It's not trolling, it's a known and valid argument against the supposed benevolence of god using a rational approach to irrational suffering observed in the world. Some attest the beautiful things in this world to a higher power, others believe war, suffering, pain and disease are not consistent with a supposed utopia from an all powerful creator
theguardian.com/cul…-tv

this is all getting a bit serious. To lighten it a little, why did they choose that name for the app? surely iPrayer is better :sunglasses:

Whoa!

Voted HOT

Never expected to see a Muzlamic deal on HUKD.


#CreepingShariah :D:D

Now available on Qur'android :).

Here for the comments :wink:

Haram

Actually my infraction clearly states be respectful of others and their beliefs. Do not make up your own rules to make your argument look right, otherwise someone may fall for it :wink: so next time you might want to stop the haters before you jump on me, don't see that happening bye bye.

This is an interesting article on how Arab atheists tend to begin questioning their faith in different ways to previously Western Christian ones:
newhumanist.org.uk/489…ism

Except you believe e=mc2 until technology advances to disprove that...

Is this app for Apple store as well?

So much flaws in this argument.

1) Science cannot answer where the universe came from. You say Universe started from a natural process, who created & defined these processes and laws? Science will never be able to answer that all of this was cause of its own spontaneous being.

2) You speak as if Science & Religion/God are mutually exclusive, which they are not, so your entire rant is void. Science has existed side by side with religion for millenniums. Science was an integral part of Islamic civilisation for a good part of 5 centuries. Your post is rather ironic as you have made Science into a religion by the way you speak. The difference is in Islam for example, we are told learn & explore about the world, Science explains the world around us, these are all the creation of God, from the laws of nature to the object, they are all a process of design.

3) Your equation example is strawman. The equation you mentioned merely theorises a system, law etc. None of these laws, systems etc can come about on their own and define themselves.

Android, of course :-)

You are incorrect. It is not beg, it is 'worship' and that is with etiquette. But before you even question this. Ask yourself what is worthy of worship and be sincere.

Go into settings and change the calculation method. There's also an option for 'prayer time adjustments' which lets you fine-tune it.

This part of your argument I find odd. Someone who believes in a religion already accepts that they are taking it on faith. You know Muslims do believe in supernatural things like Jinn, Angels etc right? So yes they do believe in magic and openly admit they do. What makes you think it would make them uncomfortable.

so when someone believes God "appeared out of nowhere and created the universe out of nothing" well yes because he's God he's above the laws of everything else, time etc. They already accept this. That's the whole basis of their faith. So you're kinda stating the obvious ? I am not a religious person myself but thinking of it from a thiest's point of view

Really? Why in your opinion is it '2017'?

You rabbit on about science not being able to explain the origin of the universe, and that god created everything because there must be a creator. So, by your own thinking then who created god? let me guess, god is just always and forever etc etc? more crap because you can't explain the contradiction in your argument.

Just give up and return to your fairy tales.

Well no. It's really a whole lot of people who have been told by their parents that X is true, who were told by their parents that X is true..
It's not as if 1.6 billion people converted to a religion as rational adults of their own free will.
If the parents of these 1.6 billion people were Christians/Jews/Hindus etc., then it is extremely likely that the vast majority would be Christians/Jews/Hindus etc.
Islam is the fastest growing religion because of fertility rates and the subsequent instilling of particular religious ideas into children, nothing else.

Tried the Android, my mosque is not on there, tried to add them, my mosque has a very long name then message does not send :disappointed: going back it keeps buffering. to tried to find 'contact me' can't see it. Not very good app unfortunately.

Heat added as it seems to be useful, though even if this god fella came down and revealed himself, I don't know if I'd have the patience to do all that praying :).

Yep, you're right.

Loads of magic in Christianity as well.

Water into wine, walking on water, etc etc.

I suppose you can't argue logic with someone that believes in fairytales and magic.

And I really shouldn't try.

Nowhere did their comment suggest anything about 'hating on minorities and blaming them for all the world's problems'. Criticising religion =/= 'hating on' the people who happen to adhere to that religion (in varying degrees). This is an open forum, and this is a deal concerning a religious app, so it's perfectly reasonable to expect criticism as well as praise.

Wait wait wait. You're saying its "more crap" but surely this belief is the foundation of religion in the first place? Let's not use the word "God" for a moment because I think it's confusing matters. Let's just replace the word "God" with "natural process". If you are a religious person then yes you believe something has to come from something, EXCEPT you believe the very first something or "natural process" that resulted in the rest, is above the law of time, is forever and was not created etc. You already accept that as a the very first tenet of your faith. It's no good now telling a religious person that "your faith must be untrue because.. you took it on faith!!" Well duh!

