Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational
-
@petrapark3r if you want to chat with girls join here Click here-->https://yarichat.blogspot.com/
-
if you want to chat with girls join here Click here-->https://yarichat.blogspot.com/
-
@petrapark3r atheism is for those who believe that science is a panacea that can answer all the questions in the universe. However, in reality, science has limitations and this is where religion comes in.
-
@JessicaLou said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@petrapark3r atheism is for those who believe that science is a panacea that can answer all the question in the universe. However, in reality, science has limitation and this is where religion comes in.
Indeed, but the question is how can you get to truth? In other words: how do you use the religious tools to gain objectivity?
Science drives to find what's objectively true about nature. Religion should drive to find what's objectively true in the transcendent.
But instead they tend to fight against each other, because most of them have no method of validating their claims. What do you think?
-
@petrapark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Your philosophical argument was Cosmological argument or first cause inference
Yes, it was a combination of the first-cause inference and the question of why there is anything.
Because everything in nature is the way it is for a reason. An apple falls down because of gravity. Quantum particles are generated out of "nothing" all the time for a reason (the nature of quantum mechanics). And all the laws of physics are also there because of how the universe began.
Gravity is natural law
It could all just be the result of "accidents" exploited by the relentless regularities of nature.
Benedict spinoza in the 17th century, identified God and nature, arguing that scientific research was the true path of theology. For this heresy he was persecuted. There is a troubling Janus-faced quality to Spinozas heretical vision of Deus sive Natura: in proposing his scientific simplification, was he personifying nature or depersonalising god ?
Darwins more generative vision provides the structure in which we can see the intelligence of Mother nature (or is it merely apparent intelligence? ) as a non-miraculous and non-mysterious --and hence all more wonderful-- feature of this self-creating thing.Should Spinoza be counted as an atheist or a pantheist ? He saw the glory of nature and then saw a way of eliminating the middle-man.
I know science has already disproved old 5 elements
Nature is more than those five elementsBut there is a question for you.
Since I have disproved attributes of both Aquinas' God and Bible's God. This cosmological argument was given by Aquinis' God . So What kind of God you are believing in ?In contrast to a whole set of philosophers (like Aquinas) I believe it is utterly pointless to figure out God's attributes and reason about them. To me God is simply completely different from what we could ever think about Him. We just cannot rationally think about what He is.
I believe the only thing we can barely touch with our reason is the fact of His existence, which makes sense due to our existence.
As I have proved he is imperfect, non-omnipotent, non-united, non-willing, partial.
I think you haven't proven a thing, because that is completely impossible, since there is no way we could ever understand God. But that's just my opinion.
That type of God is near to human in attributes.
Whereas I have proved nature is impartial, transcendent immoral and eternal. You don't have any argument against it's any attribute.
Nature is not transcendent, since transcendent basically means, that something transcends nature.
You had misread it. I wrote transcendent immorality. A comma was not between both words
Nature is dead to human values
For an example sun lights on everyone either he is sinful or goodYou have not proven that nature is eternal, because an
eternal nature would be irrational and thus not provable (Just like God)
Philosophy includes both perception and inference.
You cannot deny perception.
You cannot say philosophy doesn't include perception
Source- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_perceptionFive elements are either perceived and/or measurable
I wish you would forget about those 5 elements, for fire is not an element but a chemical reaction, air is a gas made up from a bunch of molecules, earth is a huge set of molecules and elements, wood (if we are talking chinese) is a carbon based life-form, and water is a combination of two elements: oxygen and hydrogen. Basically this 5 element theory (like any 5 or 4 element theory) is BS. Inference gone wrong, nothing else but a good model for chinese medicin.
An inference assumes something in starting.
An inference is a conclusion drawn from observed or supposed facts. For example, if someone presses a light switch but the light does not turn on, they might infer that the filament has burnt out. However inferences may or may not be correct.
Five probabilities can be concluded from an inference.
In this context, perception is real more than inference.Perception is more direct than inference, not more real. What's real is objective wether we perceive or infer or don't know about it.
Yes direct, not real
But I like your point about inference and the question wether we know enough about what we infer. This might be the only good argument I have heard so far against the cosmological way to God.
A dead philosopher will never come to tell what he has experienced after death
He had that vision before his death and told people about it...
Personal experiences are vary to each-other. They are not reliable
For an example- an eastern philosopher Gautama Buddha got liberation in the age of 35. He shared his personal experience to people without believing in God and disproving fatalism. He believed in free will and in making our own effortsMaterialism gave things existence? You mean the universe itself gave the chain its existence?
It gave bexause five elements have their own qualities.
Five elements are not real...
A substance has its own quality
Water flows like water it never flows like airAll liquids flow like water.
I was comparing five elements with one-another
Other liquids are not elements
Air is not liquid
Fire is that part of Nature that transforms one state of matter into another. For example, fire transforms the solid state of water (ice) into liquid water and then into its gaseous state (steam) -
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Gravity is natural law
It could all just be the result of "accidents" exploited by the relentless regularities of nature.The point is the regularities. Everything happens for a reason. Evolution happens because certain traits favor survival. There is a reason to why everything works the way it does. There is a reason for why gravity is as strong as it is (scientists traced this back to the conditions in the big bang). There is a reason for why there is gravity. There is a reason for everything in nature.
Benedict spinoza in the 17th century, identified God and nature, arguing that scientific research was the true path of theology. For this heresy he was persecuted. There is a troubling Janus-faced quality to Spinozas heretical vision of Deus sive Natura: in proposing his scientific simplification, was he personifying nature or depersonalising god ?
I cannot answer this question for I do not know Spinoza well enough. But he clearly was wrong about claiming that scientific research could lead you to God :shrug:
Darwins more generative vision provides the structure in which we can see the intelligence of Mother nature (or is it merely apparent intelligence? ) as a non-miraculous and non-mysterious --and hence all more wonderful-- feature of this self-creating thing.
There is a big difference between developing (which is what nature does) and creating itself (which is nothing that has ever been observed in nature).
Should Spinoza be counted as an atheist or a pantheist ? He saw the glory of nature and then saw a way of eliminating the middle-man.
Since he thought he could arrive at God, he was certainly not an atheist. But again, I don't know him well enough to tell you wether he was a pantheist or believed in a God that was just a part of nature...
I know science has already disproved old 5 elements
Nature is more than those five elementsGood we agree on this.
You had misread it. I wrote transcendent immorality. A comma was not between both words
Nature is dead to human values
For an example sun lights on everyone either he is sinful or goodOh, okay, yeah, I misread that. I'd still say that the immorality of nature is not transcendent though. Nature is just simply non-moral (I agree with you on this).
Personal experiences are vary to each-other. They are not reliable
For an example- an eastern philosopher Gautama Buddha got liberation in the age of 35. He shared his personal experience to people without believing in God and disproving fatalism. He believed in free will and in making our own effortsI was just saying that Aquinas did agree in the end with this whole argument about the attributes of God being "like straw" (pointless), because of his experience. I wasn't argueing wether his experience was real or not.
I was comparing five elements with one-another
Other liquids are not elementsWater is not an element either :smirk:
Air is not liquid
Fire is that part of Nature that transforms one state of matter into another. For example, fire transforms the solid state of water (ice) into liquid water and then into its gaseous state (steam)Agreed.
-
@petrapark3r I think we can only achieve the truth in time. Science is still in its infancy. We have not yet explored the vast universe.
If Darwin's theory of evolution is true, then we are not alone in this universe.
Actually, we should storm Area 51 on September to know whether aliens exist.Meanwhile, I believe that while science can not yet answer the profundities of life and its precise origin, we should believe the notion of having a supreme being that created us.
-
@LeoWeirdo said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@petrapark3r I think we can only achieve the truth in time. Science is still in its infancy. We have not yet explored the vast universe.
That's true.
If Darwin's theory of evolution is true, then we are not alone in this universe.
Actually, we should storm Area 51 on September to know whether aliens exist.That is not so sure, because darwins theory does not explain how life started, only how it developed. For life has always been incredibly complex (DNA is 3 meters long), at least that's as far as science has gotten by now.
Also we have not enough information to conclude how propable life is (assuming it can appear just by itself).
Meanwhile, I believe that while science can not yet answer the profundities of life and its precise origin, we should believe the notion of having a supreme being that created us.
It certainly makes sense to our minds (but God himself is non the less not rationally understandable)... And I do believe.
-
@pe7erpark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Gravity is natural law
It could all just be the result of "accidents" exploited by the relentless regularities of nature.The point is the regularities. Everything happens for a reason. Evolution happens because certain traits favor survival. There is a reason to why everything works the way it does.
Where is cause there is effect
Where is not cause there is not effect
This is an inference and it is not as direct as perception which I brought up earlier.
An inference may be true or not. Even though it can have more probabilitiesThere is a reason for why gravity is as strong as it is (scientists traced this back to the conditions in the big bang). There is a reason for why there is gravity. There is a reason for everything in nature.
Good one
Law of gravity was in Bigbang
You cannot create or destroy matter or energy in a lab like those 5 old elements, this is what first law of thermodynamics says
My perception is clearly agree with this physical or natural law
Some scientists still believe Law of thermodynamics would not come in bigbang theory and just because it addresses the evolution of Universe, not creation.
Source- https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.htmlThus this debate ends here
World is clearly rational but God is irrational -
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@pe7erpark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Gravity is natural law
It could all just be the result of "accidents" exploited by the relentless regularities of nature.The point is the regularities. Everything happens for a reason. Evolution happens because certain traits favor survival. There is a reason to why everything works the way it does.
Where is cause there is effect
Where is not cause there is not effect
This is an inference and it is not as direct as perception which I brought up earlier.
An inference may be true or not. Even though it can have more probabilitiesTrue. And in the quantum world there seems to effect without cause. However we don't understand the quantum world yet. But even if there were effects without causes, the effects are regular. Not just anything happens. Something specific happens all the time. There is a reason to why it happens, even if there might be no cause.
There is a reason for why gravity is as strong as it is (scientists traced this back to the conditions in the big bang). There is a reason for why there is gravity. There is a reason for everything in nature.
Good one
Law of gravity was in Bigbang
You cannot create or destroy matter or energy in a lab like those 5 old elements, this is what first law of thermodynamics says
My perception is clearly agree with this physical or natural lawAgreed.
Some scientists still believe Law of thermodynamics would not come in bigbang theory and just because it address the evolution of Universe, not creation.
Source- https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.htmlInteresting article!
-
@LeoWeirdo said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@petrapark3r atheism is for those who believe that science is a panacea that can answer all the questions in the universe. However, in reality, science has limitations and this is where religion comes in.
Do you really think God will create or destroy matter/energy ?
Religion was made by some smart people for controlling the population. Watch Zeitgeist
Bible was made by a human not by a deist entity. Do you even know how much Bible is contradictory to Science ?- Bible says the sky is blue when in actual fact the colour of the sky is a reflection of the ocean. The sky itself has no colour.
- The bible does not even mention that the sun has a limited lifespan and that it too will eventually die out as it runs out of fuel.
- Much through biblical times it was though that the sun rotates around the earth, when in actual fact the solar system is helio-centric: i.e. the earth rotates around the sun
- The existence of microscopic organisms including bacteria and viruses. Note the bibles only mentions beasts and fowls that god created.
