:-)

ملاحظة للمسؤولين : هذا مجرد شخص مغرض يريد نشر الشبهات للمشاهدين عنده -بيتمنظر وبس- ، ولا طائل من جداله وتكراراته العقيمة ..
---------
الى Charlie1965 :
- عندما تكون رجل بما يكفي لحيازة "معتقد" لسبب "وجود الكون" وتحاور على اساسه عندها فقط يكون لك الحق في نقد من لهم معتقد بذلك.
كل ما نقول ثور يقول احلبوه !! ربنا يشفي يا رب ..
- تكرارك الدائم بافتقاد من يحاورك الى الدليل ، أصبح مسخة بلا طعم في فمك ، حتى انك تقولها في العاطل والباطل .
- الكارثية :
انك تحاور انسان وتريد ان تشرح له شيء ، وكلما تطلعه على شرح ،، يعطيك شرح آخر في عقله وحده عنه ، وكأنه سمعه منك !!
هذا يدعى كذب صريح ،، وتقوّل على الآخرين ،، وبجاحة => باختصار : دجال .
- الكلام بالعربي لتتجرع مرارة الترجمة وضياع الوقت الذي تكلفه لغيرك في تفاهاتك،،
ويستحب ان يترجمه لك أحد اقرانك العرب لأن وقعه الصوتي ربما يكون انسب لأمثالك..
فإن استطعت الرد عليه وفهمته فهذا سيضطرني للرد على كل تفاهاتك بالعربي أيضا لتعرف قيمة ما تقوله الحقيقة وتفضح على الملأ بين الناس باللغتين .
>> وانا أعلم تمام العلم معرفتك للعربية بشكل او بآخر وإلا لما جروءت على دخول هذا الموقع اصلا .
- هذا الموقع ليس لعرض تفاهاتك التبشيرية بالإلحاد وسخرياتك العقيمة وبالاخص عندما تقول ما تقول مكررا وتكرارا كالمسجل المكسور.
======================
الرد على التفاهات :
======================
1- البيه عمال يقول انه الايمان بالله مفتقد الى الدليل بتكرار ممل وكأننا لا نسمعه !!
ولكن فيما يبدو انه لا يرى الكون امامه يحتاج الى الله ليكون ماثلا امامه ،، => باختصار البعيد أعمى .
لكن حتى لو شاف هيعمل ايه يعني غير تكرار الاسطوانة المشروخة اياها : "انت تفتقر الى الدليل"
2- كل شوية عمال يلسن على المسلمين ، انت متبع اتباع اعمى انت ابصر ايه ،، ... الخ من التوافه :
طبعا ده كلام اعلاني تافه بيحاول يشغب بيه على من يتابعه بلغته ليس اكثر من ناحية واللف والدوران لعدم
الرد على ما طالبته من من ردود من ناية اخرى ،، ودي سياسة عيانة اسمها "اضرب واجرى" :
في العادة يستخدمها الاطفال قبل سن الرشد ،، ويبدو انه يتصور لها فعالية ما في هذا الحوار من شدة نصاحته..
3- كل شوية اشرح له شيء يقول انت بتتكلم عن احتمالات انت بتتكلم بشكل تخيلي ،، انا هرد عليك بشكل افتراضي ... الخ
البيه عايش في عالم ميكي ماوس فيما يبدو والكون عنده ليس اكثر من احتمالات وافتراضات وسيناريوهات .. الى آخر هذه المترادفات
=> لربما هذا من رعبه من مجرد تصور كونه حقيقة يجب عليه ان يتعامل معها عاجلا او آجلا ،،
ولكنه في الدنيا اختار لنفسه تجاهلها بهذا الشكل ،، ليواجها في شكل عذاب يوم القيامة بإذن الله ،، فهنيئا له باختياره ..
4- يتصور انه لمجرد انه ملحد اذن يجب ان يكون موقفه محايد
يبدو انه اخذ الالحاد في مدرسة نصرانية او شيء فهو ياخذه الحاده كالتثليث باعتباره شيء ثابت وجامد (ولا يعالجه في رأسه)
يا رب ينبت له رأس في القريب العاجل قبل ان تعاجله منيته يا رب العالمين ، فنتمنى له الشفاء العاجل بكل صراحة ..
ولما اخبرته انه حتى اسلافنا اتخذوا موقف في هذه القضية رغم ما كانوا فيه من جهل ،، جاء باجابة اكثر جهلا منهم تقول :
انه من الافضل عدم الوقوف على اجابة عن ان يختار اجابة خطأ !!
- طبعا لو فعلت البشرية مثل قوله هذا في اى شيء ذو اهمية :
لما انتفع اى احد باى تجربة ولا حتى حرك اصبع قدمه الصغير بهذا الصدد ، لكي لا يختار اجابة خطأ ،، ذكي فيما يبدو -
5- ظل دوما يتفرع من موضوع لموضوع وهذا مثال :
تحدث عن المسلم المقلد ،، فلما اخبرته انه لا علاقة له بتعاليم الدين ،، انتقل الآن لحد الردة !!
يبدو ان هناك ماكينة طرد مركزي عملاقة في رأسه تطرده دوما عن معالجة الاسئلة الصحيحة التى نطالبه بها وتضعه في خانة عجيبة كل مرة .
6- مازال يعيش في عالم الفكاهة والسيناريوهات الضيقة الافق (طبعا لأنه يصادر كل شيء بلا اى نوع من انواع الاستدلال)
وبالتالي كله متساوي عنده ،، لكنه إن علم :
ان الكون لابد له من خالق ،، => اذن لا توجد سناريوهات اخرى فليس الا خالق واحد مهما كان اسمه
ان الدين هو رسالة السماء => اذن الدين الصحيح وحده هو رسالة السماء ولا سناريوهات اخرى في ذلك
ان الايمان ضرورة للنجاة => اذن تبطل كل السناريوهات الاخرى اذ لم يعترف بها ولا بصحتها الله