Now as a religious person you so happen to believe this original "natural process" not only is timeless, but also has its own conscience in the same way that we do. What is our conscience anyway? It's a mixture of atoms and particles and blah blah coming together and forming the human mind and whichever ganglion cells consciousness resides in, we say for simplicity. Now this "natural process" also has particles and atoms and molecules and whatnot cpme together to form a will and that will made everything. I can't remember where I was going with this post now and can't be bothered to finish my thoughts. Will edit later

Exactly, majority of the world still believes in some kind of almighty sky fairy, so if anything I'm the 'minority'.

Read up on how many wars over the last thousand years were started between atheists vs those of differing religions or for religious reasons.

Science in being able to explain something from nothing shocker:

medium.com/the…4a3

Beats the religious "invisible man who gets angry if I don't pray to him daily made the world in a few days" shocker if you ask me...

You don't have to respect the beliefs of others, just their right to have and express them. Just as others do not have to respect your beliefs (That includes criticism), just your right to have and express them. You are also free to say how silly atheism is if you so choose.

Actually saying a whole group of people (in this case atheists) are without values or morals though, is a thoroughly bigoted and ignorant thing to say, and bigotry is not tolerated on HUKD.

That sums it up. Religion as with other things considered sacrosanct has been used to justify our ugly behaviour for many a millennia. ISIS/Daesh et al have perfected the dark art.

As for Social Darwinism, it is a loose term but it can be identified in two ways, a sociological device or a philosophical aspect. The latter has some how become an alternative to religion and dare I say it the creed of the athiest, the former is a social construct that can sometimes manifest itself in the form of Machiavellian style politics. So some religious people can be influenced by Social Darwinism but justify their behaviour through "Queen, Country Religion,etc"

I'm referring specifically to the colonialism of Europe and what is written is in that context. The greater argument of Creationist vs Athiest is too expansive for a chat on HUKD

Ah yes, the great atheist crusade of the 16th century was a truly dark period :D.

I just had a quick read of that and I am not sure it does explain that something can be created from nothing.

It suggests that I quote "Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations." From quantum fluctuations.so not from nothing then?? Where did the quantum fluctuations come from? If I were a religious person that would not be a good argument to make me athiest!!

Also I am not sure Dongshan and his peers were even suggesting something could come from nothing unless you could quote him directly? I know how "science" often gets misrepresented by media articles that need an eye catching headline

Also I don't think you should link to other people's articles unless you at least explain their content in your own words. That makes it seem like you have to divert to random links and make out that they support your argument when they may or may not

Each to their own beliefs..don't have to agree with each other but respect their views....peace out..

Can you point me in the direction of a religion that states the universe began 13.8 billion years ago as a result of quantum fluctuations and evolved independently as a result of random and chaotic interactions between spontaneously created dimensions and matter without any further input from a deity?

You certainly could argue for a Big Bang creation by a deity at that point in time should you so wish.

But religions aren't about belief in ANY deity. They're about belief in a specific one (or ones).

Hence all the "my God is better than yours" wars and infighting.

So yes, perhaps the Big Bang doesn't disprove there was "a creator". But it certainly disproves the notion of an omnipotent and hands-on one, that personally related how the Earth came to be formed by conveying information to those individuals claiming to speak for or with God in their relevant religious texts.

Respect their right to express their views, I hope you mean? It'd be impossible to respect everyone's views, especially since so many are in direct opposition to each other :).

Garbage app, went to pray, place was closed and ended up getting stabbed by some junkie outside. 1/10 would never use again.

You can understand it within oneself, one's mind, but you also need to first understand the meaning of principle of uncertainty and existence of something even in emptiness and vice versa, namely how a thing can come into existence from nothing, then you look at cause and effect.
.
In simple maths, nothing or emptiness or void is represented by 0 but 0 can turn into two things, minus 1 and plus 1, the net is zero, but you have positive 1 and negative 1.
.
When in MISC and the bile about muslim, catholics, jews, racism... all come out of nothing, it is nothing and emptiness, but the posts as you can see here are both positive and negative.
.
There are those posters who post baits thread here to solicit negativity and positivity over nothing. Those who have a tendency to positive will have a position future and existentialism after death and those who have a tendency to negativity will have a negative future and negative existentialismm after death. This is the cause and effect.

Ignorance is a bliss. God is not limited to his creation, he is not bound by what he has created and the laws of that. Secondly your own mind and perception is limited, you can only think and see of things you know within your reality, therefore you cannot imagine or fathom what might exist, concepts we can't imagine that exist beyond our own existence. Thirdly if God was created, this would be illogical, for starters you would get an infinite regress.

