what is atheism?

[tesfey67n]

atheist=lack of falsifiable(real) evidence of god.


I can say "this" and "that" using esoteric information and the Quran. But in the end of the day. what I say is Unfalsifiable. Even I have yet to see any hard empirical evidence. The only thing I have is books and philosophy. Summarily, a debate with an atheist can be dismissed due to no objective evidence. Also called Hitchen's Razor.

The only thing i could say is Those that believe reality is one without deities asking where is the evidence for design? Because the evidence is: all the evidence! As all evidence is that which is experienced, and it is what is experienced that is the evidence.

An atheists cant say God isn't real", that would be a huge contradiction.If he does, Best believe he will be asserting things and words that will confuse you. I had a debate with an atheist the other day about 'etheric heart'. He quickly denied basic science and said the heart is "autonomic", not "involuntary", I asked for objective evidence and he used yoga to help his case, which isn't objective evidence at all.. Mind you, this guy was a marine biologist and geologist.


If scientist just came out of nowhere and proved god exists with real scientific proof, the non-believers would believe, simple as that. Atheists only seek "proof".

A religious man debating with atheists will lead to nowhere, none of them can prove anything, just false assertions.

@Kafir @AussieHustler i will end the many tautology threads I make.

 

[tesfey67n]

@MuslimManMe the only thing we can do is challenge them that's it, we can't prove anything yet.
I believe quantum physics and other fields will soon give them answers.

 

[YourBroMoe]

Best of luck brother.

Tip: Also add in that there's degrees of knowledge as well. Agnosticism and Gnosticism. Where an Agnostic knows he doesn't know, but a Gnostic thinks he knows.

 

[tesfey67n]

Best of luck brother.

Tip: Also add in that there's degrees of knowledge as well. Agnosticism and Gnosticism. Where an Agnostic knows he doesn't know, but a Gnostic thinks he knows.

Yes, I agree. Also An agnostic theist; believes in the existence of a god or gods, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god or gods that they believe in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

 

[MuslimManMe]

It's one of the most delusional anf cowardly frameworks that there is
Once a person adopts this there's not much that can be done for them until Allah illuminates their heart

(Sahih International)
You can only warn one who follows the message and fears the Most Merciful unseen. So give him good tidings of forgiveness and noble reward.

-Sura Ya-Seen, Ayah 11

 

[tesfey67n]

It's one of the most delusional anf cowardly frameworks that there is
Once a person adopts this there's not much that can be done for them until Allah illuminates their heart

(Sahih International)
You can only warn one who follows the message and fears the Most Merciful unseen. So give him good tidings of forgiveness and noble reward.

-Sura Ya-Seen, Ayah 11

My faith will always be strong brother you dont have to worry about that, but our lost brothers live only "physically" not "spiritually".

 

[MuslimManMe]

My faith will always be strong brother you dont have to worry about that, but our lost brothers live only "physically" not "spiritually".

What can you do if aman climbs the back of nature and shakes his fist at god

He still has to climb down back to the ground

 

[Subeer]

atheist=lack of falsifiable(real) evidence of god.


I can say "this" and "that" using esoteric information and the Quran. But in the end of the day. what I say is Unfalsifiable. Even I have yet to see any hard empirical evidence. The only thing I have is books and philosophy. Summarily, a debate with an atheist can be dismissed due to no objective evidence. Also called Hitchen's Razor.

The only thing i could say is Those that believe reality is one without deities asking where is the evidence for design? Because the evidence is: all the evidence! As all evidence is that which is experienced, and it is what is experienced that is the evidence.

An atheists cant say God isn't real", that would be a huge contradiction.If he does, Best believe he will be asserting things and words that will confuse you. I had a debate with an atheist the other day about 'etheric heart'. He quickly denied basic science and said the heart is "autonomic", not "involuntary", I asked for objective evidence and he used yoga to help his case, which isn't objective evidence at all.. Mind you, this guy was a marine biologist and geologist.


If scientist just came out of nowhere and proved god exists with real scientific proof, the non-believers would believe, simple as that. Atheists only seek "proof".

A religious man debating with atheists will lead to nowhere, none of them can prove anything, just false assertions.

@Kafir @AussieHustler i will end the many tautology threads I make.