وهو بالنهاية شخص لا يريد ترتيب افكاره مطلقا ويريدها مثل السيناريوا الاخير الخاص به مثل وحش الاسباكتي هذا او اى سلطة والسلام .

1st of all its not a debate here , it’s up to you to decide for yourself what you should believe in , so concern yourself with your faith not the audience here with me, because I am here just to explain some points you had it wrong in our faith to build on for your experience that’s all.
- If it was a matter of preferences, I wouldn’t even raise it. I don’t believe in god because it lacks evidence, not because I personally choose not to. You also probably believe that you believe in god, because there is evidence for god. Plus you believe in all those other details.
- Now, do you claim it is logical to be a Muslim, or it is just a preference like when you choose your favourite music?


2ndlly believe it or not there is a universe existing now and you have to deal with as a “fact”, so there is no any probability or skeptically aspects here too, so you should act and respond in the same manner as a respect for that knowledge we have at least -& it’s all for you in the end not me-
- When did I make it feel like I don’t believe there is a universe? This piece you wrote here is completely senseless.


3rdlly if that explanation raises additional problem to you please do tell me to get more explanations but don’t Do not take our belief to your fake Perceptions about it!!
- That is exactly what I am asking for. Answer me why your hypothetical conclusions/scenarios could be better than any others? So far you failed to indicate that.


4th I didn’t hear your answer as a solid faith until now at all you know!!
Are you thinking there is a creator to the universe or not?!!
- You know I am an atheist, so my position is neutral towards the claim.

Even our ancestors have that answer but you don’t!!!
- It is better to have no answers than to have wrong ones. And our ancestors definitely had lots of wrong answers, including the one you love so much, unless you have evidence it is actually not wrong.

