing etc. which are done by people who "believe" in a God/gods. But does the Book which we follow tells us to fight with people, murder, rape, commit suicide, do honor killings, degrade women, rob, steal etc.? Does the Book say anything like that? Please show me a single verse from the Quran to support your claim.

Dear brother, your claims about all the bad things which people did in this world, and are still doing, are all related to man-made books and religions. They are not following the way of life which our Quran teaches us, but they are following man-made religions. You are equating man-made religions with God's way of life. If they followed God's way of life, i.e. the Quran, then they would not have been the way they are now. They would not have been doing what they are doing. They would not have corrupted this world.

To summarize, if you say that we are blind followers of God, then you, too, and all the athiests are also blinds followers of your scientists, because you simply cannot prove, and never will be able to prove that everything has happened by a mere accident.

Regards.

Bender

Salaam,

I like this verse

3120 Did you not see that Allah has commissioned in your service what is in the heavens and what is in the earth, and He has showered you with His blessings, both apparent and hidden? Yet from the people are some who argue about Allah with no knowledge nor guidance nor enlightening Book.

salaam,
Bender

JavaLatte

But have you considered that the world could have been MORE corrupted without any religion?

Very good question.

My prediction is this world may be far more chaotic if all people in the world do not believe in God.

Peace.

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

Religion is often just a tool to control the masses.

The famous decree or "Christian values" actually ought to have helped and it has become to assimilated into human society that no one notices anymore.

God bless you

muslims

The famous decree or "Christian values" actually ought to have helped and it has become to assimilated into human society that no one notices anymore.

It is the Quran, and we just need to filter what is from God, and what is not from God. . . . ie. by using the function of "Confirming Book" of the Quran; ie. if it is from Allah, then there is no discrepancies (4.82). . .

http//www.project-reason.org/forum/viewreply/353140/

I believe the Quran is

The Old Testament, Torah (Earth, before Prophethood. . Mecca, read. . )
The New Testament, Bible (Air. . Mecca, purify. . .)
The Final Testament, the Quran (Fire. . Medina, rule and order, practice . . )

These three books constitute the whole Quran. . .

These three Books share the same Prophets, history, and values. . and there are not other religions who can "claim and corroborate with history and science since the beginning of mankind" (Adam and Eve), how good this new religion may sounds to be . . . because they cannot explain all these things without any inconsistencies. . they are man made. . .

good_logic

Peace All.

Reason (and Science), Faith (and religion) are they different? Can they have a common ground?

Reason that does not lead to faith in a Supreme Authority does not reveal the entire truth. It is flawed since it cannot be fully traced, backed up and verified.

How irrational and ironic! Laws and systems do not exist without a supreme intelligence and an omnipotent source to establish them. If they were haphazardly set, how would they constantly perform in such sophistication, precision, consistency, coordination and harmony?

Also; Faith without reason does not reveal the entire truth. Faith without reason is also flawed and fake since it can not be fully traced, backed up and verified.

Another irony is that the majority of those who believe in God go to the other extreme and abolish all forms of reason! Their spiritual path becomes illogical and mystical. It is based on superstition and concepts that contradict both commonsense and the physical laws of this world. Without questioning or verifying, they repeat their ancestral religious practices or follow their opinions and traditions even if they contradict the scripture they claim to uphold. Thus, they lead a life with a fake spirit and unauthentic identity that has nothing to do with the title of their faith..

This systematic opposition between the truth of faith and truth of reason is absurd.
The truth stands by itself as ONE, VERIFIABLE and COHERENT TRUTH with no conditions or contradictions. If something is not true, then it has to be false and unverifiable.
Reason, by itself, cannot and will not stand behind or justify creation, life and death.
Blind, man-made faith that does not acknowledge science cannot stand behind or explain why we are here.
There has to be one supremacy and one intelligence, a source and a founder of all facts, scientific and religious. That is God, the Creator, the Designer and the Artisan. He is that ONE, VERIFIABLE and COHERENT TRUTH.

That is why the truth of reason & science and truth of faith are one and the same; they describe the same reality.

There are those who grasp only the "seen" and "heard" of this world.

Then, there are those who properly grasp the reality of this journey on earth (2257), its meaning and purpose (5155-57, 904, 4439, 1419, 1585). They witness the complete and verifiable one truth that sound reason must lead to true faith, to one God, one source and authority of all laws and values. They see, hear, comprehend and perceive the phenomenon of God.
They persevere to redeem their souls and securely return to God in peace, contentment and dignity.

And of course there is the "Freedom " to choose , which everyone is entitled to.

Yes indeed; Reason and Faith

"... The darkness sacramental of the Eucharist is unfathomable. Besides, if it were intelligible, it would not be divine. If the God we serve could be understood by reason, he would not worth to be served, said Tauler *; ... if the works of God were such that the intelligence of man could easily grasp them, they cease to be wonderful and could not be described as ineffable. "

John Tauler, theologian of the 14th

This excerpt, by Joris-Karl Huysmans, in his book, "En route", describes the struggle of the majority of people with the concept that faith coincides with reason. The dichotomy between faith and reason is disastrous as it leads to an illusory perception of this world.

GOD bless you all.
Peace.