I think its just a mix of blind faith and arrogance, which is the motivator behind their Reason. Alot of average atheists dont even know the absurd claims which Darwinism claims. Such complex planets and stars, who all orbit and work in mysteric and perfect harmony, were the product of a unitelligent and zero concsiuness coincidence, and zero matter to begin with. Or the claim that a fish as a result of a drought ended on land, and through mystic mutation developed lungs and arms, with no reasonable explanation of the circumstances of how this would be possible? Everyone knows a fish cant survive for more than 2 minutes on land without dying. Atheists really believe that, and the average atheist arent even aware of this.
If that isn't blind faith i dont what is.

 

[Kafir]

I think its just a mix of blind faith and arrogance, which is the motivator behind their Reason. Alot of average atheists dont even know the absurd claims which Darwinism claims. Such complex planets and stars, who all orbit and work in mysteric and perfect harmony, were the product of a unitelligent and zero concsiuness coincidence, and zero matter to begin with. Or the claim that a fish as a result of a drought ended on land, and through mystic mutation developed lungs and arms, with no reasonable explanation of the circumstances of how this would be possible? Everyone knows a fish cant survive for more than 2 minutes on land without dying. Atheists really believe that, and the average atheist arent even aware of this.
If that isn't blind faith i dont what is.

 

[Subeer]

My internet is really slow, so i cant watch the video, but make a post about what it says

 

[Kafir]

My internet is really slow, so i cant watch the video, but make a post about it

"Everyone knows a fish cant survive for more than 2 minutes on land without dying. Atheists really believe that, and the average atheist arent even aware of this.
If that isn't blind faith i dont what is."

Google: Mudskipper

 

[Subeer]

"Everyone knows a fish cant survive for more than 2 minutes on land without dying. Atheists really believe that, and the average atheist arent even aware of this.
If that isn't blind faith i dont what is."

Google: Mudskipper

Okay so i googled the musdskipper and found out that it is a a vertebrae, and an amphipian, which is okay because the claim is that that evolutionists claim is that invertebraes evolved to vertebraes, in the sea , but there is no scientific eveidence that this should be true, if so i'd like to know the circumstances of the event?, and what was the timespan of this event? And what was the causes of this event? Mutation? Very unlikely.
You presented the mudskipper which is vertabrae fish, and i'd also like to know its origin and ancestors, and the severeal transitional forms that was before it, and after it?
I dont know much about the musskipper, but in wiki it said that it was a "amphipian fish" which futhermore is said only to be able to leave land for "extended time" which i dont believe this "extended time" should be time enough for such drastic morphological change, due to mutation.

 

[Subeer]

And i actually found this though regarding the mudskipper

http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/volume_7/volume_7_1/mudskippers.html

"Many of their most striking adaptations to life on land are behavioural. Since they are very mobile and constantly move between land and water, mudskippers need to cope with extreme changes in temperature, humidity and salinity. But at the same time mudskippers are different from other fish in intertidal habitats in being able to move from a stressful area to one that is more favourable. For example, other tide-pool fish cope with an increase of water temperature by adjusting their metabolism, but a mudskipper will leave the water and allow its body to cool down through evaporation. Should it lose too much moisture this way, the mudskipper will dive back into the water to get wet again. If there isn't a pool nearby, the mudskipper will instead roll in wet mud"

Again very unlikely that this "transitional form" fish should be able to evolve further and give birth to reptiles ,when it has problems being on land for longer than its extended time, for these further transitional
Forms to even be possible in the first place shouldn't it have evolved
To live on land for unlimited time, or was
The limited time enough to create the drastic changes in the creature?
And how would you explain land living reptiles evolving into flying creatures, which is very mystic???? How did a reptile someday mutate into the complex flying bird, and what was the transitional
Form between the reptile and the modern day bird?

 

[Subeer]

I have other question too @Kafir if the theory of the transitional form is true regarding every specie including humans , where are they all at today? Shouldn't there millions of them today? Why is every creature perfectly put in their unique way today?