These were some examples. I could write more contradictory things but It will take my time
@LeoWeirdo said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@petrapark3r I think we can only achieve the truth in time. Science is still in its infancy. We have not yet explored the vast universe.
If Darwin's theory of evolution is true, then we are not alone in this universe.
Actually, we should storm Area 51 on September to know whether aliens exist.Myths will always be myths
There is not a UFO
It is actually the semi-secret contract commuter airline which is using the call-sign "Janet" that transports workers from Las Vegas's McCarran Airport to the base.Meanwhile, I believe that while science can not yet answer the profundities of life and its precise origin, we should believe the notion of having a supreme being that created us.
It meant you will believe in an unseen and unheard notion.
By the way the guy who wrote this thread had an argument of first cause. If God I created this world then the God II will create him, God III will create God II and so on. Which God is real and which is not ?
Whereas energy is real and self-caused. You or your god cannot create it. (First law of thermodynamics )@spaceboy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
One scientist was asked a question:
- Is science and faith are linked with each other?
- Yes of course! - the scientist answered.
- Do you believe in God?
- No..
- But how?! You just said that science and faith are linked?- Many scientist of different epochs were religious. This single fact is enough to prove that faith and science are linked.
Many theists are raised from their instincts
No. of atheist scientists > no. of theist scientists
Check both links very well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technologyAtheism is also some kind of faith, in my point of view. To prove the God's existence or not existence, we need to visit each corner of the universe in different dimensions (and even this wouldn't be enough). So the only thing we have to do in this case - is to choose by ourselves to believe or not.
Atheism has two definitions
- There is no god, this definition is not based on faith. Will you call Bertrand Russell's atheism was based on his faith ? Apparently his all counterarguments for five proofs for god's existence were logical and valid.
- Lack of belief in god. Yes it is based on faith. This definition is psychological state of mind
-
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Atheism has two definitions
There is no god, this definition is not based on faith. Will you call Bertrand Russell's atheism was based on his faith ? Apparently his all counterarguments for five proofs for god's existence were logical and valid.
The following are his arguments. (https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/why-bertrand-russell-was-not-a-christian.)
The first cause argument
This argument is simple; it maintains that since everything must have a cause, there must be a first cause to start everything else. This first cause is God and is exempted from needing a cause itself. Russell points out that if we can decide that one thing doesn’t need a cause, we have no reason not to say the world itself wasn’t the thing without a cause.
This one is true. But it does not disprove God. It just states that the world could also be without reason. As I tried to show however this gives the world some irrational properties. Still Russels argument holds true.
The natural law argument:
This one centers on the idea that the laws of physics needed to be set. It then assumes that the being who determined them was God. Russell finds this one to be outdated given advances in physics since the days of Newton, particularly in quantum mechanics. Since atomic physics is more statistical than classical, Russell contends that it seems odd to claim that an intelligence is involved in physics. Saying:
“There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design.”
As with dice rolls, so with reality, he argues.This can be countered by the fact, that even though things happen without a cause they don't happen without a reason. It's the same kind of thing that happens over and over again: quantum particles appear out of nothing, with an opposite charge / opposite spin. It is a zero-sum game, but it is a regular one.
The argument from design:
This perennial favorite argues that lifeforms are so well suited to their environments that a designer must have been involved. Russell dismisses this as absurd. He not only notes that Darwin explains the observed facts better through evolutionary theory but also points out how terrible some of the design choices are if they were, in fact, choices. He asks the audience:
“Do you think that, if you were given millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?”
He shouldn't have used people for his argument there, since theists claim that people have free choice, and that therefore evil cannot be blamed on God.
But he is right about the physical world not being perfect. This is a good argument. But you still have the choice of finding it truly convincing, since you cannot claim to know why God might have made the world in this way.
After looking at a few others, he concludes that the arguments for the existence of a God are all lacking in rigor. Since Russell, famously, held that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, the failure of these proofs leaves him with no reason to assume God’s existence.
This one is the actual crux, and its not even a bad one: "Since you claim that there is God and you cannot prove his existence, I have no reason to believe you." Thus it is not unfair to call not believing an God a rational choice.
However it is also true, that God is not disprovable, and that there are questions that must forever remain unanswered about the origin of the universe (and other things). So it is not unfair either to call not believing in God a form of faith.
Lack of belief in god. Yes it is based on faith. This definition is psychological state of mind
All kinds of convictions have a psychological aspect. Logic itself is based on improvable axioms. So I'd say you are both right.
-
Atheism assumes that God is not real, and claims to be entirely rational. But that second part about, being entirely rational, can be proven to be wrong
I think the the way we humans try to explain the god's existance or absence is purely rational. Altough it doesn't mean the way we feel about It (faith) is rational or can even be explained. As an excuse, i'd say it is part of a complex algorithmic system (genome, culture, education...)
Some scientest might throw in, that the universe itself might be a fluctuation of a quantum field, or simply one of many universes popping out of whatever they pop
And of course they could be right, and of course my question to them remains the same: Then did this something that the universe popped out of just suddenly pop into existence? Of course not, that wouldn't make any sense either.
Of course nothing popps out of the void, that's why some scientists have been, for years, trying to find new particles amongst this void, whose been told there were absolutely no matter in. New fundamental particles were discovered here, in CERN and other particles accelarators.
Then this must mean, that this nature (or space or quantum field or whatever unfathomable thing the universe popped out of) has always been there, has always existed, eternally. Existence itself must be eternal then, if it wasn't created by an eternal God. Think it through well. There is no third option, so much is for sure...
Agree.
Now lets construct an example, that is able to make us see the problem here properly: Imagine you borrowed a bike from your friend. And this friend had borrowed it from another friend. And this guy again borrowed it. And so on and so forth. The bike was given from one person to the next. Reaching back through history, through time.
So since the universe is eternal (and the bike symbolizes existence itself), this chain stretches into the past, without end... It is equally eternal. Now, answer this question: Why is there a bike? How can it always be borrowed, if there is no original owner?
Well said "in our rational mind", but to any other mind, the existence of this bike, in the first place, can have a purpose to exist and its appearance can be justified, not only by our little minds. Finally, adding your whole argument with the classic complex algorithmic system, which I referred at the beggining, it fits as a glove to prove atheism is indeed irrational.
Someone who you will remember.
-
@pe7erpark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Atheism has two definitions
There is no god, this definition is not based on faith. Will you call Bertrand Russell's atheism was based on his faith ? Apparently his all counterarguments for five proofs for god's existence were logical and valid.
The following are his arguments. (https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/why-bertrand-russell-was-not-a-christian.)
The first cause argument
This argument is simple; it maintains that since everything must have a cause, there must be a first cause to start everything else. This first cause is God and is exempted from needing a cause itself. Russell points out that if we can decide that one thing doesn’t need a cause, we have no reason not to say the world itself wasn’t the thing without a cause.
This one is true. But it does not disprove God. It just states that the world could also be without reason. As I tried to show however this gives the world some irrational properties. Still Russels argument holds true.
You misinterpreted him about disproving the God or you did not read about this argument.
In his own words, ''My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.''He clearly wrote the fallacy of first cause. As I have said, God II will make God I and God III will make God II and so on. God too should have a cause So, fallacy is itself in this argument
The natural law argument:
This one centers on the idea that the laws of physics needed to be set. It then assumes that the being who determined them was God. Russell finds this one to be outdated given advances in physics since the days of Newton, particularly in quantum mechanics. Since atomic physics is more statistical than classical, Russell contends that it seems odd to claim that an intelligence is involved in physics. Saying:
“There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design.”
As with dice rolls, so with reality, he argues.This can be countered by the fact, that even though things happen without a cause they don't happen without a reason. It's the same kind of thing that happens over and over again: quantum particles appear out of nothing, with an opposite charge / opposite spin. It is a zero-sum game, but it is a regular one.
In his own words, ''natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced with the question "Why did God issue just those natural laws
and no others?" If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate lawgiver. In short, this whole argument about natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have.He was talking about probability of double sixes for designer which is 1/36.
As we have seen an inference is not direct like perception and natural laws are self-caused
The argument from design:
This perennial favorite argues that lifeforms are so well suited to their environments that a designer must have been involved. Russell dismisses this as absurd. He not only notes that Darwin explains the observed facts better through evolutionary theory but also points out how terrible some of the design choices are if they were, in fact, choices. He asks the audience:
“Do you think that, if you were given millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?”
He shouldn't have used people for his argument there, since theists claim that people have free choice, and that therefore evil cannot be blamed on God.
And free will is against man is made in the image of god verse. Do not forget that
But he is right about the physical world not being perfect. This is a good argument. But you still have the choice of finding it truly convincing, since you cannot claim to know why God might have made the world in this way.
After looking at a few others, he concludes that the arguments for the existence of a God are all lacking in rigor. Since Russell, famously, held that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, the failure of these proofs leaves him with no reason to assume God’s existence.
This one is the actual crux, and its not even a bad one: "Since you claim that there is God and you cannot prove his existence, I have no reason to believe you." Thus it is not unfair to call not believing an God a rational choice.
In his own words, ''Here we find in this world a great deal of injustice, and so far as that goes that is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and therefore so far as it goes it affords a moral argument against deity and not in favor of one.''
He was talking about the faith of theism. How they consider God as a justice of the world without even any weak argument.However it is also true, that God is not disprovable,
God is disprovable because first cause argument is defective
and that there are questions that must forever remain unanswered about the origin of the universe (and other things). So it is not unfair either to call not believing in God a form of faith.
I gave you some links for agnosticism atheism. Check the link again. You cannot say former definition is based on faith
Also whatever source are you reading from, is not reliable and it consists of some uncomprehending arguments
http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Russell,Bertrand/Religion/Bertrand Russell - Why I am not a Christian.pdf
Check this out. It is pdf of his essay 'why I'm not a Christian'Lack of belief in god. Yes it is based on faith. This definition is based on psychological state of mind
All kinds of convictions have a psychological aspect.
A coin is tossed
2 results may come out - head or tail
Elaborate how it is a psychological aspect.Logic itself is based on improvable axioms. So I'd say you are both right.
-
@davitchen said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Atheism assumes that God is not real, and claims to be entirely rational. But that second part about, being entirely rational, can be proven to be wrong
I think the the way we humans try to explain the god's existance or absence is purely rational.
Absence is rational
Existence is irrational
He is not perceived how existence is rational ?Altough it doesn't mean the way we feel about It (faith) is rational
I agree with you
As an excuse, i'd say it is part of a complex algorithmic system (genome, culture, education...)Genome,culture and education are distinct to one-another
Some scientest might throw in, that the universe itself might be a fluctuation of a quantum field, or simply one of many universes popping out of whatever they pop
And of course they could be right, and of course my question to them remains the same: Then did this something that the universe popped out of just suddenly pop into existence? Of course not, that wouldn't make any sense either.
Of course nothing popps out of the void, that's why some scientists have been, for years, trying to find new particles amongst this void, whose been told there were absolutely no matter in. New fundamental particles were discovered here, in CERN and other particles accelarators.