The science is just for you to tell, not to “stop” thinking at all!!
You already have all the facts that you need –say arguments no problem- , but what is you answer?
- This is my answer: Your answer is as probable as a thousand other answers you don’t believe in. Therefore, it is illogical to be a Muslim. So why are you one? Why don’t you abandon Islam when it is not a good idea? Is it just because you subjectively “prefer” it? If so, I will leave this thread.
What we already know about the universe doesn't point to god. So I don't believe in any.

You must have one before you die anyway.
>> Anyway it’s not my concern now.
>> again : for any added believes you will need more info-steps to stand on, so right now I just need your acknowledgment for the existence of the creator no more as characteristics for him.
And I have just given you 2: existence, all knowing.
- Your information consists of faith based assumptions, not knowledge. Your information is as valid as Harry Potter.

You did Branched to other topics -again- and it’s really have some good Questions in a way but it’s not our main target here so sorry to disappoint you and not give you an answer in it right now
And you may saw some Muslim like what you talked about but it’s not our faith as example, our faith has rules to explain the logic in every aspect in it thank god, we don’t born just like that at all, we learn the truth all the way in our life and decide with ourselves in our countries or out all the time with NO Pressure at all
- WITH NO PRESSURE AT ALL, BIG LOLS. What is the punishment for apostasy in Islam? What, according to your religion, happens to a man who doesn’t believe in god? Isn’t he tortured in hell for that? How do Muslims react to other ideologies?

, it’s just a matter of the consequences and we have to deal with it anyway.
And whenever you complete the prerequisite of every step I did say to you then that when we step over to the next detail or added faith to understand and deal with, don’t concern yourself with it before, because it’s not for you before you have a positive believe as fact to stand on.
- I already told you why your steps are not very logical.

I don’t even need that, because our universe and its content is a fair proof to it and in the other hand you don’t even have a single example for any other in the conflict with this at all –have it if you can-.
- So your position is as follows: You don’t know how it happened, but you are dishonest (since you started up with a belief and you lack evidence for it), so you will say god did it to just have an answer instead of no answer. I already explained how no answer is better than a wrong answer. It is much more difficult for you to accept good answers if you are already filled with wrong ones.

Will, at least we are in the “universe” for me to talk about it , this is your problem if you need to prove my wrong saying..
- Actually, it is not my problem at all, it is a problem you don’t realize you have, even though, I explained it to you like 2 times already.

But it’s a good point, the God we don’t have a rule to apply on him it’s just the other way around.
Good thinking.
- That’s a belief. Whether you put god there or something else is a matter of preferences. And since you are a Muslim… 

i will answer all what’s above from your questions -god willing i hope- but don’t speed up the info-steps I don’t have the English as 1st language…
- How about answering this if you aren’t afraid?
Take a look at those scenarios:
1. [YOURS] Muhammad received a message from god so people would know how to live and how to go to heaven.
2. [MINE ] Muhammad received a message from god so god would see who is willing to believe Muhammad proving they are gullible and selfish, which means they only deserve to go to hell for that.
3. [MINE ] Muhammad receives a message from a force which is not god but describes itself as god. And this force torments every soul which makes contact with it.
4. Spaghetti Monster.
Do you believe there is anything that makes your scenario/belief more credible/logical/probable than 2, 3, and 4? Or perhaps you think choosing one of those is just a matter of preferences?

You say repeatedly that you need evidence,
but when you have it on your sight –the existence of the universe that is - as a fact:
you just say we don’t know!!
When you will ؟!!
- It is a matter of what you call evidence. I noted on multiple occasions that your standards of calling something evidence are pretty low. What you call evidence are in fact arguments.

The fact of the existence of the universe has by default another fact say there is must be a “Creator” there for it –name it as you want after that
- That is your assumption. And I already mentioned in messages above why it raises additional problems.

My topic with you not in the science itself no, my topic is the steps you take to believe in the god and how and when we as believers stand there.
- The steps you may take are all subjective, based on what you want to call evidence and what you really want to believe in.

Fact -> lead to facts
Universe -> to God as Creator
System –> a ruler for that –name it as you want then but he must be existed
It’s just as simple as that no more, anything else is irrelevant.
- You mean existence and complexity necessarily requires a creator. Go on and prove it. .