I reckon you should start with Stalin, move onto Mao and then finish off with Pol Pot. See you in a few months.

If anti-evolutionists used your line of thinking and argument then they could easily say evolution is a fairytale too.

Can you quote the specific passage in the atheist bible where they got the idea to murder those people?

Stalin had a moustache, therefore having a moustache makes you inclined to commit genocide..
Correlation =/= causation.

This article addresses the oft-repeated falsehood that atheism had anything to do with causing these atrocities

patheos.com/blo…-2/

The spontaneous argument was not long ago spouted by Hawkins, and was debunked pretty quickly. It is in itself anti-scientific to suggest it.

HOT! Thanks.

So how do you explain the tens to hundreds of millions killed or suffering as a result of communism and capitalism?

Religion isn't a person, that is accountable.

The common theme here is humans and their actions. They can be evil regardless of what belief they hold.

I suppose you would need to visit an atheist church and see if they have a copy for you to investigate. I'm not the one who mentioned a 'bible', so I'll leave that to you.

As for people like Stalin, you have to be pretty ignorant to not see any connection with his 'beliefs' and the atrocities him and his people committed. But as I said earlier, ignorance sometimes is indeed bliss.

en.wikipedia.org/wik…sts

Yeah, I know it's Wikipedia, but for helping someone to climb away from ignorance, it's a starting point...and no doubt a little less biased than the link you posted. I guess it's all about opinion and how someone interprets what they read or hear....or in many cases what they want to believe.

Sorry but what?

There's a tonne of testable and researched evidence for evolution.

Our own bodies are riddled with it.

What evidence is there for non-evolution and creationism?

Social Darwinism has played a very big role in most colonialist and neo-imperialist agendas. It's a bit silly to blame religion when the world's most dangerous weapons have been designed by atheists. People confuse religious justification as motivation for violence.

Debunked by who?

Science doesn't really work like that.

Especially theoretical science.

Links please.

Edit: it should be noted the research I linked to occurred AFTER Stephen Hawking made his spontaneous creation assertion.

And this is the main problem with religion, someone is always piping up that their beliefs have been insulted blah blah, and then the rest of us have to pander to the rubbish that follows.

Religion is nothing more than a bunch of fairy stories written by primitive people in an attempt to explain the world around them that they cannot comprehend or understand, these days we know better, much better.

Religion is poisonous, it makes seemingly intelligent people believe total crap, my boss for example is a hindu, he is a smart guy no doubt about that, yet he is a devout hindu and despite all the logic that says otherwise he honestly believes one of their gods(or whoever) had their head chopped off and replaced with the head of an elephant and lived happy ever after, or something to that effect, I mean its total lunacy to believe some fairy story like that yet he does.

So, in a nutshell, you're talking rubbish.

Too much effort when muslimpro does the same thing without the need to change all the settings! But thank you anyway :smile:

We are talking about the macro evolution, one species developing into another. This has never been observed, it's only an ever changing theory that relies on a few fossils. A creationist quite easily argue this is a fairy tale.

Hmmm.

Not sure about this.

God, Queen, and Country being the mantra behind much early colonisation (the Catholic colonisation of South America basically wiped out most of the continent).

Then again, I'm not entirely comfortable with the term "social Darwinism". For a start, it's a very very loose term.

Generally it seems to be applied to suggest Darwinism is responsible for this centuries' politics and policies that seem designed to reward the most competitive - i.e, "survival of the fittest".

Fair enough.

But then each of the dominant religions we now have wiped out thousands of religions that came before them.

The Christian church alone did for hundreds of different forms of paganism, different sects of Christianity (the gnostics anyone?), longterm historic persecutions of the Jews (long before Hitler) etc etc.

The ones we're left with literally are the survivors - the fittest or the most violent historically, that wiped all the others out.

Aside from that, there have been countless genocides in the name of religion since Darwin.

For every Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao, there's a Bulgarian Horror or Hamidian massacre.

So yeah...

Long and the short of it:

People are dicks.

A lot of people have used religion for their own ends.

Either opposing all or one of them, or subscribing to a particular religion with such a radical bent it becomes extremist.

The fact that you don't know this shows your ignorance and your just claiming assertions you dont understand yourself. Dozens of academics in different fields have debunked his silly theory like John Lennox and Roger Penrose.

Hawkings claims the Universe can and will create itself from nothing because of the law of gravity, not only is the first statement highly irrational (nothing can give birth to itself when it didn't exist") but his statement is illogical because the law of gravity is SOMETHING, so the universe itself creates itself from something.