If you are talking about Bigbang. Lemme elaborate you. Bigbang is a theory which addresses the evolution of universe, it does not address how universe came into existence
Then this must mean, that this nature (or space or quantum field or whatever unfathomable thing the universe popped out of) has always been there, has always existed, eternally. Existence itself must be eternal then, if it wasn't created by an eternal God. Think it through well. There is no third option, so much is for sure...
Agree.
Now lets construct an example, that is able to make us see the problem here properly: Imagine you borrowed a bike from your friend. And this friend had borrowed it from another friend. And this guy again borrowed it. And so on and so forth. The bike was given from one person to the next. Reaching back through history, through time.
So since the universe is eternal (and the bike symbolizes existence itself), this chain stretches into the past, without end... It is equally eternal. Now, answer this question: Why is there a bike? How can it always be borrowed, if there is no original owner?
Well said "in our rational mind", but to any other mind, the existence of this bike, in the first place, can have a purpose to exist and its appearance can be justified, not only by our little minds.
You first said faith is irrational
'By our limited mind' you meant we cannot know so we imagined
In Einstein words, ''Logic takes you from A to B but imagination takes you everywhere''
E.g. I cannot see second side of my house's wall. I will imagine someone is sitting there, how is it rational ? This is your psychology that someone is sitting there
Here I would say theism is irrational
However you could think in another way, there may be anyone or not, it may lead you to two results- Someone is not there
- Someone is there
This is rational and logic
Particles arise from nothing (we have scientific evidences) -rational
God arises from nothing (we don't have any scientific evidence) -irrational
We cannot know
He is far from us
We are limited he is unlimited
These are not even weak arguments to prove his existence
Just imagine you have a girlfriend in your dreams. You know the truth when you open your eyes
Avoiding sensual perceptions and imagining an entity is irrational -
This post is deleted! -
@Sij said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
We cannot even prove the existence of this universe and the world we see and feel, let alone proving the existence of god.
Hehe :joy:. Yap.
-
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@pe7erpark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Atheism has two definitions
There is no god, this definition is not based on faith. Will you call Bertrand Russell's atheism was based on his faith ? Apparently his all counterarguments for five proofs for god's existence were logical and valid.
The following are his arguments. (https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/why-bertrand-russell-was-not-a-christian.)
The first cause argument
This argument is simple; it maintains that since everything must have a cause, there must be a first cause to start everything else. This first cause is God and is exempted from needing a cause itself. Russell points out that if we can decide that one thing doesn’t need a cause, we have no reason not to say the world itself wasn’t the thing without a cause.
This one is true. But it does not disprove God. It just states that the world could also be without reason. As I tried to show however this gives the world some irrational properties. Still Russels argument holds true.
You misinterpreted him about disproving the God or you did not read about this argument.
In his own words, ''My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.''He clearly wrote the fallacy of first cause. As I have said, God II will make God I and God III will make God II and so on. God too should have a cause So, fallacy is itself in this argument
I find the part of the argument I copied from that website is less flawed.
Why should God need a cause, when nature does not need a cause?
In other words: you have to excempt something from having a cause, wether that is God or nature.
The natural law argument:
This one centers on the idea that the laws of physics needed to be set. It then assumes that the being who determined them was God. Russell finds this one to be outdated given advances in physics since the days of Newton, particularly in quantum mechanics. Since atomic physics is more statistical than classical, Russell contends that it seems odd to claim that an intelligence is involved in physics. Saying:
“There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design.”
As with dice rolls, so with reality, he argues.This can be countered by the fact, that even though things happen without a cause they don't happen without a reason. It's the same kind of thing that happens over and over again: quantum particles appear out of nothing, with an opposite charge / opposite spin. It is a zero-sum game, but it is a regular one.
In his own words, ''natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced with the question "Why did God issue just those natural laws
and no others?" If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate lawgiver. In short, this whole argument about natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have.He was talking about probability of double sixes for designer which is 1/36.
As we have seen an inference is not direct like perception and natural laws are self-caused
Natural laws are not self-caused (gravity does not cause gravity, it causes things to fall down) and thus you cannot have shown that they are self-caused.
Asking yourself why God has put certain laws in place is nonsense, since (if He exists) you cannot possibly understand God's reasoning.
The version of the argument I copied from the website is thus less flawed, since it simply states that the fact that physics itself could be random, one does not need God. That would would be true, if physics was truly random. But the scientific truth is: we don't know if it is. (By this I mean, we simply don't know [yet] if the laws of physics are the way the are in our universe because of chance).
The argument from design:
This perennial favorite argues that lifeforms are so well suited to their environments that a designer must have been involved. Russell dismisses this as absurd. He not only notes that Darwin explains the observed facts better through evolutionary theory but also points out how terrible some of the design choices are if they were, in fact, choices. He asks the audience:
“Do you think that, if you were given millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?”
He shouldn't have used people for his argument there, since theists claim that people have free choice, and that therefore evil cannot be blamed on God.
And free will is against man is made in the image of god verse. Do not forget that
Why would free will be against the idea of humans being made in the image of God? God – if He exists – has ultimate freedom, He just simply is the definition of Good Himself. We obviously don't have ultimate freedom, like an image could never be the same as the original, but free will, to decide between doing good and doing bad, could indeed be called an image of the ultimate freedom.
But he is right about the physical world not being perfect. This is a good argument. But you still have the choice of finding it truly convincing, since you cannot claim to know why God might have made the world in this way.
After looking at a few others, he concludes that the arguments for the existence of a God are all lacking in rigor. Since Russell, famously, held that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, the failure of these proofs leaves him with no reason to assume God’s existence.
This one is the actual crux, and its not even a bad one: "Since you claim that there is God and you cannot prove his existence, I have no reason to believe you." Thus it is not unfair to call not believing an God a rational choice.
In his own words, ''Here we find in this world a great deal of injustice, and so far as that goes that is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and therefore so far as it goes it affords a moral argument against deity and not in favor of one.''
He was talking about the faith of theism. How they consider God as a justice of the world without even any weak argument.This is a "new" argument, that wasn't on my list. The argument makes sense. However it requires you again to reason about God's reasoning, which – in case He exists – is not something that we could possibly do and arrive at the truth...
However it is also true, that God is not disprovable,
God is disprovable because first cause argument is defective
As shown above, you have to excempt something from the first-cause argument, wether that is God or nature. And since you have to do this you cannot say that the argument is flawed "because God must be caused".
And even if you had shown that the problem with the first-cause argument was in fact conclusive: proving an argument wrong, does not prove its result wrong.
and that there are questions that must forever remain unanswered about the origin of the universe (and other things). So it is not unfair either to call not believing in God a form of faith.
I gave you some links for agnosticism atheism. Check the link again. You cannot say former definition is based on faith
Also whatever source are you reading from, is not reliable and it consists of some uncomprehending argumentsRussels notion is, that since there is no proof of God, it is rational to assume that God is not. This argument is indeed rational.
Since assuming that God does not exist requires you to excempt nature from the first-cause argument (it puts nature in the place of God, it does not solve the problem) you are presented with a question that you cannot solve. Thus assuming that God does not exist requires you to be at least a bit irrational about how you think of nature, as I have shown in the topic.
It is also true, that since there is no disproof of God, and quite a bit of evidence of things He does (however inconclusive), it is also rational to assume that God is.
So I would say it is fair to call atheism a belief, just as it is fair to call not believing in God rational.
These are the arguments in their entirety (including the first post = the topic itself). No further source needed.
http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Russell,Bertrand/Religion/Bertrand Russell - Why I am not a Christian.pdf
Check this out. It is pdf of his essay 'why I'm not a Christian'This is a genius lecture about Russels reasons for being an atheist no doubt. However a lot of things are a bit dated. For example he calls it very doubtful wether christ was a historic figure. This was written in a time, when a lot of arguments had been presented that made christs historicity doubtful. But we have progressed a lot since then, and many of the arguments have been successfully refuted.
I can see now, where you have your arguments from. Very interesting read. Don't take these things as facts though. Natural science and science of history have progressed quite a bit since it was written.
All kinds of convictions have a psychological aspect.
A coin is tossed
2 results may come out - head or tail
Elaborate how it is a psychological aspect."All kinds of" is an idiom. It does not have to mean "all", it usually means "many". This was just a side note of little importance, please forget about it.
