For the Hardcore Atheists

[Maiwand]

For the hardcore thinking experienced atheists to reflect upon.

Dr. Laurence Brown
A graduate from two Ivy League universities with sub-specialty training in ophthalmology, Dr. Brown served as a respected ophthalmologist in the U.S. Air Force for a period of eight years. His term of service was distinguished by earning the position of Chief of Ophthalmology, both at Lakenheath Air Force Base in England and at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida (the largest military base in the free world). Dr. Laurence Brown received his BA from Cornell University, his MD from Brown University Medical School, and his ophthalmology residency training at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, DC.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

So if the Big Bang was indeed under the control of a creator, how does that infer that the 'creator' was Allah and not Raam, Zeus or Morgan Freeman?

In any case, I just have one question for the almighty Dr. Laurence Brown (peace and salutations be upon him) - you ask where the primordial dust and the clouds came from? I ask you, where do you think the sole, singular Creator came from who created those clouds?

[شمله ور خراساني]

So if the Big Bang was indeed under the control of a creator, how does that infer that the 'creator' was Allah and not Raam, Zeus or Morgan Freeman?

In any case, I just have one question for the almighty Dr. Laurence Brown (peace and salutations be upon him) - you ask where the primordial dust and the clouds came from? I ask you, where do you think the sole, singular Creator came from who created those clouds?

god is uncreated.

[Maiwand]

So if the Big Bang was indeed under the control of a creator, how does that infer that the 'creator' was Allah and not Raam, Zeus or Morgan Freeman?

In any case, I just have one question for the almighty Dr. Laurence Brown (peace and salutations be upon him) - you ask where the primordial dust and the clouds came from? I ask you, where do you think the sole, singular Creator came from who created those clouds?

According of the definition of God of the muslims and the defintion that God has given of himself, he is eternal and not created. And you cannot compare him with anyone/anything.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

Those arguments may satisfy a theist but as Sangar would know, a "hardcore atheist" would want more than theological philosophy as proof.

[Maiwand]

Those arguments may satisfy a theist but as Sangar would know, a "hardcore atheist" would want more than theological philosophy as proof.

What would confince a hardcore atheist that there is a God, besides seeing him with his/her own eyes?

[Roshina]

In almost all discussions I've had with people on the whole creation thing, and most people find it intelligent to say, "Look, okay? Everything has to have a creator. We HAD to be created by God, duh."

But... why don't they realize that I'm gonna be obliged to ask in return, "So who created God then?" The typical answer is, "God by definition has no creator, so it is illogical to ask such a question" (classic answer by Zakir Naik!).

Firstly, how is it illogical?
Secondly, according to WHOSE definition? Someone has to have defined the term or concept of "God" for you to believe that "by definition," God has no creator, right? So then whose definition is that? And why is that the only definition?

However, lemme try to answer it for those who don't know.

The chain HAS to break somewhere. If there IS an answer to who created God (say, something called A created God), then one can legitimately ask, "What created A then?" The answer may be that "B created A," but we'll naturally ask, "What created B?" And so on. So the best we can do is to agree that this chain HAD to break somewhere, and God-believers have decided that "Okay, then, let's have the chain be broken with God."

Most of them are satisfied with this, but the rest of us want to look more into it -- just because.

So, if most theists wanna end with, "OKay, then GOD is the one who created everything," the question becomes, "Define God." And that's where theists don't always agree.

Some atheist scientists argue that why make "God" the creator? The answer from the theist is: Because we need an answer, we need a creator, and we need to beleive that something has the ABILITY to create something more and new, so it has to be God. The atheist might then go a little further and say, "Okay, then. That might be satisfying for you, but it's not so for me. What's wrong with my believing that a Unicellular Organism came out of nowhere, just like God came out of nowhere? Why necessarily does it have to be this God, why not something else?"

And then the theist gives the same answer: "Because a unicellular organism cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and everything else that God is."

So, yeah, we need a better claim (I don't even wanna say "argument" here!) than a simple and superficial "God is by definition the creator and uncreated." It might work for you but not for those who like to think beyond *your* understanding.

[Maiwand]

In almost all discussions I've had with people on the whole creation thing, and most people find it intelligent to say, "Look, okay? Everything has to have a creator. We HAD to be created by God, duh."

But... why don't they realize that I'm gonna be obliged to ask in return, "So who created God then?" The typical answer is, "God by definition has no creator, so it is illogical to ask such a question" (classic answer by Zakir Naik!).

Firstly, how is it illogical?
Secondly, according to WHOSE definition? Someone has to have defined the term or concept of "God" for you to believe that "by definition," God has no creator, right? So then whose definition is that? And why is that the only definition?

However, lemme try to answer it for those who don't know.

The chain HAS to break somewhere. If there IS an answer to who created God (say, something called A created God), then one can legitimately ask, "What created A then?" The answer may be that "B created A," but we'll naturally ask, "What created B?" And so on. So the best we can do is to agree that this chain HAD to break somewhere, and God-believers have decided that "Okay, then, let's have the chain be broken with God."

Most of them are satisfied with this, but the rest of us want to look more into it -- just because.

So, if most theists wanna end with, "OKay, then GOD is the one who created everything," the question becomes, "Define God." And that's where theists don't always agree.

Some atheist scientists argue that why make "God" the creator? The answer from the theist is: Because we need an answer, we need a creator, and we need to beleive that something has the ABILITY to create something more and new, so it has to be God. The atheist might then go a little further and say, "Okay, then. That might be satisfying for you, but it's not so for me. What's wrong with my believing that a Unicellular Organism came out of nowhere, just like God came out of nowhere? Why necessarily does it have to be this God, why not something else?"

And then the theist gives the same answer: "Because a unicellular organism cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and everything else that God is."