The mention of the atheist bible was referencing the fact that there is absolutely nothing about atheism that says 'go out and murder a load of people'.
It is a lack of belief in god/s. That is it. Nothing more.
It has no dogmas, no doctrines, no commandments, no holy texts.



Once again, correlation =/= causation. Guess what else they all had in common? Communism, which has quite a bit more to say than atheism. They were all also power-mad dictators who brutally crushed anything they perceived as opposition.

Did you read the article I linked to? Your reply suggests you didn't.



Another charmer :). I'm not one to easily fall prey to the genetic fallacy so I have no problem with wikipedia. From the link:

'Union of the Godless (Союз безбожников Soyuz bezbozhnikov), was an atheistic and antireligious organization of workers and intelligentsia that developed in Soviet Russia under the influence of the ideological and cultural views and policies of the Soviet Communist Party from 1925 to 1947.'

Atheism is not anti-religious, nor is it in any way dependent on communism.

Now if it was the case that the 'Union of the Godless (Союз безбожников Soyuz bezbozhnikov), was an atheistic organization of workers and intelligentsia that developed in Soviet Russia under the influence of the ideological and cultural views and policies of atheism', then you'd have a point. It didn't, so you don't.



If you think that the argument presented in the article is somehow weaker because of this supposed bias, then that would be an example of the genetic fallacy.

Great reply. :grin:

This is so funny, advanced human civilization is based on religion who contributed to many things. What has Atheism ever given to the world apart from mass murderers like Stalin and PolPot. Even Darwin himself was believer in God.

hmmm, i dont know why this is relevant to the thread but ok. are there people that were born in muslim families that are atheist? yes of course but the simple reason for this is they have a lack of understanding of islam or its true meaning. the truth is out there, we need to seek it to believe it. it doesn't come pre loaded if you're born a muslim. muslims are in no position to judge other people infact, nobody is. what happens to us in the hereafter is all down to what each individual does in this life. once you understand what islam is then hopefully you will see the full picture of what life is about and what our purpose is here and only then will you understand why we pray to god.
islam is just a way of life. and a very peaceful one at that. but most of us dont understand it fully or read things out of context.
there's no saying that if my neighbors were non muslims but they were the nicest people ever they would go to hell. only god can and will judge them based on there merits

That thing you're typing on.

Smartphone or a computer.*

Yeah.

That.

Guess what?

God didn't make that.

Science did.

Funnily enough, you don't often find much reference to God or faith in science papers or principles...

*(Apologies if you are in fact praying and your God of choice is magically making the words appear on this forum.)

You do know Penrose rejected Hawkings because Penrose is an athiest and is uncomfortable with the levels of (what he perceives to be) faith needed in quantom physics right?

Lennox has made a great living as a Christian apologist, but whatever floats your boat...

no idea why people are getting away with being offensive towards religions... vote hot if it's hot, shut up or vote cold if it's not...

Would appreciate it if the mods would kindly maintain a bit of discipline and block/remove comments from certain offensive and childish users.

ps. not referring to those who are having respectful and civilised discussions.

and? penrose just proves the absurdity of some atheists, just proves my point on two things.

As for Lennox? so? that doesn't dimisih his Academic qualifications. Do you only follow atheist academics, cos they fit in with your confirmation and belief bias?

Daily Mail readers out in full force today

Sorry. What? What two things does the absurdity of Penrose prove?

As for Lennox. He's an academic. Which is fine. Great mathematician. But he's hardly at the cutting edge of science is he? He's made a career as a philosopher of science, not as a scientist. I love a bit of philosophy, and it's an interesting field. Lennox deals with questions of morals and ethics, and the implications modem science can have on longheld beliefs and religious systems. He's obviously a resolute defender of his own preconceptions of faith, which comes across on his views on the Trinity. This often ends up muddling his point - if man is made in God's image as Lennox often states, then man must also be three persons as is God (well, according to Lennox's personal religious preference). He's witty and fun, but he's also not entirely logical. Nor is he a man of science. He's a man of faith.

This available for iPhone users?

I'm not a mod >.>. If the mod actually said that then I disagree with them. You do not have to respect the actual beliefs of others, just their right to have and express them (and be respectful towards people).
Bigotry is also not allowed on HUKD. You were being disrespectful and bigoted towards atheists, hence why your comment got removed. Remember that the comment about banning all religion was also removed. They aren't just focusing on you.



Except you were being a 'hater' yourself, can you not see that? I will address bigoted comments like the one that you made, but I have no desire to 'stop' anyone saying anything.

I wonder how many of these apps the CIA have made...

Citation needed. Citation is soooo needed.