-
@pe7erpark3r said in [Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational](/post/252836): > @Electrifying-Guy said in [Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational](/post/252573): > > @pe7erpark3r said in [Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational](/post/252470): > > > @Electrifying-Guy said in [Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational](/post/252331): > > > > Atheism has two definitions > > > > > > > > There is no god, this definition is not based on faith. Will you call Bertrand Russell's atheism was based on his faith ? Apparently his all counterarguments for five proofs for god's existence were logical and valid. > > > > > > The following are his arguments. (https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/why-bertrand-russell-was-not-a-christian.) > > > > > > The first cause argument > > > > > > > This argument is simple; it maintains that since everything must have a cause, there must be a first cause to start everything else. This first cause is God and is exempted from needing a cause itself. Russell points out that if we can decide that one thing doesn’t need a cause, we have no reason not to say the world itself wasn’t the thing without a cause. > > > > > > This one is true. But it does not disprove God. It just states that the world could also be without reason. As I tried to show however this gives the world some irrational properties. Still Russels argument holds true. > > > > > > You misinterpreted him about disproving the God or you did not read about this argument. > > In his own words, ''My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.'' > > > > He clearly wrote the fallacy of first cause. As I have said, God II will make God I and God III will make God II and so on. God too should have a cause So, fallacy is itself in this argument > > I find the part of the argument I copied from that website is less flawed. > > Why should God _need_ a cause, when nature does _not need_ a cause? > > In other words: you _have to_ excempt _something_ from having a cause, wether that is God or nature. > I agree but we have seen how matter is self-cause whereas God is not > > > > The natural law argument: > > > > This one centers on the idea that the laws of physics needed to be set. It then assumes that the being who determined them was God. Russell finds this one to be outdated given advances in physics since the days of Newton, particularly in quantum mechanics. Since atomic physics is more statistical than classical, Russell contends that it seems odd to claim that an intelligence is involved in physics. Saying: > > > > “There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design.” > > > > As with dice rolls, so with reality, he argues. > > > > > > > > > > > > This can be countered by the fact, that even though things happen without a cause they don't happen without a reason. It's the same kind of thing that happens over and over again: quantum particles appear out of nothing, with an opposite charge / opposite spin. It is a zero-sum game, but it is a regular one. > > > > > > > > > In his own words, ''natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced with the question "Why did God issue just those natural laws > > and no others?" If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate lawgiver. In short, this whole argument about natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have. > > > > He was talking about probability of double sixes for designer which is 1/36. > > > > As we have seen an inference is not direct like perception and natural laws are self-caused > > Natural laws are not self-caused (gravity does not cause gravity, it causes things to fall down) and thus you cannot have shown that they are self-caused. > Did you just forget first law of thermodynamics ? Do you really think an imagining entity will cause apple to fall on ground ? E.g. I throw a stone and apple falls on ground Explain me what causes apple to fall on ground ? Also explain me how an imaging entity can create energy ? For first (law of gravity) he should have limbs to do that For second which is already self cause makes him already irrational > Asking yourself why God has put certain laws in place is nonsense, since (if He exists) you cannot possibly understand God's reasoning. > 'You cannot know' is not an argument to believe in something who is beyond our perception > The version of the argument I copied from the website is thus less flawed, since it simply states that the fact that physics itself could be random, one does not need God. That would would be true, if physics was truly random. But the scientific truth is: we don't know if it is. (By this I mean, we simply don't know [yet] if the laws of physics are the way the are in our universe because of chance). > A kind of agree > > > > The argument from design: > > > > > > > > This perennial favorite argues that lifeforms are so well suited to their environments that a designer must have been involved. Russell dismisses this as absurd. He not only notes that Darwin explains the observed facts better through evolutionary theory but also points out how terrible some of the design choices are if they were, in fact, choices. He asks the audience: > > > > > > > > “Do you think that, if you were given millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?” > > > > > > He shouldn't have used people for his argument there, since theists claim that people have free choice, and that therefore evil cannot be blamed on God. > > > > > > > And free will is against man is made in the image of god verse. Do not forget that > > Why would free will be against the idea of humans being made in the image of God? God – if He exists – has ultimate freedom, He just simply is the definition of Good Himself. We obviously don't have ultimate freedom, like an image could never be the same as the original, but free will, to decide between doing good and doing bad, could indeed be called an image of the ultimate freedom. > I was reading interpretion of bible from some website, Your interpretation is very different to that one so it is not my mistake :( Also, he will send me in hell if I do some sins. I will not do those sins because I'm afraid of going to hell. Isn't it against free will ? Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able ? Then he is not omnipotent Is he able, but not willing ? Then he is malevolent Is he both able and willing ? Then whence cometh evil ? Is he neither able nor willing ? Then why call him God ? > > > But he is right about the physical world not being perfect. This is a good argument. But you still have the choice of finding it truly convincing, since you cannot claim to know why God might have made the world in this way. > > > > > > > After looking at a few others, he concludes that the arguments for the existence of a God are all lacking in rigor. Since Russell, famously, held that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, the failure of these proofs leaves him with no reason to assume God’s existence. > > > > > > This one is the actual crux, and its not even a bad one: "Since you claim that there is God and you cannot prove his existence, I have no reason to believe you." Thus it is not unfair to call not believing an God a rational choice. > > > In his own words, ''Here we find in this world a great deal of injustice, and so far as that goes that is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and therefore so far as it goes it affords a moral argument against deity and not in favor of one.'' > > He was talking about the faith of theism. How they consider God as a justice of the world without even any weak argument. > > This is a "new" argument, that wasn't on my list. The argument makes sense. However it requires you again to reason about God's reasoning, which – in case He exists – is not something that we could possibly do and arrive at the truth... > > > > > However it is also true, that God is not disprovable, > > > > God is disprovable because first cause argument is defective > > As shown above, you have to exempt something from the first-cause argument, whether that is God or nature. And since you _have to do this_ you cannot say that the argument is flawed "because God must be caused". > > And even if you had shown that the problem with the first-cause argument was in fact conclusive: proving an argument wrong, does not prove its result wrong. > When cause aka god itself is doubtful its effect will also be doubtful its result will also be doubtful Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder? Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter? Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker? If you answered YES for any of the above, give details > > > and that there are questions that must forever remain unanswered about the origin of the universe (and other things). So it is not unfair either to call not believing in God a form of faith. > > > > I gave you some links for agnosticism atheism. Check the link again. You cannot say former definition is based on faith > > Also whatever source are you reading from, is not reliable and it consists of some uncomprehending arguments > > Russels notion is, that since there is no proof of God, it is rational to assume that God is not. This argument is indeed rational. > > Since assuming that God does not exist requires you to excempt nature from the first-cause argument (it puts nature in the place of God, it does not solve the problem) you are presented with a question that you cannot solve. Thus assuming that God does not exist requires you to be at least a bit irrational about how you think of nature, as I have shown in the topic. > If i did put nature in the first cause it would be the the most rational argument for disproving the God. Because energy or matter is not created or destroyed by anyone. Nobody could cause it. It would be itself cause . > It is also true, that since there is no disproof of God, and quite a bit of evidence of things He does (however inconclusive), it is also rational to assume that God is. > > So I would say it is fair to call atheism a belief, just as it is fair to call not believing in God rational. > > These are the arguments in their entirety (including the first post = the topic itself). No further source needed. Whatever you would say will be not a fact. Facts are always different from opinions You don't want to read source because you are either lazy or you have just a mindset Read both definitions from here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ > These are the arguments in their entirety (including the first post = the topic itself). No further source needed. > > > http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Russell,Bertrand/Religion/Bertrand%20Russell%20-%20Why%20I%20am%20not%20a%20Christian.pdf > > Check this out. It is pdf of his essay 'why I'm not a Christian' > > This is a genius lecture about Russels reasons for being an atheist no doubt. However a lot of things are a bit dated. For example he calls it very doubtful wether christ was a historic figure. This was written in a time, when a lot of arguments had been presented that made christs historicity doubtful. But we have progressed a lot since then, and many of the arguments have been successfully refuted. > > I can see now, where you have your arguments from. Very interesting read. Don't take these things as facts though. Natural science and science of history have progressed quite a bit since it was written. > My one source was his essay actually. The first cause counterargument in my first post and christ's historical fact were taken from it. Some other sources were my own knowledge and books issued from my city's library. More sources were taken from an Indian materialism school. That materialism school had theory of five elements which was a bit outdated. > > > All kinds of convictions have a psychological aspect. > > > > A coin is tossed > > 2 results may come out - head or tail > > Elaborate how it is a psychological aspect. > > "All kinds of" is an idiom. It does not have to mean "all", it usually means "many". This was just a side note of little importance, please forget about it. Alright In the end I'd describe how atheism is rational and theism is irrational Assume you are sitting in a library and it is restricted to go its terrace. You go to that library daily. Once a ceiling fan falls. There might be two probabilities behind this accident- 1. Law of motion 2. Someone Until here theism is somehow rational but not more than atheism because if someone caused the accident, he could born with body. Whereas law of motion was apparently perceived and only some irrational people would think god A.K.A. an imagining entity is beyond this accident (It is ofc ludicrous for us :joy:) You would ask who is there ? But nobody replies you. You got a habit of asking daily but still anyone from terrace does not reply. Here you imagine an unseen entity. You pray to your god daily but he never replies you. But you still think he is there. How theism is rational :joy: ? Avoiding sensual perceptions and living in imagination is humorous. Just imagine you travel spain to russia after closing your eyes but truth is you are sitting on a chair and typing on a keyboard This world or nature is eternal because energy or matter is reserved This world or nature is immoral You cannot prove any of god's attribute as we saw in debate earlier because you would say knowing him is impossible. I have my own arguments to disproving the God and calling theism irrational. An answer will be appreciable from you. 1. Religion runs in the family- It is 99% probable that you are follow the religion in your family because that’s what you have been taught right from your birth. You didn’t decide for yourself which is right or which is rational, at least. We all derive the knowledge from our ancestors which has been through the generations but did you know a new born baby has no believe in any religion 2. Common consent- One of the most common facts of people believing in God is that most people believe in HIM, because when a phenomenon is accepted by majority, it must be true, right ? Let’s compare it to slavery now, which was believed to be acceptable back in the times of Lincoln but now is accepted as a faulty practice 3. No growth in religion - When we look at the technological advancements, we realize a decade ago, we had no idea of the existence of the things that we are experiencing right now, for eg even the smartphone I’m typing this answer. Talking of the scientific evolution, can we apply the same thing to God ? No. We are stuck in believing facts that have been in circulation for centuries. If God exists, why are we so vague about His presence ? 4. Morality needs no religion - Most people believe that absence of God and religion would lead to utter chaos leading to immoral acts. But there are enough incidents to prove that Religious people commit immoral acts in the name of God to make their religion look superior. Hypocrisy, eh ? 5. Existence of evil - If theists say that God is noble and good, why do they ignore the existence of evil in the world ? If God loves us so dearly, why should He allow evils to exist ? Why should God allow wars and riots that destroy its own creations ? 6. Inconsistency of religions : Think for yourself. If God exists and He created all men and women equal, why do religions exist which forces people to perceive the same thing so differently? If God existed, wouldn’t He have been bigger ? with more powerful effects on the universe ? You are actually praying to things that we ourselves have built up. 7. The point where science fails : Gods existence is proved by pointing out phenomenon that science can’t explain and hence they are facilitated by God. And why not ? In ancient Greek, Poseidon was believed to be behind earthquakes but is now a scientific activity. It’s not a very convincing fact that our lack of knowledge about the cosmos be a substitute for the existence of a supernatural force. Your bike could be an example of child marriage as well. For an example my dad married in the age of 15. My grandfather married in the age of 12. They would insist me to do the child marriage because it is a practice in past and they ancestors did so. I'm against of any faulty social practice so i would deny and I will break the chain. The same logic goes with God and bike. God was created with humans' imagination for earning the money. But that doesn't mean a logical man wouldn't break the chain -
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
I agree but we have seen how matter is self-cause whereas God is not
No.
We only have cited the scientific consensus that is that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed inside the universe. This is not equal to saying matter causes itself, or energy causes itself. Please stop saying that anything in the world causes itself, because that is just not something that has ever been observed or makes any sense rationally.
The only thing that was observed was that quantum particles seemingly appear without cause. This is not the same as self-cause however.
Did you just forget first law of thermodynamics ?
Do you really think an imagining entity will cause apple to fall on ground ?
E.g. I throw a stone and apple falls on ground
Explain me what causes apple to fall on ground ?
Also explain me how an imaging entity can create energy ?
For first (law of gravity) he should have limbs to do thatLet me give you a modern answer to an old question. Scientists these days have been wondering very deeply what the universe is at the bottom level. What are quantum particales really? The only thing we really know about them (apart from their existence) are their mathematical and statistical properities.
The answer that some scientists give is, that on the very lowest level of reality, the physical world is made up of information.
As you know information is the contents of the mind. Now it is not so hard to imagine anymore how God could have made the world or act in it right? He could simply think it.
But I really want to end the debate about how God could act in the natural world here, because – if He exists – it really makes no sense to wonder how He does things. This is all just a waste of time wether you argue for or against God...
For second which is already self cause makes him already irrational
I think we have said everything that could have been said about the problem of self-cause. I have nothing to add.
Asking yourself why God has put certain laws in place is nonsense, since (if He exists) you cannot possibly understand God's reasoning.
'You cannot know' is not an argument to believe in something who is beyond our perception
I did not say that. It is just an argument against Russels argument, that's all. Not an argument for God's existence.
I was reading interpretion of bible from some website, Your interpretation is very different to that one so it is not my mistake :(
No, it is not your fault. No need to assume, you can simply ask me :blush:
You need to know that basically there is
- the catholic church, which is the oldest and biggest church with the most followers. I am catholic and I do believe that the Lord will not mislead his church in its teachings. Also the catholic church is the one that tries to integrate reason and science into its teachings the most.
- the orthodox churches basically share the same teaching, but their method is not as scientific
- the anglican church who also shares the same teaching, but in recent years has basically left most of its old morality behind
- and then there are 20.000 protestant denominations, who basically originate from Martin Luther's teachings. They all have their own teachings, and you'll find truth as well as the greatest BS if you read their stuff. Its basically meaningless to even throw yourself in there. You'll never reach the end of the discussions of who's right.