So, yeah, we need a better claim (I don't even wanna say "argument" here!) than a simple and superficial "God is by definition the creator and uncreated." It might work for you but not for those who like to think beyond *your* understanding.

We cannot change the reality and the factual existense of God or his definition in order to satisfy the arrogant atheists. First of all all the knowledge that we humans have about God, is from God. So he is the only one who can define himself. And he has said in the Quran that he has those 99 qualities. So I would ask the atheists, prove that the Quran is not the word of God. If he succeeds in doing that, then we would know that the information about God in the Quran is possibly wrong or that God doesn't exist. As long as an atheist can't do that (relatively easy job), then why is he denying the existence of the creater of the universe and every living being.

I advice everyone who has the least bit of doubt in his/her heart about the divine origin of the Quran to watch the complete lecture of Zakir Naik: "Is Quran Gods Word?", it's on youtube.

[Roshina]

^ Maiwand wrora, when an atheist asks you why you believe in God, are you gonna say, "Because God says so in the Quran -- here, here, here, here, here, and allll over His Holy Book."?

Because that wouldn't lead to a discussion at all. I'm interested in a discussion, and we're not gonna have that with a simple "God exists and He's the creator of all things because He said so in the Quran."

[єѕαρχαι]

So if the Big Bang was indeed under the control of a creator, how does that infer that the 'creator' was Allah and not Raam, Zeus or Morgan Freeman?

In any case, I just have one question for the almighty Dr. Laurence Brown (peace and salutations be upon him) - you ask where the primordial dust and the clouds came from? I ask you, where do you think the sole, singular Creator came from who created those clouds?

Nobody can prove you wrong if you believe in nothing.

[Maiwand]

^ Maiwand wrora, when an atheist asks you why you believe in God, are you gonna say, "Because God says so in the Quran -- here, here, here, here, here, and allll over His Holy Book."?

Because that wouldn't lead to a discussion at all. I'm interested in a discussion, and we're not gonna have that with a simple "God exists and He's the creator of all things because He said so in the Quran."

Then I will repeat my previous questions to such an atheist, what will definitely confince him/her that there is a God, without seeing Him with his/her eyes?

Because in the Quran there is a verse in which God says, that even if those people see every sign, they will still not believe. I even think that even when they see God with their eyes, they will still have doubts or say that it is some kind of magic etc.

Every proof of the existence of God is already in nature, the laws of the universe and our own body. So what does an atheist need more to be confinced of the existence of Allah (swt)?

The main goal of our life is to worship God and believe in the unseen, that's why this life is a test. What is the point of the test if you get the results before hand or are able to cheat?

[Roshina]

Nobody can prove you wrong if you believe in nothing.

I know that wasn't addressed to me, but I'm just wondering, Sher Khan wrora ... what does "nothing" mean? If you were referring to atheists and their disbelief in God, why do we assume that just because they don't believe in God, they don't believe in ANYTHING? That they believe in "nothing"?

I suspect the answer must be: Because God is everything. So if you don't believe in God, you don't believe in "everything" -- hence, you believe in "nothing." But if you think about it more honestly, do you personally REALLY agree with this? Does this honestly make sense to you?

I'm saying all this *assuming* that you were referring to atheism and its belief in what you have called "nothing." If I'm wrong, or my assumption is wrong, then please forgive me and correct me and just ignore this, then.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Then I will repeat my previous questions to such an atheist, what will definitely confince him/her that there is a God, without seeing Him with his/her eyes?

Because in the Quran there is a verse in which God says, that even if those people see every sign, they will still not believe. I even think that even when they see God with their eyes, they will still have doubts or say that it is some kind of magic etc.

Every proof of the existence of God is already in nature, the laws of the universe and our own body. So what does an atheist need more to be confinced of the existence of Allah (swt)?

The main goal of our life is to worship God and believe in the unseen, that's why this life is a test. What is the point of the test if you get the results before hand or are able to cheat?

I think there is more to that.

Atheists are by nature rebellious people. They are usually bitter, and frustrated. There is something that bothers them. So they decide to rebel against highest authority thinkable. So they deny existence of god.

Most prominent atheists are usually the biggest degenerates.

Usually, the atheists from conservative communities are most vocal when they remain anonymous. An atheist from a Muslim community who is frustrated why he could not have the woman of his dreams, or why his parents don't like his facination with dead-metal music, usually resort to irrational behavior online questioning the existence of god.

[єѕαρχαι]

I know that wasn't addressed to me, but I'm just wondering, Sher Khan wrora ... what does "nothing" mean? If you were referring to atheists and their disbelief in God, why do we assume that just because they don't believe in God, they don't believe in ANYTHING? That they believe in "nothing"?

I suspect the answer must be: Because God is everything. So if you don't believe in God, you don't believe in "everything" -- hence, you believe in "nothing." But if you think about it more honestly, do you personally REALLY agree with this? Does this honestly make sense to you?

I'm saying all this *assuming* that you were referring to atheism and its belief in what you have called "nothing." If I'm wrong, or my assumption is wrong, then please forgive me and correct me and just ignore this, then.

awww khory.

according to me , atheist is the one who believes in nothing.
Atheists always deny a higher power.

[Maiwand]

I think there is more to that.

Atheists are by nature rebellious people. They are usually bitter, and frustrated. There is something that bothers them. So they decide to rebel against highest authority thinkable. So they deny existence of god.

Most prominent atheists are usually the biggest degenerates.

Usually, the atheists from conservative communities are most vocal when they remain anonymous. An atheist from a Muslim community who is frustrated why he could not have the woman of his dreams, or why his parents don't like his facination with dead-metal music, usually resort to irrational behavior online questioning the existence of god.

yes exactly, they are Summun Bukmun Umyun (Deaf, Dumb and Blind)