Secondly if you need to know more about the god as another added believes, then yes you will need more evidences for that at the time, but now you just need the basics to proof the “Existence” of the God no more.
- Like I stated above, your evidence are arguments.

Thirdly we say “who does not have thing cannot give it”, so then if we have a “mind” so the creator must be has more by default, logically that is.
- We don’t know whether nothingness is possible, we don’t know whether the rules from within the universe can be applied to the outside of it.

But that are an added faith to the existence of the Creator not before.
-Actually, this is not how things usually work among believers. Most believers become such when they are children. I suppose you were born in an Islamic family, too, weren't you? So in fact, you were told god exists and you believed without any evidence, you just did it because your mama and papa said so and you were a good boy. Over time you added arguments for your beloved god to the belief in that god you had already had.
You can always find justification for something that you already do, not a big deal.

That is just to reject any conflict in your understanding.
1st step: the existence of the Creator. => We are here now.
2nd step: the rule we have in this planet.
3ed step: there must be a massage for the Creator to us to know our purpose here.

Let’s say I am a believer now and I actually agree with you on step 1 (just for the sake of the conversation). Normally I would say that it depends on what you define as god. God could be a powerful being from outside this universe. And that being wouldn’t have to be responsible for the universe. So even if there is a god, this universe may have nothing to do with him.
BUT LET’S MOVE ON.
Why would I believe in step 2?
And why would you mention the planet instead of the entire universe? Let me answer why: Because the universe, apart from our planet and perhaps a few others, doesn’t have conditions for life - in other words, it doesn’t look like it is here for life to emerge in it, or as you would say: It wasn’t designed for life.
- When you take a look just at the planet, it feels like a miracle, the probability for all the conditions to be met is so low after all. But if you pay attention to the bigger picture, it starts to look pretty probable just on the basis of how vast the universe is and how many planets it holds, with each of them being a chance for life.
- So as a believer of god I have reasons think this universe as well as the Earth were not intended for us. You have to limit yourself to really see what you see.
Why would I believe in step 3?
- Step 3 is valid only if we have a purpose. And your step 2 just fell into pieces. So even if god created the universe, we might be a side effect of it, totally not intended to exist.
- But let’s say the universe was really (so conveniently) intended for us to exist. Who says the purpose we have is the one you believe in? Do you have any evidence for this purpose to be valid?
How do you know the message is not a trick from god or from some other forces? What if god is testing your gullibility? And if you are gullible enough to believe and follow any religion because of your blind faith and wishful, selfish thinking, he will send you to hell for all eternity?
This is just one scenario out of many that I have. And each of them are as possible in this hypothetical discussion as yours.

And just a reminder:
BEFORE YOU START CALLING ANY OF MY PROPOSITIONS RIDICULOUS, TRY TO STICK TO ARGUMENTS WHY THEY COULD BE SO. OTHERWISE THIS CONVERSATION WILL REACH A KINDERGARTEN LEVEL, WHERE KIDS JUST OFFEND EACH OTHER BASED ON HOW THEY FEEL.

then Imagine that the universe without Creator is must be more and so blind ,, - You do not have anything
- The universe without elements based on faith should be a default position of everyone, whoever proposes something extra is obliged to bring evidence in order to be treated seriously.
- The universe with a conscious creator raises even more logical issues, it is adding an incredible agent to something not requiring any.

Nothing "in" the universe decides to "the emergence of the universe" alone, never.
- First of all, we don’t know what happened before the universe, we don’t know if “nothing” is a possibility in the first place.
- Secondly, who says the emergence of the universe required any decisions? Do you have any evidence for that?
- So your claim seems to be detached from reality.

How can I be afraid of talking about God ,, and I'm trying to prove its existence to you now? !!
- You are visibly afraid of touching specific aspects I wanted to talk about. You just want to mention those which are comfortable to you.