 

[tesfey67n]

@Comewithrealness i wish i

And i actually found this though regarding the mudskipper

http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/volume_7/volume_7_1/mudskippers.html

"Many of their most striking adaptations to life on land are behavioural. Since they are very mobile and constantly move between land and water, mudskippers need to cope with extreme changes in temperature, humidity and salinity. But at the same time mudskippers are different from other fish in intertidal habitats in being able to move from a stressful area to one that is more favourable. For example, other tide-pool fish cope with an increase of water temperature by adjusting their metabolism, but a mudskipper will leave the water and allow its body to cool down through evaporation. Should it lose too much moisture this way, the mudskipper will dive back into the water to get wet again. If there isn't a pool nearby, the mudskipper will instead roll in wet mud"

Again very unlikely that this "transitional form" fish should be able to evolve further and give birth to reptiles ,when it has problems being on land for longer than its extended time, for these further transitional
Forms to even be possible in the first place shouldn't it have evolved
To live on land for unlimited time, or was
The limited time enough to create the drastic changes in the creature?
And how would you explain land living reptiles evolving into flying creatures, which is very mystic???? How did a reptile someday mutate into the complex flying bird, and what was the transitional
Form between the reptile and the modern day bird?

The guy did have mental issues that have been documented.





For a variety of reasons, the first being that his theories were not in correspondence with common sense, and I am not just referring to his believing that a species can give birth to offspring of a different species, though this is a very relevant point, all of his theories have either been proven wrong to every one and it's so embarrassing that evolutionists don't want to talk about it and pretend it never happened, or they were proven wrong but the evolutionists hold onto them regardless, for example, one of his theories was that if a giraffe stretched out it's neck, his offspring would have longer necks, never heard of it, probably not, and that is just it, if you read "the origin of species" you will find it i there, but no one mentions it anymore because it is so embarrassing that he thought this, see this link:
http://www.debate.org/debates/Evolution/54/

 

[tesfey67n]

I have other question too @Kafir if the theory of the transitional form is true regarding every specie including humans , where are they all at today? Shouldn't there millions of them today? Why is every creature perfectly put in their unique way today?

1 question i have for @Kafir @AussieHustler is whats their take on epigenesis?




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_evolution

Epigenesis is the philosophical/theological/esoteric idea that since the mind was given to the human being, it is the original creative impulse, epigenesis, which has been the cause of all of mankind's development.

According to spiritual evolution, humans build upon that which has already been created, but add new elements because of the activity of the spirit. Humans have the capacity, therefore, to become creative intelligences—creators. For a human to fulfill this promise, his training should allow for the exercise of originality, which distinguishes creation from imitation. When epigenesis becomes inactive, in the individual or even in a race, evolution ceases and degeneration commences.



Mind you, i have taken this theory to heavy hitter atheists and the only thing I got back was, "fair enough, only if you take it as metaphorically"

 

[Subeer]

@Comewithrealness i wish i



The guy did have mental issues that have been documented.





For a variety of reasons, the first being that his theories were not in correspondence with common sense, and I am not just referring to his believing that a species can give birth to offspring of a different species, though this is a very relevant point, all of his theories have either been proven wrong to every one and it's so embarrassing that evolutionists don't want to talk about it and pretend it never happened, or they were proven wrong but the evolutionists hold onto them regardless, for example, one of his theories was that if a giraffe stretched out it's neck, his offspring would have longer necks, never heard of it, probably not, and that is just it, if you read "the origin of species" you will find it i there, but no one mentions it anymore because it is so embarrassing that he thought this, see this link:
http://www.debate.org/debates/Evolution/54/

Yes, and its also documented that he was a racist who believed that a transitional form between humans and apes are the negroid race, and thought that they were inferior and that natural selection would kill them off!
It even went as far as they captured a pygm from congo whos name was ota benga, they captured him and put him in zoo and were proud to show off the closest transitional link between humans and apes", he later killed himself because he couldn't deal with horrible treatment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga

 

[Subeer]

1 question i have for @Kafir @AussieHustler is whats their take on epigenesis?




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_evolution

Epigenesis is the philosophical/theological/esoteric idea that since the mind was given to the human being, it is the original creative impulse, epigenesis, which has been the cause of all of mankind's development.

According to spiritual evolution, humans build upon that which has already been created, but add new elements because of the activity of the spirit. Humans have the capacity, therefore, to become creative intelligences—creators. For a human to fulfill this promise, his training should allow for the exercise of originality, which distinguishes creation from imitation. When epigenesis becomes inactive, in the individual or even in a race, evolution ceases and degeneration commences.



Mind you, i have taken this theory to heavy hitter atheists and the only thing I got back was, "fair enough, only if you take it as metaphorically"

Interesting, definately something im going to read more about.