Do you know what a scientific theory is?

Atheism is just a lack of belief in god/s, so it hasn't really given anything to the world other than a healthy scepticism of religious claims :). But here's a list of atheists who have contributed to humanity's progress:

en.wikipedia.org/wik…ogy

Strawman argument. You don't beleive in God, and trying to tell me something developed the computers we use, you beleive the Universe has no creator and came into being by chance. Well in that case your smartphone came into being by chance and popped into existence.

Secondly, science & religion arent mutually exclusive, most scientists are believers in God. The backbone of computing, binary, algorithms etc all developed by people of a religion. Science explains the world around us, no one believes that God is making our phones and what not, we have freedom to do things. However God certainly did create the materials we use to make phones etc!

You might want to read what you write:

correlation =/= causation

I did. Did you see the part where I wrote 'Atheism is just a lack of belief in god/s, so it hasn't really given anything to the world other than a healthy scepticism of religious claims'? I didn't suggest that atheism had any influence on these people's breakthroughs, I simply pointed out that these atheists have contributed positively to humanity's progress.

No chap.

That'll be stars.

To which you'll no doubt reply.

"Ah... but who made the stars?"

To which we have two choices:


1) God/Allah/The Flying Spaghetti Monster or some other god-like being created our universe.

Or

2) A natural process created our universe.

Let's break those down. If you think the answer is 1:

You believe your God, not one of the thousands of God's prior or present, created the universe. Billions agree with you.

After all:

"If God didn't create the universe, where did it come from? Only faith in God can explain that."

"You can't create something out of nothing. God, my SPECIFIC God, made the universe. Literally NO other explanation is possible."

An obvious point straight away - you're essentially believing in magic at least twice. You're saying your God magically appeared out of nowhere... then magically created the universe out of nothing. If you're smart, that should make you uncomfortable. Unless you're a really big Harry Potter fan and you think magic is real.

What's the alternative?

Science proposes the universe has a natural, scientifically understandable origin. Hopefully we'll be able to discover the universe's origin through theory and experimentation.

Ah but, "science can't explain how something can be created out of nothing. Nothing can be created out of nothing."

Except it seems your God and then his universe. Really, when you think about it, religion has twice the problems science has...

What's science ever done for us? Explained all kinds of things that were once mysterious and not simply ascribed them to "magic".

Right now, scientists don't know where the universe came from. Science is about discovery and evidence. Obviously, science has not discovered everything yet.

But imagine if you were born in 1900.

Humans have never flown. We had no understanding of or explanation for the principles of flight. The science of aerodynamics was unknown. Eventually through research and hard work scientists come to understand the principles of flight. Suddenly, we could fly! And within 100 years almost everybody has done something that was both impossible and unimaginable in 1900.

You can of course say "some scientists have faith". True enough (although certainly not the majority).

But that's irrelevant.

Not ONE single scientific equation includes a factor for God. Not one.

E = M x C^2 is Energy = mass * the speed of light squared.

That's the equation that explains every star in our universe. Every star in our universe being the factory for everything and every bit of matter in it.

The equation isn't:

E = M * C^2 + a factor for God.

For bloody good reason...

Brilliant deal! All we need now is Peace in the Middle East, safety for Christians in Islamic countries and Unicorns!

My post was a response to the posting of a recent argument used in the context of Christian beliefs, and I was pointing out that previously Muslim atheists seemed to find different paths to atheism via questioning their faith than Christians do. I feel it was relevant given the context, and the likelihood that there may be Muslims reading this deal who are questioning their faith and perhaps on a path to atheism.

I have no faith of any kind myself, nor any belief in the existence of an afterlife and yet still find plenty of meaning and purpose in life so am not looking to acquire one - even if it were possible.I simply have never had the ability to the take the word of others on blind trust nor experienced anything akin to a spirtual experience that I can attribute to a particular faith. I was brought up in the absence of faith and encouraged to explore whatever I wished to. I'm respectful of the right of others to believe whatever they wish - providing they, as you suggest, practice them in a peaceful way without infringing on the right of others to follow their own path.

Even so it is good to learn that for Muslims, God does not automatically condemn non-believers to hell as those kind of beliefs simply create a sense of other - rather than drawing humanity together. It also makes it rather less devisive (at least by that measure) than some Christian doctrines. Thank you for engaging.

I don't know if I've said any different. I maybe should have said it's 'justified wrongly' because there is obviously a difference between motivation and justification. I might be motivated by greed for money or lust for power but I masquerade it as a crusade for doing God's work to gain support as did Pope Urban II.

I guess you could say we're just a bit more thorough :).