"The chances god has anything to do with your religion are so low that it is illogical to be a Muslim, even if god really exists":
this means :
= And recognize the existence of God as a possibility scientifically ,, and you do not want to discuss it.
- I don’t need to recognize the existence of something in order to talk about it hypothetically.
- And I claim that if god exists, you can only talk about it hypothetically. You don’t have evidence for more than that.
= Your logic "Profile" rejects this possibility ,, always !! - illogical blind "faith"-
- WRONG! I reject god since it lacks evidence, it is not faith, it is lack of faith. You can also call it being sceptical towards it like you would be towards just anything without basis.
- Give me evidence and I will accept god as a fact.
- You are the one making the claim: god exists. You don’t say he might hypothetically exist. If you do, then okay. But it didn’t sound like anyone of you guys meant it. So make up your mind:
1. Is it highly possible god exists? If so, give me evidence.
2. Is it just hypothetical? If so I could believe in any hypotheses out there. They don’t require evidence after all.

"Angels do not live in the universe" !! - You do not have any evidence on that& You need to know more & its not our subject.
- It is the other way around. You are the one who has to prove this element of your ideology is correct. If you can’t, it is just pointless to treat it seriously.

Let alone emotions and religion (I'll explain that later -if you need to ,God willing-) spoke only with a Focus on what will benefit you only scientifically- if you can.
- To be honest, I don’t know what you mean here.

SO YES, YOU ARE TOTALLY AFRAID. I EVEN GAVE YOU THE OPTION OF TALKING WITH ME AS IF I WAS A GOD BELIEVER AND YOU JUST ESCAPED, CALLING MY ARGUMENTS OUTRAGEOUS AND SUPPORTING THAT WITH NOTHING. MOST LIKELY BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY, REALLY. 

There is always an attachment to some authority figure no matter what belief system you have. Athiest as well are not excluded from this rule. Militant athiests for example have their own figures that they follow and defend such as Richard Dawkin and Sam Harris.
- I had been an atheist before I first heard of those figures. Same with many other atheists that I have known. Many of them come from religious environments, which requires rejecting authority, including god, prophets, and sometimes family members. Atheists may agree with much of what R. Dawkins says, but it doesn’t mean he is free from criticism from us. He is no guru or prophet. Not like your beloved Muhammad who obviously was so awesome that he could not lie or be misguided, could he? Now answer me, is there a chance Muhammad the prophet was wrong at least at some points?
- Atheism doesn’t mean obedience like your religion. Atheism doesn’t tell you to follow anything or anyone, it is simply rejecting the idea of god since there is no evidence for any. Atheism doesn’t promise anything to you. And it doesn’t threaten you with anything.
Religions, on the other hand, do it all the time. They tell you to believe or you may/will get punished. And if you do, you will receive eternal life in heaven.

I personally dealt with someone who claims to be agnostic and he said by the end of our discussion that he is free to believe whatever he wants and its okay since there are many beliefs around the world.
- If he claimed that, I am cool with the statement, as he is really free to believe what he wants. At least among secular people. With religious ones around it is not that easy.

So conformism can also be found among atheists. Because you would not want to deal with the possibility of your authority figure being wrong. It is out of your comfort zone.
- Other people are not authority to me. And I would love to see how wrong they are.
Like I said before:
Atheism doesn’t create comfort zones or conditions for conformism. Religions do.
Like before, you are speaking in general about something that may appear anywhere, while I am giving you specific mechanisms your religion uses to manipulate people. Mechanisms which are not in atheism.

It is possible for atheists not to change their positions because of conformism, but it is many times more possible religious people will undergo that.