 

[Kafir]

And i actually found this though regarding the mudskipper

http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/volume_7/volume_7_1/mudskippers.html

"Many of their most striking adaptations to life on land are behavioural. Since they are very mobile and constantly move between land and water, mudskippers need to cope with extreme changes in temperature, humidity and salinity. But at the same time mudskippers are different from other fish in intertidal habitats in being able to move from a stressful area to one that is more favourable. For example, other tide-pool fish cope with an increase of water temperature by adjusting their metabolism, but a mudskipper will leave the water and allow its body to cool down through evaporation. Should it lose too much moisture this way, the mudskipper will dive back into the water to get wet again. If there isn't a pool nearby, the mudskipper will instead roll in wet mud"

Again very unlikely that this "transitional form" fish should be able to evolve further and give birth to reptiles ,when it has problems being on land for longer than its extended time, for these further transitional
Forms to even be possible in the first place shouldn't it have evolved
To live on land for unlimited time, or was
The limited time enough to create the drastic changes in the creature?

The notion of a fish spending an extended period of time out of water was never as absurd as you made it out to be. The example I gave you was just that. A fish that spends most of its life outside of the water. I see now that since mudfish need to stay moist so that eventually they will return to water (or immerse themselves in mud) apparently my example wasn't good enough for you. Maybe you want an example of an amphibious fish that spends 100% of its time outside of water. Dolphins and whales, mammals like us have a similar limitation where they can stay out of water as long as they remain moist. They aren't even fish. They're mammals. But we already know about the land-living abilities found in mammals. The evolution of whales and dolphins is the other way around. Former land creatures spending 100% of their life on land whose descendants now are sea creatures.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...atic-mammals/316E55A4BD97A3CDF35BE6B5FCBBA5C4

Other bonyfish like tuna fit the idea of a fish you were thinking of. Fish that can't live 2 minutes out of water. Mudskippers who are from the same taxonomic superclass are much more adapted to living on land than their tuna cousins. These mudskippers can actually breathe air you know. They can also use their fins to walk on land. How impressive is that for a fish? The idea that just maybe sea-bound creatures could have terrestrial descendants doesn't seem as absurd when animals like the mudskipper show us that an intermediary stage can possibly exist. As a matter of fact some might even argue that all amphibious animals show that it's possible.

 

[Subeer]

The notion of a fish spending an extended period of time out of water was never as absurd as you made it out to be. The example I gave you was just that. A fish that spends most of its life outside of the water. I see now that since mudfish need to stay moist so that eventually they will return to water (or immerse themselves in mud) apparently my example wasn't good enough for you. Maybe you want an example of an amphibious fish that spends 100% of its time outside of water. Dolphins and whales, mammals like us have a similar limitation where they can stay out of water as long as they remain moist. They aren't even fish. They're mammals. But we already know about the land-living abilities found in mammals. The evolution of whales and dolphins is the other way around. Former land creatures spending 100% of their life on land whose descendants now are sea creatures.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...atic-mammals/316E55A4BD97A3CDF35BE6B5FCBBA5C4

Other bonyfish like tuna fit the idea of a fish you were thinking of. Fish that can't live 2 minutes out of water. Mudskippers who are from the same taxonomic superclass are much more adapted to living on land than their tuna cousins. These mudskippers can actually breathe air you know. They can also use their fins to walk on land. How impressive is that for a fish? The idea that just maybe sea-bound creatures could have terrestrial descendants doesn't seem as absurd when animals like the mudskipper show us that an intermediary stage can possibly exist. As a matter of fact some might even argue that all amphibious animals show that it's possible.

Well if the theory should be possible, wouldn't it make sense that the creature should be able to spend unlimited time outside of water, because this mutation, (i suppose)or this transition isn't a rapid one, but rather a event that would not only take enough time, but also have to be in the right circumstances at the right time (i mean you tell me), which i'd also like to know what these circumstances were like?
And the examples you gave with the dolphins, and whales are absolutely fine, and i dont disagree that they can remain on land for a certain time, but that still doesn't prove anything regarding the theory of intermediate stages, since the dolphin and the whale as you correctly said only can remain on land while they are moist, then they have to retreat to water, or they'll die.
And i mean we dont have to bring all kinds of scientific research, but rather we can actually assess these things logically, would be logical that humans would develop big fur covering 95 % of the body as a result of a drastic change in the weather, or would it make more sense that the human would die, because they wouldn't be able to survive in such condition, because their genetic makeup isn't composed to withstand that?