So in general you can assume that my source for the catholic teachings is the catechism of the catholic church: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
You will also hear from me my own believes (which to the best of my knowledge do not contradict the cathecism anywhere) and my own arguments.
Also, he will send me in hell if I do some sins. I will not do those sins because I'm afraid of going to hell. Isn't it against free will ?
- People of all ages who believed in God and believed in hell did still sin and also good. So it does not make a practical difference...
- You only go to hell if you do not accept God's mercy. Jesus after all came to save us from hell. Its basically also your free choice.
And last but not least, the catholic teaching about hell is the following: When you die, you see God who is absolute love, peace and joy. You also get to see your own deeds through God's eyes. This is judgement. Then you get His mercy offered to you for the final time. You now have the choice to accept his judgement and his mercy, or say: you have no right to judge me. If you don't accept His mercy, you don't accept Him. This means you will be without Him, which means you will be without love, peace and joy. And being without God, being without anything good (for God is all good) is hell. The love you did not accept burns hotter than you could ever imagine.
Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able ?
Then he is not omnipotent
Is he able, but not willing ?
Then he is malevolent
Is he both able and willing ?
Then whence cometh evil ?
Is he neither able nor willing ?
Then why call him God ?I cannot give you a rational answer, so you are allowed to say, that the following is no answer at all. But this is the catholic doctrine:
God's greatest wish for you is that you love Him. There is no love without free will. It would just be meaningless. Thus for free will to be, you must have the choice to do evil. Evil causes suffering. Willingly accepting suffering is to atone for your sins and for the sins of others (to be more correct it is Christ who atones in you). Thus through accepting suffering you can love God and your neighbour. Also, there is no such thing as love without sacrifice.
As I said this is not a rational answer, but it is the catholic doctrine.
Related Topics
Latest Users
U
S
A
I
E
C
S
M
O
A
T
S
E
M
M
S
M
Z
R
Recent Topics
The Engaging Landscape of Talk With Stranger's Recent Page"
The "Recent" page on Talk With Stranger serves as a hub where users post new content and updates across various topics. It enables members to engage in free chat rooms, share experiences, and reconnect with chat partners. View this post on Tumblr Members can chat in free public chat rooms, share suggested experiences, and join their chat buddies back. When you visit Reddit Chat, then the next thing to do is go through different posts, from finding new friends and random chats to random chat rooms. This allows community members to message, aid and learn from others in a robust, interactive environment. The page encourages an interactive platform by linking between people who really have nothing to link but their willingness for spontaneous interactions around the world.
The Recent Page on TWS Website
Recent page in Talk With Stranger (TWS) can be a static or dynamic place where all users who are looking for recent thoughts, ideas posts and chat with past people. This page serves as a live feed of activity alerts users to new user actions, conversations and chat invitations. The "Recent" page is the core of community-centrism, providing running participation that allows users to quickly participate in free chat rooms and random charlatan index
This page is just as important for new arrivals as it is for users who have been lounging in TWS meta-mall since December, because it captures the pulse of a community. It does not only pin the last posts but also permits followers to respond at lightning speed, either by replying to someone else or starting a new thread.
In this post, we will address the details of how users are active on the Recent page, what types of content they share mostly and how incorporating free chat rooms or random chats level up their experience. In this series we will explore the keywords chat, free chat, chat rooms, free chatroom and random chats at the heart of each of the dynamics that constitute Talk With Stranger.
The Role of the Recent Page: The Catalyst for Live Commerce
The importance of the Recent page on Talk With Stranger cannot be overstated — it serves as a key place where new and previous content can both be discovered and interacted with. This is one such useful page as it displays all the posts in a chronological way which reflects what is really happening on the platform. Whether it be a follow up to the new conversation you just engaged with or ongoing discussions on the topic, there is always something for users to talk about instantly. There are many posts by strangers who want to chat with strangers and talk to strangers online in private stranger chat.
By simplifying the process of connecting, the "Recent" page aims to promote community involvement. Rather than having to go through many areas of the website to locate ongoing conversations or chat rooms, visitors may visit this page and immediately become involved in the most recent exchanges.
Typical post categories on the "Recent" page consist of:
1. Private notes to get in touch with former conversation partners.
2. Requests to join particular chat rooms for talks or games.
3. Queries on a range of subjects, from technical inquiries to life guidance.
4. Friendly salutations or requests to start casual conversations with new users.
TWS makes sure customers don't miss any action by offering a single, user-friendly page, which makes it easier for them to keep informed about current discussions and community developments.
The Foundation of Interaction on Talk With Strangers: Free Chat Rooms
The free chat rooms on Talk With Stranger, which let users text and converse with individuals all around the world, are the center of the community. Because they give users an adaptable and convenient way to meet new people depending on their common interests or needs for impromptu conversation, these chat rooms are an essential feature.
To accommodate a variety of tastes, free chat rooms are separated into several categories. There is something for everyone on TWS, regardless of whether users like the excitement of random talks or would rather join a themed room focused on technology, music, or lighthearted banter. Some chat rooms' randomness enables members to meet individuals from different backgrounds and step outside of their comfort zones.
Common Categories of Free Chat Rooms
1. General Chat Rooms: These rooms provide an informal setting for discussion on any subject. These rooms are great for casual conversations, whether someone wants to share a strange idea or speak about their day.
2. Themed Chat Rooms: A lot of people want to participate in discussions that are tailored to their interests. Users may interact with others who share their interests in relationships, technology, gaming, movies, and other topics by joining themed chat rooms.
3. Random Chat Rooms: One of the TWS platform's most well-liked features is its random chat rooms function. Users are paired with random people in these rooms to have impromptu talks. Random voice chat rooms provide an element of excitement and unpredictability, whether you're wanting to meet someone new or just want to have a surprise conversation.
Random Conversations: A Special Way to Speak With Strangers
One of Talk With Stranger's key features is its random chat feature, which matches users with random people from all around the world. Users never know who they'll be conversing with next because of this feature, which gives the site a sense of surprise and originality.
The popularity of random conversations has increased for a number of reasons:
1. Spontaneity: Random conversations offer a totally unexpected experience, in contrast to other chat platforms where users may join particular groups based on interests. Users who like making new friends or who just want to kill time by striking up a random discussion will find this appealing.
2. Global Reach: Due to the platform's global user base, casual chats frequently result in discussions with individuals from other nations and cultural backgrounds. Because of its diversity, the user experience is enhanced and learning and cultural exchange are made possible.
3. Anonymity: Because TWS random conversations are primarily anonymous, participants are able to express themselves honestly without worrying about disclosing personal information. Because of their anonymity, users may be more at ease and authentic.
The random chat function improves TWS overall by encouraging special and impromptu relationships that would not occur in more formal conversation environments.
Actual Instances of User Engagement on the Recent Page
There is a wide range of active engagement on the Recent page. Users share a variety of content, such as invites to games or group discussions and personal narratives. The "Recent" page can be used in the following typical ways to facilitate connections:
Seeking Former Chat Partners: A lot of people utilize the "Recent" tab to post in an attempt to get in touch with someone they previously spoke with. This is especially typical in situations when participants are chatting randomly and may not have had time to share contact information before the chat ends. As an example, a user could post:
"Searching for the girl who spoke about Harry Potter the day before." Message me if you see this, please!
2. Inviting Users to Join Group chat conversations in group chat rooms: Some users invite others to themed or group conversations by going to the "Recent" page. These entries may provide an overview of the subject matter and an open invitation to participate for everyone who is interested.
"Hi everyone, today we're playing a game of truth or dare in the "Random Fun" chat room. If you're ready for some fun, please feel free to join!
3. Asking queries or advice: Users frequently post queries on TWS in an effort to get advice from other members of the community, which is highly helpful. These might be more serious questions about life, personal recommendations, or suggestions for movies or literature.
"Hey, I need some guidance on how to deal with a challenging circumstance at work. I'd be delighted to hear your opinions!
4. Sharing Personal tales: Users can also share tales or personal experiences with the community on the site. These posts frequently start conversations and bring people together via similar experiences.
"So, last night I had this strange dream. Just curious if anyone else has had something like it." Let's talk about weird dreams!
The community is kept alive and active by the diversity of involvement, which guarantees that there is always something fresh going on the "Recent" tab.
The Influence of Inclusive and Anonymity in Free Chat Rooms
Talk With Stranger's dedication to anonymity is one of its best features. Because sharing personal information is not mandatory, users are able to converse openly and without fear of repercussion. Those who might be reluctant or bashful to express their opinions in more conventional social settings will find this option very intriguing.
Additionally, anonymity creates a level playing field by removing prejudices and preconceptions from interactions between people from different backgrounds. It promotes candid and open discussion since users may voice their opinions without worrying about the consequences.
The website is also quite inclusive, providing free chat rooms that accommodate a wide variety of hobbies and backgrounds. You'll discover a room that works for you whether you want to play games, have in-depth philosophical discussions, or just chat about music.
How to Use the "Recent" Page and Navigate It
New users may easily navigate the "Recent" page.When you log in to the site, the website transforms into a live feed featuring the most recent posts. Here's a little tutorial to help you make the most of it:
1. Look for interesting topics. To see the most recent posts, navigate to the "Recent" page, which is often updated.
2. Post Your Own Message: All it takes to initiate a discussion or pose a query is to make a post. This area can be used for asking for guidance, inviting others to join a discussion, or sharing a thought with the group.
3. React to Others: One of the simplest ways to participate in the community is to reply to other users' postings. Reacting to postings, whether by giving counsel or just jumping into a conversation, promotes deep ties.
4. Invite People to Chat Rooms: You are welcome to publish an invitation on the "Recent" tab if you would want to start a chat room or if you have a particular one in mind. This is a fantastic method to get like-minded people together for games or conversations in groups.
The Significance of Community Engagement and Feedback
Initiating discussions is only one aspect of engagement on the "Recent" tab; community members' feedback and interactions are equally crucial. Feedback can come in a variety of forms, such as answers to queries, supportive comments during conversations, or even helpful critique.
Promoting Positive Criticism
1. Establishing a Safe Space for Sharing: It's critical to have an environment that is encouraging when people offer feedback. Constructive criticism promotes users' confidence in voicing their thoughts, which might result in more in-depth conversations.
2. Encourage Active Listening: Active listening is necessary for participating in discussions on the "Recent" page. Before replying, users should carefully read the posts made by others. This exercise aids in creating pertinent responses that significantly advance the current conversations.
3. Acknowledging Contributions: It's critical for other community members to recognize the insightful viewpoints and helpful counsel that others have shared. To help people feel appreciated, a brief "Thank you" or a more thorough answer might be quite beneficial.
Activities to Foster Community
Community contact is essential for Talk With Stranger to flourish, and the "Recent" page acts as a spark for a variety of community-building events. In addition to maintaining user engagement, these activities help participants form enduring relationships.
Games and Tasks for Groups
By using the postings on the "Recent" tab, a lot of users take the initiative to set up challenges or group activities. These exercises, which encourage cooperation and healthy competition, might be anything from quiz contests to creative writing assignments.