Thanks
ً

The Penrose thing is just an example of Atheist academics attacking Hawkins theory, he is not the only one, dozens of others have done the same.

As for Lennox, your right his not some big Scientist, but that isn't the problem here, the problem here is the premise of Hawkings himself, its a logical fallacy to say something can pop into existence spontaneously and secondly another flaw in Hawkings hypothesis is that the Universe can and will create itself because of law of gravity. Again another flaw because the gravity is something, secondly laws don't themselves create, there would have to be something already in existence, atoms, particles etc for the Universe to be created. So leaving all the finer Scientific details aside, Hawkings hypothesis doesn't hold up on its own.

That Atheists themselves use faith to believe in something.

As for Lennox I don't agree with him on everything, but rather than look at his argument and point which are completely valid and debunk a lot of Atheist thoughts, you rather focus on whether he is a 'scientists' or not and attack his credentials.

Doesn't mean a conscious deity made them though does it?

There could be mutltiverses.

It could have been farted into existence by a Cosmic spider.

("Ah yes, but what made the Cosmic spider?")

And really, is Hawkings being more illogical than say Christianity's version of events?

If you think that all atheists share something other than a lack of belief in gods, then you are mistaken.

Do you know what a scientific theory is?

Jazak Allah

Well for a start I think Penrose is wrong - yes we haven't been able to test a lot of quantum physics in the past, but thanks to Cern and other things the previously theoretical is becoming empirical.

Penrose attacked Hawkings (as you alluded to) in 2010*RE: his observation the universe spontaneous came to be. Again, this is something that tests from the past few years are actually now showing is a real possibility. That's the cool thing about science. It doesn't just want to leave things as theories back in 2010 - it desperately wants to test those now and in the future - new tests occur all the time.

The problem is the religious websites and people that clung to Penrose when he tore into Hawkings won't now publish or discuss details of how some of the theories Penrose criticised have now got empirical evidence that backs them up. Because they're not interested in facts or information if it challenge their preconceived ideas. They want stuff that conforms to their world view and are quite happy to ignore any new information that comes to light.

RE: Lennox.

Yes I disagree with him.

But in the same way I wouldn't go to him for medical advice because he's not a doctor, I can't really understand the argument we should pay credance to him on scientific matters when he's not a scientist.

If it's theological or philosophical discussion then Lennox has his place.

But you referred to him as having debunked a spectacularly talented and eminent scientist in Stephen Hawkings.

Lennox did no such thing because he didn't even present any scientific evidence to debunk Hawkings. He didn't investigate Hawkings observations. He certainly didn't test or deconstruct them from a scientific point of view.

Lennox attacked and argued against Hawkings from a theological standpoint. That's not the same thing.

My postman always has an opinion on the weather, but that doesn't make him a trained meteorologist.

I'm not a Christian so don't have time to defend their theology and leaving religion aside and focusing on God alone. Doesn't the simple question of how it all began not make you think? The Universe has a beginning, all the answers or theories atheists provide don't give a Godless answer to how it all began in the first place.

Atheists actually have a lot in common with theists.

My Christian friend doesn't believe in any of the Hindu gods, or the Islamic interpretation of God, or the Jewish interpretation of God, or any or the other thousands of gods that are currently worshipped or have been worshipped.

And neither do I.

Literally the only difference is that I believe in one less God than he does.

Of course I wonder how it all began.

Who doesn't?

But none of the religions provide an answer I find remotely palatable either.

Islam shares the Adam and Eve story with Christianity/Judaism, but in general is far more enlightened when it comes to accepting evolution and rejecting creationism. Which is something I can't not respect.

However they still believe in bloody Jinnis...

‌ :wink:

Explain what kind of logical fallacy it is. Are you a physicist? If not, what makes you think that you know better than Stephen Hawking?
The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us. Black holes would seem 'illogical', yet the universe is filled with them (including a supermassive black hole at the centre of our galaxy).

You still haven't answered my other question either: do you know what a scientific theory is?

I mean the Catholic church completely accepts evolution by natural selection. Evangelical Christian sects certainly have a problem with it, but they wouldn't be the majority.

Or its a reflection of the most popular name for baby boys now being Mohamed. (once you take into account all the different spellings. Oliver officially tops list but Mohammed is above it due to spelling variety)

I have to say, it's refreshing to see more civil debate on fora in general and not turning into a Daily Mail/Sun knuckle-dragging contest. So to all who have contributed to the discussion (whilst not bashing the app and its prospective users), thank you for keeping it neat.

Really enjoying the discussion on both sides.