Jafar

Believe it or not, there are those who insist that I must go around killing everybody in sight since I no longer believe in God. Some theists seem to think that the lack of a God automatically makes someone a criminal. I think the religious inclinations of the prison populations throughout the globe demonstrates well that the lack of belief in such Gods does not make it easier for atheists to be criminals.

That's because they're being told as such by those around them..

Some Russians believe all Capitalists are evil (as they're being doctrined as such since their USSR childhood)
And some Americans believe all Communists are evil (as they're being doctrined as such since childhood)

Buddhists are Atheists.

Buddhist are NON-THEIST, Sidharta never said "There's no God" or he ever discussed God in the first place.
As thus there's no burden for him to prove the non-existence of God.
He did however belief in the existence of Law of Karma (Thus he explained in great details on prove of the existence of such law)

If Sidharta stated "He do not believe in God" (which he didn't) thus he need to explain what's his definition of God in the first place.

In the same manner as you said "you believe in the non-existence of God" and now you said "Buddhist are Atheist".
The burden to provide proof of those two hypothesis laid upon you.

The trouble is that everyone is defining their God and we are just creating tonnes of contradictions and just for the sake of defining God, we have created the dilemma of "religions" again. Just like there are countless religions, there will be then countless definitions of God that do that agree with each other. Anyway, my condition stays the same. I can only accept the one I have evidence for.

To me is not a trouble at all, there is and always will be countless of religions as there will always be countless definition of God.

Can you give me your definition of Kuxartylopifoton?

I'll asked the same question before answering What is Kuxartylopifoton?

In the same manner, I do not have a definition of God.

Then don't mention it at all, or stated that you do believe in the non-existence or existence of God.
Because you don't have any definition of God in the first place.

The same manner with "Kuxartylopifoton".
I can't say that I believe in the existence or non-existence of Kuxartylopifoton.
Because I don't have any definition of Kuxartylopifoton in the first place.

the generic idea of God that I do not believe in is the creator God who supposedly originated the heavens and the earth.

When I am talking about God in general, you can assume that I am referring to the creator God who supposedly originated the heavens and the earth, the universe.

Now this start to go somewhere.
So at least God to you is "the creator who originated the heavens and the earth"

For all I know, the claim is that this entity exists and I am not convinced that it does. A Roman Catholic and you may disagree on how to define God, but that makes no difference for me as I will still need evidence for the existence of your God.

Now my next question is
What's the satisfied condition to you as a prove that "the creator who originated the heavens and the earth" does exist?

Some condition that I proposed IF such thing exist is that

It must exist even before space and time existed. (before the Big Bang)
It must exist even after space and time no longer exist.

Or in other words it doesn't have any dependency towards space and time.
Yet space and time have dependency towards it.
Or do you believe space and time have no dependency towards anything???

Or you're expecting (x,y,z,t) coordinate in order to satisfy your condition of existence?
Because if that's the case then God existence is (,,,&#8734

I accept that your God exists if your define your God as

An apple
An orange
A river
The sun
etc.

All of the above requires space and time to exist.
As thus to me the above are not God.

An old man who impregnated a Jewish woman to give birth to his only son who he send to the slaughter so that he may forgive the sins of humanity which he himself put on them in the first place!!

The old man impregnating Jewish woman could probably be exist. But certainly he also have dependency towards time and space.

A being that looks like a Taco and craps ice-cream outside of space and time

If it's outside space and time how can it looks like a taco?

A being that just chills outside of space and time

If it's outside space and time how can it "chills"?

To respond to a theist and tell them about my opinion on the matter of their God's existence, I have to first know what they are talking about.

TRUE, the same goes with the Atheist.
You have to know what they're talking about.
You have to know what is it that do not exist.

If Mujica believes God is "a man who copulated jewish virgin without ruining her virginity and his sperm bring forth a half-god man to this world".
Then I'm the same as Mujica, an ATHEIST.

After knowing that they are a talking about the creator/maintainer/caretaker of the universe who takes personal interest in the lives of one sub-species of apes among many species of apes who happen to be one species themselves out of millions of species who live on a planet that's one out of 8 planets that orbits it's sun which in turn is one out of hundreds of billions of stars in our milky way which is one galaxy out of hundreds of billions of galaxies out there!! Talk about the height of arrogance and self importance!! A belief without any evidence which makes you feel as though an entity like that takes personal interest in your life, what you eat, how you talk and especially "who you sleep with"!!

it's not impossible at all, the 'caretaker' could have high interest to all of the things.

From Big Bang cosmology, we know that the universe expanded from a singularity. We are limited in our knowledge regarding that expansion due to the current limits of our knowledge we can not probe beyond a certain point close to the point in time when the singularity started to expand.

True, even "singularity" itself violate all of the known physical law that we already know.
We cannot explained how "singularity" itself could exist.
Where singularity is infinite (&#8734 mass and zero (0) volume.
Yet singularity (&#8734,(0) does exist isn't it?

According to the 'physical law' of time and space, zero volume = non existence..
Although having mass violate that definition.
If that's what you mean by "Non Existence" (Zero Volume), then I agree with you God does not exist.

A chinese who lived 2600 years ago explained the same conception, everything in nothing and nothing in everything.
Which puzzled it's readers for many centuries.

Salam / Peace