1. Trivia Nights: Users can suggest a trivia night and extend an invitation to others to attend. In order to ensure that everyone may participate, regardless of knowledge level, questions can cover a variety of topics.
2. Creative Writing Challenges: People who love to write in the community often organize writing contests in which participants are required to come up with short tales in response to suggestions. This encourages creativity and gives individuals a platform to demonstrate their writing abilities.
3. Collaborative Projects: people may work together on projects, including starting a blog or community newsletter using content from different people. Everyone feels more invested in the community and more engaged as a result of this team effort.
The Value of Restraint and Safety Procedures
Despite the typically warm and inviting attitude on Talk With Stranger, it's critical to have policies in place that safeguard users and promote a constructive environment. Moderators are employed by the site and are vital in maintaining civil and entertaining interactions for all users.
1. Active Monitoring: Moderators keep an eye out for improper conduct or content on the "Recent" page and in other chat rooms. Their presence guarantees that users feel secure interacting with others and helps discourage bad interactions.
2. Giving users more power: Users are urged to help keep the group honest by sharing any questionable behavior. We can make sure that everyone is responsible for making the workplace nice if we all work together.
4. Educational Initiatives: Another area of the community's concentration is instructing individuals on safe online behavior. A safer environment is achieved by consistently reminding people of the value of preserving personal information and having polite conversations.
Establishing Consistency in Building Trust
Any community needs trust, and developing that trust requires patience and steady work. Users may cultivate trust through their interactions and communication dependability on the "Recent" page.
1. Consistency in Engagement: Engaging in conversations on a regular basis contributes to building a presence in the community. Those who often offer insightful commentary and assistance are likely to establish lasting bonds with one another.
2. Keep Your Words: Users must keep their word when they agree to join a group chat or take part in an activity. Reliability in keeping promises sustains credibility and entices people to interact with you.
3. Transparency in aims: Establishing rapport during discussions can be facilitated by being forthright about one's aims. Clear communication creates a trustworthy atmosphere, whether one is looking for companionship, guidance, or just a good conversation.
Individual Development via Community Involvement
Talk With Stranger conversations offer chances for self development in addition to social connection. Through networking with a variety of people, users may broaden their views and improve their social skills.
1. Improved Communication Skills: Having talks on a daily basis helps users improve their communication skills, making it easier for them to express their thoughts and actively listen to others.
2. Broadened views: Engaging with others from different backgrounds exposes people to a range of countries, ways of life, and views. Having this exposure may increase one's understanding and empathy.
3. Enhanced Confidence: Taking part in discussions, particularly random ones, may give people a boost in confidence. Users could grow more at ease expressing themselves in real and online contexts over time.
The Future of Virtual Communication: Chat Community Trends
The community's ideals and interests are reflected in the content that people have contributed on the "Recent" page. This user-generated content, which ranges from artistic creations to personal narratives, acts as a mirror to the users' varied viewpoints and experiences.
By identifying what appeals to users most, analyzing this content may provide light on the community's collective identity, promote a feeling of community, and inspire others to share their perspectives.
Future developments in technology and user behavior will probably have an impact on Talk With Stranger and other similar services as online communication continues to change. Users' interactions with one another might be influenced by innovations including more individualized chat experiences, AI-driven moderation, and improved privacy options.
Communities will also need to change in response to the increasing desire for inclusiveness and diversity in order to continue being welcome places for people looking to connect and have a discussion.
Concluding Remarks on Engagement Techniques
Here are some last ideas to keep in mind while customers explore the ever-changing "Recent" page to improve their experience:
1. Remain Curious: Enter into discussions with an open mind. Deeper relationships might result from posing questions and demonstrating an interest in the experiences of others.
2. Be Respectful: Regardless of the outcome of a discussion, always show others respect. It is possible to avoid misunderstandings and create a pleasant environment by acting with respect.
3. Promote Inclusive: Try to interact with users who could come out as more reserved or uninvolved. Encouraging everyone to participate contributes to the development of a well-rounded community.
Users may enhance their own and others' experiences on Talk With Stranger by adhering to these rules and helping to create a vibrant and encouraging community.
Summary
Talk With Stranger's "Recent" tab is a hive of activity where people publish updates, participate in free chat rooms, and exchange content with one another. People come together to engage in real-time interaction in this melting pot of concepts, feelings, and relationships. The page's lively interaction demonstrates the platform's function as a global discussion center, making it a fun location to make new friends and get in touch with existing ones.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS)
Q1: What does the Talk With Strangers "Recent" page entail?
Answer: Users may share their most recent updates, re-connect with others, and have discussions in free chat rooms and sporadic chat sessions on the "Recent" part of the website.
Q2: How do TWS free chat rooms operate?
Answer: Users may join or establish free chat rooms to converse on a variety of topics without having to pay anything. Everyone is welcome to use these rooms, which encourage impromptu conversations.
Q3. Is it possible to locate particular people on the "Recent" page?
Answer: A lot of people do post on the "Recent" tab in an attempt to get in touch with someone they spoke with before. Users can use this function to look up friends or conversation partners from past sessions.
Q4: Is there no cost to utilize Talk With Stranger?
Answer: Users do not need to pay to access random conversations, free chat rooms, and other services on the site.
Q5: What kinds of subjects are covered on TWS?
Answer: A broad variety of subjects are discussed by users, such as dating, movies, technology, life guidance, and more.
Conclusion
The "Recent" tab on the Talk With Stranger platform embodies the spirit of contemporary internet conversation. TWS creates an atmosphere where community members feel linked even when they are geographically separated by providing a place where users may participate in random conversations, have free chat sessions, and post updates. The platform provides a dynamic and varied area to satisfy your social requirements, whether you're looking for a brief chat or a deeper conversation.
Recent Posts
-
helloooooooo?
-
😂😂😂 It's like saying we play basketball and I am the referee hahaha stfu plz you made me laugh seriously .
You should learn how to debate with the people, TM. A constructive debate always has rules. It is not your public chat where you can abuse or assert to write essays to shut my mouth up. You should not participate in a debate if you disagree with the rules on the first place. A debate is not a sport nor it is played, make common sense.
I replied on each and every false thing you said with links and evidence from the Quraan and sunna ..
What if I considered The Koran as legitimate source ? I will show why it does not change the argument. But ofc this will be mine last reply to you as you disqualified to yourself and I do not have time to answer what you write further. You always write what you want to and interpret any verse without citing a single weblink.
now you don't wanna accept it
Now or always ? It is written in the topic initially. Apparently, you did not bother to read the rules
Treatment to disbelievers -
"˹Remember, O Prophet,˺ when your Lord revealed to the angels, “I am with you. So make the believers stand firm. I will cast horror into the hearts of the disbelievers. So strike their necks and strike their fingertips.”
"This is because they defied Allah and His Messenger. And whoever defies Allah and His Messenger, then ˹know that˺ Allah is surely severe in punishment."(8:12-13)Source - https://quran.com/8?startingVerse=12 (this is how someone writes if they have to post a source; they do not just write (8:12-13)). This is what a weblink is.
"So when you meet the disbelievers ˹in battle˺, strike ˹their˺ necks until you have thoroughly subdued them, then bind them firmly. Later ˹free them either as˺ an act of grace or by ransom until the war comes to an end. So will it be. Had Allah willed, He ˹Himself˺ could have inflicted punishment on them. But He does ˹this only to˺ test some of you by means of others. And those who are martyred in the cause of Allah,1 He will never render their deeds void."
Source - https://quran.com/47?startingVerse=4
Public lashing of fornicators -
"As for female and male fornicators, give each of them one hundred lashes,1 and do not let pity for them make you lenient in ˹enforcing˺ the law of Allah, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a number of believers witness their punishment." (24:2)
Source - https://quran.com/24/2
Beating women -
That verse is already mentioned in the wikipedia link I posted first. You failed to counter-argue after making 14 record posts. You did not even care to quote it. You brought your own assertions and then you tell me what I wrote is false.
Also, the contradictory verses were written in the same webpage. You failed to even quote them as well.
evidence from the Quraan
You cannot even spell Koran/Quran correctly and you read it five times. Huh ?
A forum like this https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/topics/extraterrestrial-intelligence is enough for you to think aliens exist.
You failed to counter-argue over the conclusion of NCBI research -
Conclusion: Saudi girls attain menarcheal age earlier than their mothers, reflecting a downward secular trend in menarcheal age.
So, Mother's puberty age > Daughter's puberty age. In Ayesha's time, it was around 15.74. Do the math with Cuzick test for trend (0.049).
-
@Zack-Williamson I replied on each and every false thing you said with links and evidence from the Quraan and sunna now you don't wanna accept it ... it's up to you but for me it's more than enough whether you like to read it or not . Thank you 👋
-
@Zack-Williamson 😂😂😂 It's like saying we play basketball and I am the referee hahaha stfu plz you made me laugh seriously .
-
@ODIN said in Can Islam really teach ethics to anyone ? Think again.:
I understand your point, perhaps you have learned alot from different legit sources about islam and koran itself.
The reference links of the page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Quran#Notes
Ibn Ishaq is different legit source ? Every islamic work depends on him. In fact, he was the first guy who wrote biography on Muhammad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq
And you came to conclude about how intolerant the quran and islam is toward women and other religions. Thats a good step toward knowing the truth about islamic religion.
The proof is always backed up by evidence. It is very simple to say I have thousand ants in my cupboard. If I tell this to everyone, almost 100% people will ask for the evidence. They are not going to believe me. When people opened my cupboard and recorded the video and showed it to me, I tell them you get to know cupboard does not have any ant. Different sources describe it has ants.
If you wont mind perhaps i would share how i understand islam, koran and different sources describing about this religion
I do mind this. When I mind this, I don't want you to teach me.
Talking about Quran and intolerence toward woman and other religions, in my point of view, i find Koran is actually shows us how blessed woman is in many ways.
The Quran, the holy book of Islam, indicates that both men and women are spiritually equal. The Quran states: "Those who do good, whether male or female, and have faith will enter Paradise and will never be wronged; even as much as the speck on a date stone."BTW I said all people to argue with evidence otherwise you will be disqualified. Read the rule 2. I am not gonna answer any of your reply.
And fight in Allah’s way those who fight you, but do not commit aggression—Allah does not love the aggressors...Surah al-Baqarah
And kill them wherever you overtake them, and expel them from where they have expelled you. Oppression is more severe than murder. But do not fight them at the Sacred Sanctuary, unless they fight you there. If they fight you, then kill them—such is the payback for the unbelievers.
MUSLIMS SHALL ONLY FIGHT WHEB OPRESSED AND PUSHED BY VIOLENCE FRON THIER HOMELAND FOR OPRESSION IS MORE SEVERE THAN MURDER AS ALLAH SAID.Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. MUSLIMS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ATTACK THOSE WHO DO NOT ATTACK THEM BUT ONLY TO FIGHT BACK OR PREPARE FOR A FIGHT IN A WAR OR GHAZWA WHICH MEANS INVADING THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO INVADE US OR WILLONG TO PUSH US OUT OF OUR HOME AND FIGHT US IN OUR RELIGION .