Once again loads of people miss the point of this website. Now imagine the trolling and silly comments that users take time out to make on a free, user-run, deals website like HUKD and then imagine those same people and the silliness they must spout in the real-world...no wonder the world is filling with hatred.

A lot of posts have been deleted.

this tends to happen on any deals such as halal food, or deals like the one in this post. it even kicks off when someone starts a happy ramadhan/eid thread.

I was speaking in general about theism, or believing in God of some sort, rather than thinking about any specific creed of a religion. Just the concept or idea of their being a supernatural force that started the Universe.

You don't need to be a physicist or scientist to understand a basic illogical statement. You don't have to be a mechanic to know that a car wont work without an engine in it

As for your 'question', why should I acknowledge such an arrogant condescending question?

I second post 130. Good to see opposing views being discussed in context. As for the deal u can't go wrong for something free! Heat

You said it was a logical fallacy. If it is, then you should be able to specify what kind of logical fallacy it is.



The universe isn't equivalent to a car, since cars are designed by humans. We already know how they operate. If you're going to dismiss the statements of an expert, then it would help to be an expert yourself.



It is not an arrogant condescending question. It is a perfectly reasonable question considering your previous comments regarding evolution.

Sooo... i take it the app is worthwhile? Loved reading the essays. Keep it up.

Yes, fair enough.

Stasticially it's also far far more likely that Gods plural were responsible for creating the universe of course.

From a purely logical/mathematical standpoint.

It is illogical to think that something can come from nothing. Just spontaneously pop up, even Hawkings own theory goes against itself as he proclaims that the law of gravity enables this, so there is 'something', so it isn't coming from nothing.

As for the engine analogy, you clearly didn't understand the example and point, I am not talking a bout the finer details, I am describing basic logic here.

As for the theory, of course it is condescending, and whats funny is you didn't even understand the point I made, go back and read it, I am paraphrasing the argument a group of people can give back.

Let's brainwash the kiddies shall we ?. The worst post ever.

You said "its a logical fallacy to say something can pop into existence spontaneously", yet you still haven't said what logical fallacy it is. As I said, the universe is under no obligation to make sense to us. Objects with infinite density would seem 'illogical', yet black holes are dotted throughout the universe. Quantum entanglement would seem 'illogical', yet quantum computing is a rapidly advancing technology.

I did understand the engine analogy. The comparison of a car and its engine to the universe is flawed because we have a complete knowledge about cars (since we designed them), so it's not a stretch to say a car won't work without an engine - Humanity does not have a complete knowledge about the universe.

You said "We are talking about the macro evolution, one species developing into another. This has never been observed, it's only an ever changing theory that relies on a few fossils. A creationist quite easily argue this is a fairy tale."

Why would you paraphrase a terrible argument? It is a gross misrepresentation of the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection. To say 'it's only an ever changing theory' suggests a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is (common usage of 'theory' versus the usage in science), which is why I asked the very reasonable question.

'Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.'
nap.edu/rea…r/2

'Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology.'
So not just 'a few fossils' then.
livescience.com/474…tml

'Macro-evolution' has been observed:
evolution.berkeley.edu/evo…ion

Do you accept the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection?

I don't think that's fair, there's nothing in the deal that talks about the religious indoctrination of children.

thanks for sharing. For the haters, its just a free app. No need to spread hate, just live and let live :grin:

A free ad for prayer times doesnt mean brainwashing kiddies what you mean is anything to do with a certain religion is brainwashing if you learn it, maybe if you read the source of this religion and not the suns version of it you opinion may differ because a free app for someone to download something to remember times to pray should not be a bad thing for anyone guess what if its not youre religion ive heard no one forces u to download it lol after all i hate man united but if there was free tickets on here id vote it hot for the deal even if its not for me so a free app for someone to pray shouldnt bother u further more it shouldnt have u talking about brainwashing that makes no sense so maybe its good u wrote that it shows the racist point of view has no intiligent reason or logic for the ignorance

Brilliant App Thanks

While I agree that there's nothing wrong with this app & it doesn't say anything about 'brainwashing kiddies', accusations of racism are very serious. I don't think your last comment is fair either - Johnmcginley's comment was not in any way racist. Irrelevant to the post certainly, but not racist.

Something tells me if it was for a different religion the accusations of brainwashing would not be there, therefore that statement was made due to what religion the app is for that is racism judging something or someone by race or religion and not everyday logic Thankyou I hope this has enlightened you

Something tells you? Do you know johnmcginley? If you don't know him then you have absolutely no basis for saying that - the 'something' would be a complete guess.
All religions are primarily spread through the religious indoctrination of children (I wouldn't call it brainwashing myself), it's certainly not unique to one religion. Have you not considered that they might be opposed to this practice generally? Why not actually ask them for clarification before making such unfounded accusations?