And for that; they would throw faulty argument like: they are scientists and they know better then us. Or they would say that many scientists are athiests so athiesm probably must be right. Any athiest reading those statements will have a feeling of pressure to not betray the trust of many scientists and becoming a religious fool again.
- That is still nothing compared to a religious guy who may fear the same plus being rejected by his family or possibly going to hell.
- I do think that people who study something know about it more than me in general. Also scientists don’t apply emotions in their studies like

Read about sth called confirmation bias. The right way to avoid bias is through debates so that it is possible challenge any hidden assumptions someone would have.
- Most religious people have been born in religious families where they tell them god is real and they should believe in it. So they are seriously biased just at the start while they should search first before believing.
- And since you mentioned confirmation bias, do you not find it shameful that your fellow with the sword avatar ignores my propositions on the basis of my disbelief in god? Do you agree with him on this?
- I don’t feel I need to read about it, I am willing to discuss anything with anyone without excuses.

There is always an attachment to some authority figure no matter what belief system you have. Athiest as well are not excluded from this rule. Militant athiests for example have their own figures that they follow and defend such as Richard Dawkin and Sam Harris. When you get attached to such figures, you would think those figures are always saying the truth and you would be blind of their blunders. Therefore, it is also possible for athiests to not change their position regarding something because of their blind trust of the authority figures they are following. I personally dealt with someone who claims to be agnostic and he said by the end of our discussion that he is free to believe whatever he wants and its okay since there are many beliefs around the world.
So conformism can also be found among athiests. Because you would not want to deal with the possibility of your authority figure being wrong. It is out of your comfort zone. And for that; they would throw faulty argument like: they are scientists and they know better then us. Or they would say that many scientists are athiests so athiesm probably must be right. Any athiest reading those statements will have a feeling of pressure to not betray the trust of many scientists and becoming a religious fool again.
Read about sth called confirmation bias. The right way to avoid bias is through debates so that it is possible challenge any hidden assumptions someone would have.

Don't talk about the qualities of the universe or logic before you recognize that angels and god don't live in it and have nothing to do with it. And before you realize that your beliefs are based on blind faith and wishful thinking.

You are emotionally attached to your religion which clouds your minds and makes it too difficult to see what is logical and what is not - therefore, you have no problem with accepting god.
But the problem remains anyway.

You are afraid of talking about god even with a potential believer of god, and that shows your insecurity.

The chances god has anything to do with your religion are so low that it is illogical to be a Muslim, even if god really exists.

:And I will be factual
The problem you mentioned here - of not being willing to change beliefs/standpoints because of the group and the power of conformism and simply convenience, is proven to have been common in religions, not among atheists or secular people in general.
So the fact you mentioned it is pretty ironic.
I have met plenty of people coming from religious backgrounds, including Muslims, who confessed to be afraid of leaving Islam because of how their families would react.
So Muslims have much more to lose when leaving Islam than atheists, atheists don't punish leaving atheism with death for instance. Yet we still observe more and more people leaving it which has nothing to do with convenience.

I will be speculative here
Some do form conclusions and by difinition they wont be athiests/agnostic anymore and probably you wont know about them since they are not public figures. And some would keep it to themselves because they dont want to influence others or create problems for themselves. Others might have fallacious arguments especially if they are really anti religion. Maybe others are unsure and still searching. Or maybe is just a convenient choice for them.

We can explain what happens inside a computer using physical laws without involving the designer in the explination. Our knowledge that computers are designed is not enough to make a general statement about other types of information. You were not there when life began


DNA is not SIMILAR to information. DNA actually is information. However, DNA is similar with a computer code or a book and that what was my argument about it and it is not out of context as you insist to claim. Maybe you thought that I claimed they were identical and that's would be your problem of understaning. Or Maybe you thought that I claimed DNA can be translated and read like a novel. That would be funny.

Earlier I thought that you might have a point that those terms were coined that way because they are similar. But you were totally wrong, it was coined that way because actually it was based on mathmatical difinition of information as stated by Professor Hubert P. Yocke. This is neither subjective choice of words nor controversial, but is a brute fact that DNA contains information

I honestly don't know the source of the universe.
I just disregard arguments lacking solid grounds.

But how come you have a problem with the universe creating itself and you don't have even a bigger problem with the existence of god, not to mention his omnipotence and omniscience?