You too violated rule 2 multiple times. As I have already said, don't assert without evidence. I am not gonna answer this. Proof by assertion is a fallacy in logic. Your other arguments contain a forum link which is not an encylopedia nor a individual research website so I dismiss your all arguments. I do not want to read them. I just did read blue letters aka links.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion#:~:text=Proof by assertion%2C sometimes informally,regardless of contradiction and refutation.
-
(You cannot cite an unauthentic website especially which lacks any reference. Encylopedias and research websites bring more weightage of evidence to other websites. Do not assert w/o evidence.) Islamic sources has islamic content isn't that a simple common sense thing for you to understand ? Lol Wiki and Encyclo are more general content that provide answers to those who wanna read the titles before going in depth analysis and main sources . THANK U .
-
(You cannot abuse anyone. People who abuse, lack rational arguments. You cannot argue like this) replying to this : THAT WAS NOT AN ARGUMENT BUY A JOKE LOL YOU CUT OFF ALL THE PREVIOUS ARGUMENT ON WHICH YOU SURRENDERED AND AGREED TO AISHA HIT THE PUBERTY AND WAS CAPABLE OF MARRIAGE ! BUT YOU SIMPLY NEEEEED TO BRING ANYTHING YOU CAN TO SHOW THAT U ARE ARGUING WHILE I HAD NO LOGICAL REPLY TO FEEL LIKE A WINNER . THAT'S WHAT LOSERS USUALLY DO. NEXT TIME BRING LESS SHIT FOR ME TO WHIPE OFF AND MORE RATIONAL POINTS TO ARGUE ABOUT .
-
The median age of puberty is declining in Saudi Arabia, so it means the median age of Saudi Arabian's girls' for puberty was higher than now. It was 11 to 14 between 2006 to 2012. Replying to this : THE ANSWER OF THIS CLAIM IS IN UR LINK ... U JUST REFUSE TO READ OR YOU ARE BLIND TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THE COMPONENTS OF UR OWN LINK !!!
-
Who can teach us ethics ? The one who himself married, 6 years old Saudi Arabian girl Aishah and slept with her when she was 9 years old ? Or the one who had 13 wives ? : 3) And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hands possess [i.e., slaves]. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice]. And give the women [upon marriage] their [bridal] gifts[161] graciously. But if they give up willingly to you anything of it, then take it in satisfaction and ease.[162] And do not give the weak-minded your property,[163] which Allāh has made a means of sustenance for you, but provide for them with it and clothe them and speak to them words of appropriate kindness.(6) And test the orphans [in their abilities] until they reach marriageable age. Then if you perceive in them sound judgement, release their property to them. And do not consume it excessively and quickly, [anticipating] that they will grow up. And whoever, [when acting as guardian], is self-sufficient should refrain [from taking a fee]; and whoever is poor - let him take according to what is acceptable. Then when you release their property to them, bring witnesses upon them. And sufficient is Allāh as Accountant.
AS YOU CAN SEE ALLAH HAS FORBIDDEN MARRIAGE BEFORE THE PROPER MARRIAGEABLE AGE ( PUBERTY) SO THE PROPHET DID NOT HAD SEX WITH HER BEFORE SHE HIT PUBERTY OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE SEEN ANY SIDE EFFECTS TO SUCH ( RAPE OR SHAMEFUL ACT ) AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO THINK .
-
(Who can teach us ethics ? The one who himself married, 6 years old Saudi Arabian girl Aishah and slept with her when she was 9 years old ? Or the one who had 13 wives ?) Replying to this :https://islambasics.com/chapter/preislam-polygamy/
-
(I do not think I have to prove that they are not the words of God because it contains a lot of contradictions, absurdities, inconsistencies, errors already. God would not commit such mistakes like humans since he is supposed to be an intelligent being.) ALLAH indeed is the almighty superior creator and this claim of yours has a perfect reply in the quraan : (46) So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts. Indeed a blinded heart is the cause of all sickness that's why the minds can't see the deep connection between the verses for they are blinded by their sick desires and weak soul that is eager to live here forever and thinks their will be no return to Allah after death : Then did you think that We created you uselessly and that to Us you would not be returned?" ...
-
(People who think Quran is the word of God, also think that humans cannot decide what ethics are and only their holy book can decide them) Replying to this : And it is He who produced you from a single being, then a repository, then a depository. We have detailed the revelations for people who UNDERSTAND. Unfortunately the english dictionary cannot 100% reflect the meanings of words such as " تتفكرون ، تعقلون ، تفقهون ، تتقون ، تنظرون " All those words encourages the human being to Think , contemplate , understand , comprehend , see ( mindfully ) rationalize etc... all such words are mentioned in Quraan as Allah mentioned in soura Al-Baqara (53): And [recall] when We gave Moses the Scripture and criterion that perhaps you would be guided. As you can read the word GUIDED is the main reason for why the revelations were revealed to the prophets . The Quraan and Bible and Taorat and Zabor and Abraham's scriptures all are for guidence for us humans، to rise spiritually, psychologically and mentally and build a chain of ethics and social laws to be helped and saved . This is the path of Allah that we should follow with obedience or otherwise Satan will take over our will and heart and lead us to perish then go with him to hell .
-
( In the Koran and Islam, you can see the umpteen amount of intolerance towards women and other religions.) Replying to this : Surah al-Baqarah
190. And fight in Allah’s way those who fight you, but do not commit aggression—Allah does not love the aggressors...Surah al-Baqarah
191. And kill them wherever you overtake them, and expel them from where they have expelled you. Oppression is more severe than murder. But do not fight them at the Sacred Sanctuary, unless they fight you there. If they fight you, then kill them—such is the payback for the unbelievers.
MUSLIMS SHALL ONLY FIGHT WHEB OPRESSED AND PUSHED BY VIOLENCE FRON THIER HOMELAND FOR OPRESSION IS MORE SEVERE THAN MURDER AS ALLAH SAID.
-
(In the Koran and Islam, you can see the umpteen amount of intolerance towards women and other religions) replying to this : Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. MUSLIMS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ATTACK THOSE WHO DO NOT ATTACK THEM BUT ONLY TO FIGHT BACK OR PREPARE FOR A FIGHT IN A WAR OR GHAZWA WHICH MEANS INVADING THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO INVADE US OR WILLONG TO PUSH US OUT OF OUR HOME AND FIGHT US IN OUR RELIGION .
-
(In the Koran and Islam, you can see the umpteen amount of intolerance towards women and other religions.)... Replying to this : Al noor 2 .The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment. EQUALITY IN PUNISHMENT FOR COMMITING ADULTERY .
-
(In the Koran and Islam, you can see the umpteen amount of intolerance towards women and other religions)... Replying to this : Al-Ahzāb: (35) Indeed, the Muslim men and Muslim women, the believing men and believing women, the obedient men and obedient women, the truthful men and truthful women, the patient men and patient women, the humble men and humble women, the charitable men and charitable women, the fasting men and fasting women, the men who guard their private parts and the women who do so, and the men who remember Allāh often and the women who do so - for them Allāh has prepared forgiveness and a great reward. NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN AS ALLAH MENTION THEM BOTH EQUALLY .
-
In the Koran and Islam, you can see the umpteen amount of intolerance towards women and other religions
Replying to this : "O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste." Prophet mohammad words before he died in the farewell seremon . https://atida.org/forums/node/2587
-
It is very cowardly to cut my words and offer only the words that I was laughing at lol I'm coming to reply .
-
Talking about Quran and intolerence toward woman and other religions, in my point of view, i find Koran is actually shows us how blessed woman is in many ways.
The Quran, the holy book of Islam, indicates that both men and women are spiritually equal. The Quran states: "Those who do good, whether male or female, and have faith will enter Paradise and will never be wronged; even as much as the speck on a date stone."
-
Iron Within Meteorites
According to M.E. Walrath, iron is not an element that was naturally present on Earth. Studies suggest that a billion years ago, a meteorite struck Earth. This meteorite had iron on it, and when it exploded after coming in contact with our planet, Earth got iron. This scientific fact in Quran is stated in passage 57:25 as “we sent down iron with its great inherent strength and its many benefits for humankind”.
-
Embryology
Embryology is a branch of biology concerned with the study of fertilization and embryo development. The central religious text, at one point, talks about embryology and states a significant scientific fact in Quran. It says, “We created man from an extract of clay. Then we made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then we made the drop into an Alaqah (blood clot), then we made the Alaqah into a Mudghah…” (Quran 23:12-14)Here the word ‘Alaqah’ can be defined as a leech, blood clot, or something suspended in the air. According to science, a foetus gets nutrients and oxygen from the mother. In this sense, it is not unlike a leech that sucks blood. Also, in the early stages, the foetus stays stationary and the blood does not flow, which renders it similar to a blood clot. Lastly, in the womb, the baby hangs from the uterus wall by the placenta and lies suspended.
Engaging Popular Topics and Daily Topics in Online Chatrooms
Online chatrooms have given rise to an animated platform, the beauty of which is that people can freely express their views on an infinite number of topics. This makes the chatrooms more appealing than ever. There are many aspects of the popular topics in the chat where people come to share their thoughts, ask questions, or even just talk, whether it is about daily life, fun, issues relating to people, or even news. No matter how quickly the world changes, and how fast paced the world of the internet becomes. These chatrooms make it possible for that ever-new wave of active discussions to take place, ensuring that there are new daily topics on which people will talk. Free chat with other strangers and make new friends online on Talk With Stranger by talking to strangers.
Specifically, in this article, we will look at the most common popular topics and the typical daily topics that sustain chatrooms and their relevance to users worldwide. This guide is designed to walk you through the focus areas that attract the greatest interest and where exactly in today’s reality, they have chatrooms turned into a melting pot of relations based on the commonality of interests. Chat online today on TWS (TalkWithStranger) free chat sites.
The Appeal of Popular Topics Available in Chatrooms
Interesting features include the extensive range of interesting topics available, which appeal to many people, in the chat rooms. Users on such platforms log in to participate in various topics. It includes news, entertainment, and personal life issues where one seeks advice. The interesting thing about these services is that they are very flexible. One can look for a particular chat room for a particular interest or just join general conversations on everydayevery day topics that are suitable to most members.
What Brings People’s Attention to Popular Topics?
Many factors make certain topics interesting in chat rooms:
-
Users’ temptations: There is a tendency among users to love taking part in topics that appeal to them the most. This could go like my favorite sport, my best friend, my way of life, etc.
-
Topics that grab people’s attention: Such topics would be politics, maternal care, and discussions of trends that are of the moment, the amount of response generated is always impressive.
-
Communication: It is often the case that many people from different walks of life have something in common in terms of subjects of interest. Chat rooms provide the perfect medium for enhancing the attainment of the objective given the chances of being supportive.
Popular Topics: Chat Room Examples
Some topics tend to be focused on in chat rooms every time. The topics include:
-
Entertainment: Most of the time, some topics revolve around movies, television shows, music, or video games. It could be an advertisement for the most recent movie or a review of the music tabs. One thing that is guaranteed is that entertainment is always booming.
-
Personal Relationships: Most of the time chat rooms are used to air relationship challenges, seek assistance, or even share very amusing dating experiences.
-
Health and Wellness: Most people seek participation in chat rooms from textbooks or fitness programs for sporting or health advice. Members will often share information concerning the different aspects of healthy living.