People who follow religion X =/= a particular race. If I were to convert to Islam/Hinduism etc. I wouldn't suddenly change 'race'.
Judging someone because of their religion would not be racism (else by that logic the god character of Islam would be racist, he has no problem judging people of other religions).
Your definition of racism is not accurate, religion does not factor into it.

Here's an official definition: 'Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.'
en.oxforddictionaries.com/def…ism

Now being intolerant of someone because of their religion would be bigotry.
Judging something by religion would not be bigotry or racism, for these do not apply to things.

Jayincrewe Why would that enlighten anyone? I think you need to take some peoples comments with a pinch of salt and also don't get on your high horse! Thought this was a thread about an app and its getting quite boring and pathetic now.

I found "My Prayer" to be best with no ads.

I sure as he'll dont. We can barely figure out what happened 50 years ago let alone thousands i somehow doubt the scientists' history is so accrueret!

50 years, eh? I'm not intending to be rude, but it doesn't matter whether you doubt it or not - 'Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology.'
livescience.com/474…tml

Please read that link, it explains evolution clearly.

Now if you have evidence that refutes the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, then you could submit it for peer review and likely expect a nobel prize for your world-changing finding.

"The website said it, so it must be true." Somewear down the line you have to have faith.. have you gone out and personally interviewed all of the scientists providing evidence for evolution to check weather they actually saying what the site says they says?Have you personally understood that evidence and seen it with your own eyes? Unless you have your taking the word of a website or a book or a source somewear. Weather you believe in god or scietists somewear you have fairh

I didn't say that, and would appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent me. I said the link explains evolution. Did you read it?



*Somewhere. The abundance of evidence for the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection across many different fields of study (genetics, developmental biology, paleontology etc.) is all that is required, not 'faith'.
We don't need 'faith' in the scientific theory of special relativity when a nuclear power plant is activated, there already is an abundance of evidence for that theory, no finger-crossing required.
We also don't need to go out and 'interview all of the scientists', because we can (and do) test the theory constantly. For example it is the reason we need new vaccines every year for the flu virus (the virus evolves in response to the previous year's vaccines).
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/130201_flu
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

It underpins our entire understanding of biology.
Again it doesn't matter whether you doubt it or not, it is one of the best substantiated theories in all of science, and no amount of questioning will change that unless (a mountain of) contrary evidence is actually presented which refutes this well-established theory.
The burden of proof rests with those who reject the scientific theory. You can choose to accept it, or present an alternative that is supported by evidence.

Now I don't want to make any assumptions about you because I don't know you, but in my experience most people who reject this scientific theory do so because it conflicts with their religion's hypothesis.
Are you religious? If so, do you believe in creationism/some other hypothesis? If so, do you have any evidence to support that hypothesis?

not religious meself no. I do like to believe there's an afterlife. why? Purely bcause it's sad to think il die and go into nothingness. It is purely a comforting belief and i happy to admit that. there is no evidence for it whatspever

I definitely get that. It used to give me comfort too, especially when loved ones died or when I thought about my own mortality. Though I hope you agree that the apparent unpleasantness of an outcome is not related to whether that outcome is possible or impossible. To think so would be to commit the appeal to consequences fallacy.

Belief in the afterlife has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection though. The theory says nothing about it, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The Catholic Church for example accepts the scientific theory, as well as also believing that there is an afterlife.

no i disagree with that and even dawin said his theory is wrong

Appeal to consequences fallacy: 'Concluding that an idea or proposition is true (or false) because the consequences of it being false (or true) are undesirable (or desirable). The fallacy lies in the fact that the desirability is not related to the truth value of the idea or proposition. This comes in two forms: the positive and negative.'

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/26/Appeal-to-Consequences

It is sad to think that half of the people born in the UK after 1960 will at some point develop cancer, yet the undesirability of that outcome has no effect on the fact that this actually happens.
It may be sad for you to think that people could die and just cease existing, but that does not mean that this is an impossible outcome. Personally I'd like to continue existing (though not for eternity), but my desires do not affect reality.



Citation needed for the claim that Darwin said his scientific theory of evolution by natural selection was 'wrong'. Are you referring to his supposed 'deathbed conversion'? Because that story has been thoroughly debunked, even by religious sources.
Even then, that would not change the fact that it is one of the best substantiated theories in all of science, regardless of what Darwin supposedly said. The theory is not dependent on Darwin or any person, only on the evidence.
The burden of proof rests with those who reject the scientific theory. You can choose to accept it, or present an alternative that is supported by evidence.