-
Hobbies and Interests: Chat rooms are great for passionate individuals to unite and talk about photography, trips, or gaming.
The Dynamic Nature of Daily Topics
While popular topics help users join conversations, it is the daily topics that engage users in chat rooms that are activerooms active and interesting all the time. These conversations tend to be more relaxed and light-hearted. They enable users to log in every day and have something to say without feeling overwhelmed by the need to give a detailed response. These daily topics are also particularly useful in helping people form social bonds over ordinary daily enterprises.
How Daily Topics Maintain Interest in Chatrooms
Daily topics are introduced in every chat room to enhance user interaction in each room. These topics revolve around something going on in the current and global environment. Users can share how their day is going, offeringgoing offering their thoughts about any holiday or other memorable day. This strategy I believe aids in making the members active and hence making them wish to come back to the room more often.
Common Types of Daily Topics on Free Chat sites
-
Daily Check-Ins: It’s common in most chat rooms to find a thread titled “How’s your day” where individuals post what has been happening to them.
-
Current Events: A hot talk is a topic that arises from breaking news the most popular politics of the day or a hot global issue.
-
Personal Milestones: Users like to express their achievements, presenting such events as a successful promotion, a new relationship, or losing extra weight.
-
Lighthearted Fun: Coveted daily trivia and other everyday topics encourage users to take their time and look for lighthearted and funny themes.
The Change in Trends in Chats and Subjects in Chatrooms
With the advancement in technology, so do the topics in the chat room. Most people talk about the same things over the internet, like entertainment, relationships, health and so other aspects that are popular with the majority. The chat rooms of today are such that members are as likely to engage in understanding tech advancements and sharing thoughts on cryptocurrency and responsible living as much as they do about fetishes and lifestyle fads.
-
Trending Popular Topics in Modern Chatrooms
There has been the development of popular topics in chat rooms, especially with the emergence of social media and the quick spread of information. Some of these niches that are becoming increasingly popular in chat rooms include:
-
Tech and Gadgets: Since the technology era is ever getting advanced, some users just can never stay in a room without chatting about the most recent devices and applications thatapplications, that are revolutionizing the world today.
-
Sustainability: Now more than ever, many people are conscious of environmental concerns and chat rooms are also more about modern living, climate, and sustainability as well.
-
Cryptocurrency and Blockchain: Many are still catching up with the crypto world and as the market for cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum continues to grow. Many chat rooms center around the same helping users provide areas where they can talk about the latest in crypto, and even help investors time the market.
Integrating New Trends
It is one of the outstanding virtues of the chatrooms to incorporate new trends that come up. As new interests develop, chatrooms tend to adopt these changes by adding fresh popular topics that occupy users and keep the subject of the platforms. These trends in popular culture allow abandoning the claim that chat rooms in the modern world no longer have any reason to exist.
Inclusion of Popular Topics and Daily Topics in Building Community
Every active chatroom seems to be vigorous mostly due to the sense of community residing in it. Users do not simply engage in conversations; they relate with persons who have common interests with them. Popular topics become the points where users can strive to begin making conversations while daily topics aim to make the chat rooms more engaging and colorful.
Importance Of Popular Topics In Relating Users
Beginning from the fact that users in a chat room engage in certain popular topics quite frequently, certain bonds start forming. This can either be as a result of a common favorite show or advice given on personal stuff, these talks create an aspect of closeness and attachment among the members.
How Moderators Influence the Nature of Popular Topics
Moderators help scrutinize and enhance what is being talked about in the chat rooms. They keep the closure with users by topping and pinning some hot topics to avoid unnecessary diversion from the subject of discussion.
The Influence of Trending Topics on the Traffic of Chat Rooms
The variation of popular topics is one of the features that is responsible for the constant return by users to the chat rooms. Some topics, once they become popular, are known to draw an even bigger audience and hence create a lot of movement into the platform. This is particularly true of chatrooms which are mostly focused on current discussions concerning trends that are fascinating enough to pitch a large number of people to walk in and join in the talk that is actively going on.
User-Generated Content and Its Effects on the Popular Daily Topics
The nature of all the user-generated content is also one of the things that appeals more to popular topics. The main weakness which traditional media hosts is that it is very rare and poorly structured by active participants which are the members and audiences of free chat rooms. This therefore explains why popular topics are referred to as fluid and flexible to the will and wishes of people.
Some of the most common user-generated popular topics that have been known to attract traffic include:
-
Live Event Discussions: Large events containing competitions like sports, award ceremonies, and others, are all great topics because they usually attract large numbers of users to chat rooms to discuss these events as they are happening.
-
Viral Challenges and Trends: It could be an internet challenge, a viral meme, videos, or animations; chatrooms are channels that enable users to engage and talk about such trends.
-
Advice Columns: It is no news that threads and discussions seeking to offer or request advice on matters of relationships, career choices, and even health are some of the most actively participated areas in chatrooms from their popular circles.
How Chatrooms Evolve Around Daily Topics
As time goes by, chatrooms change in their structure and contents. This is because the trends and preferences of the users also change over time. Daily topics are essential as they keep chatrooms functional as a channel of instant communication. These days, most of the chatrooms are adding up new technologies and features to meet the increasing expectation of instant communication.
The Rise of Real-Time Interactions
With social media being the key to communication, chatrooms also adopted a real-time interaction facility that allows users to participate in a conversation that has already commenced. Daily topics such as current affairs, news, or what is trending at that time can be used for such calls for discussions. This is the essence of immediacy and it is arguably why people would want to participate and interact with other people.
Mobile Chatrooms and Their Social Aspects
Mobile devices dominate the internet today and chatrooms have adapted their systems to this trend. The change has had a notable effect on the way people consume the questions of the day and interact with them. It is now possible for users to get into chatrooms from any location which ensures that conversations about questions of the day remain ongoing and current in real time.
Some of the factors that have contributed to the emergence of mobile chatrooms include:
-
Push Notifications: Additionally, notifications will notify users about a daily topic of interest that has been posted and will enhance user engagement.
-
Instant Messaging Features: For instance due to social mobile app chatrooms incorporating messaging features instant messaging features make convenient discussions around daily topics easier.
Popular Topics and Niche Communities
While most chatrooms deal with broad-based popular topics that capture thousands and thousands of users’ interest, the same cannot be said of niche communities which constitute an integral part of the chatroom ecosystem. Usually, people cluster in small groups with specific topics or interests that are more specific than just the broad original topic. It could be a fan club dedicated to this or that serial or the IT trends. These focus communities allow their users to address such a trend in more detail rather than attract a wider audience.
Why Niche Popular Topics Are So Trending Today
Niche popular topics are on the rise owing to how different chatrooms can cater to the individual user’s needs. As users are looking for more focused content, such specific forums enable discussions that are not just skin-deep. This approach effectively sustains user interest by allowing them to interact with those who share their interests and have different spheres of passion.
Some other examples of niche popular topics are:
-
Science and Fantasy Fiction: Chatrooms that are dedicated to everything from the latest picture books and motion pictures to fan artfanart creation.
-
DIY And Crafting: These boards help people exchange tips, tutorials, and projects and form a constructive activity-oriented community.
-
Fitness And Wellness: In recent years niche forums focused on fitness training, meal plans, and mental health discussions have become quite popular as well.
The Future of Popular Topics and Daily Topics
Popular topics as well as daily topics will always be at the center of interaction by the users. The competition for live and engaging content has been fuelled as many more lounges introduce real-time elements. This transformation brought to light the relevance of chatrooms in bridging the gap between physically distant people while engaging and maintaining the chat as to the current needs of internet users.
An Overview of How AI and Automation Boost Popular Topics
With the growth of AI technology, it has become common to see chatrooms coming up with more automated features to contain conversations that revolve around trending topics. For instance, with the use of AI, most chatrooms can now predict the topics that will be relevant at a certain time and recommend which threads to place or which subjects to discuss. Not only does this improve the experience of the users, but also it keeps the discussions being talked about new and more active than at any other time in history.
Some AI-driven strategies that help maintain popular topics include:
-
Intelligent Topic Recommendations: When users feel at ease sharing topics with others, they call upon popularity prediction strategies, which are employed by AI algorithms seeking user trends and behavior toward potential arguments within the community.
-
Moderation: As more users join the chatrooms, particularly due to topics of the day or interest, there is a need to create and maintain a positive ambiance in the chatroom. Chat moderation tools based on AI will keep out inappropriate content during the day to ensure that topics remain respectful.
Gamification and User Rewards for Engaging in Daily Topics
Chatrooms are looking for ways to attract users’ attention towards the daily topics, thus, trying to include gamification features in topics. These features include but are not limited to, awarding users with points, badges, and leaderboards to individuals who contribute some reasonable discussions daily to increase and retain users. This makes chatting fun and encourages participation in all activities of the chat community.
Key gamification elements observed in contemporary chatrooms include:
-
Star Contribution Leaderboards: Top contributors of the day for these topics are displayed.
-
Badges: Users are rewarded with virtual badges for inverting or contributing in to hot debatable subjects.
-
Exclusive Education: The best users are allowed to participate in special sections of the website’s top level based on their activity.
Predicting the Next Upsurge of Popular Topics
Both the chatroom administrators as well as the users constantly seek future prevailing subjects. If it is a burning social issue, new technology, or entertainment, being able to do so is precisely what may bolster the attractiveness of chatrooms to their users. Persistent growth in the volume and activity of these audiences will be experienced by those resources that promptly create therapeutic forums for trending topics.
Most Popular Chatroom Topics That Will Certainly Emerge In the Future:
-
Sustainable Living and Eco-Friendly Practices: With the increasing global awareness of climate change, there will be a shift in the direction that chat room discussions will focus on sustainable living. They will focus mainly on sharing ideas, and materials, and talking about ways of living sustainably.
-
Blockchain and Cryptocurrency: The technology of blockchain and the whole trend of cryptocurrency is still likely to be an ever-enticing subject among fellow forum members.
-
Mental Health and Well-Being: As the world continues to focus on mental health issues, there will be more and more discussion forums on the sources of the problems self-care, and support which will be a very popular subject
Conclusion
The reason many chat rooms are still being used is because there are always interesting issues and current topics. It is through these conversations that users can interact with each other and share their experiences and people even establish relationships. Busy discussing current trends in newscasts, participating in comparative analysis of the newest dramas, or just posting their most important events, chat rooms have finally emerged as a hub for almost everyone who goes online. Talk to strangers in free chat rooms online without registration and meet new people and make new friends in anonymous text chat rooms as well as voice chat with random people and video chatrooms online. Talk With Stranger gives you access to thousands of free chat sites and free chat apps where you can talk to strangers and chat with strangers online without making any account. You can also make audio calls to strangers and phone call strangers online and chat free with random people.
A popular topic serves as a lure for a majority of newcomers, while a daily topic prevents the conversation from going stale. They constitute the keystones of a new order where the peripheral theoretical boundary actively exists as users all over the world converge, interact, and seek connection.
The landscape of chat rooms is very broad, rapidly changing, and accurately represents the current level of interest of the users. No matter whether you want to participate in discussions about popular matters around the world or express your opinion concerning other topics of the current day, a random chatroom like TalkWithStranger represents a great opportunity to stay in touch with diverse people.