This section is online for reference only. No new content will be added. no deletion either...
Go to Current Forums ...with millions of posts
     | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 05:08 am DEATH The Righteous will die, and the wicked will die ... The warriors who fight jihaad will die, and those who sit at home will die ... Those who busy themselves with correct belief will die, and those who treat the people as their slaves will die ... The brave who reject injustice will die, and the cowards who seek to cling onto this life at any price will die ... The people of great concern and lofty goals will die, and the wretched people who live only for cheap enjoyment will die ... Every soul shall taste of death ... - from the book 'DEATH' by Shaykh 'Ali Hasan al-Halabi
|
| | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 08:56 am Amina Sis it is all so true!!!!!!!!!! may allah guide us! Aamiin!!!!!!!
|
| | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 01:14 pm THE DEATH OF THE PEOPLE OF HELL By the Exemplary Scholar, Imaam Aboo Zakariyyaa Yahyaa Ibn Sharaf an-Nawawee WILL ANYONE DIE IN HELL? Is there any saheeh hadeeth to that effect or not? If it is true, then what is the nature of this death, and to whom will it happen? It was reported in Saheeh Muslim that Aboo Sa’eed al-Khudree (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: "The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘As for the people of Hell, they are its inhabitants, and they neither live therein nor die. But there are people who will enter Hell because of their sins – or mistakes – so Allaah will cause them to die once, then when they become like coal, He will give permission for intercession (for them). They will be brought group by group to the rivers of Paradise. Then it will be said: "O people of Paradise! Pour water on them." Then they will grow like seeds (i.e., the seeds of herbs and aromatic plants, or it was said, small plants that grow in between grasses, or it may mean wheat).’" The scholars said: "What is meant by the people of Hell are its kaafir inhabitants, who will never come out of it and never die at all. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): "But those who disbelieve (in the Oneness of Allaah), for them will be the Fire of Hell. Neither will it have a complete killing effect on them so that they die, nor shall its torment be lightened for them. Thus do We requite every disbeliever!" [Faatir 35:36] As for the sinners among those who believe in the Oneness of Allaah, those who have committed major sins (kabaa’ir), they will be punished in accordance with the degree of their sins for a period decreed by Allaah, then they will die a lesser death such that they no longer feel anything, for a period decreed by Allaah. Then they will be brought out dead, turned into coals and carried like luggage, and they will be thrown into the rivers of Paradise and the water of life will be poured over them. Then they will grow, like wheat at first, but quickly, like herbs. Then they will get stronger and be fully formed, and will be taken to their homes in Paradise. And Allaah knows best. abledg@hotmail.com
|
| | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 02:12 pm Amina You just gave me depression! May Allah be nasty to you and the Halabi fella as well! Ugh!!
|
| | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 05:13 pm Galool you disgust me
|
| | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 06:08 pm this is a message to Galool. No one is here to depress one another. A Muslim is a brother to another muslim. As the propher (salallahu alayhi wa-sallam)said: that the Muslims are like one building. Each brick suppoting the other. IF YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN CREATED FOR ANYTHING THAN WORSHIPING THE CREATOR WHO IS SUSTAINING YOU AND ME, HOW CAN YOU FEEL "Ugh!!" AGAINST YOUR OWN MUSLIM SISTER WHO IS TRYING TO REMIND US? as Allah said in suratul Baqarah,(2:152) "Therefor remember Me (by praying, glorifying...) I will remember you and be greatful to Me (for My coutless favors on you) and never reject this faith." In another hadeeth, the prophet (sallallahu alyhi wasallam) said: "Allah sais: I am just as my slave thinks I am, (i.e I am able to do for him what he thinks i can do for him) and I am with him if he remembers Me. If he remembers Me in himself, I too remember him in myself; if he remembers me in a qroup of people, I too remember him in a group that is better that them;...) [al-Bukharee vol 9: #502] your brother in Islam Abu Ayyub abledg@hotmail.com
|
| | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 07:22 pm Just for Galool :-) Hey,no need to feel depressed my adorable awoow:-)or should I say big-bro? or Abti? or Adheer? Tell me, which one? As long as you repent before the death-rattle appears in your throat (i.e., before death is imminent), and before the sun rises in the West [one of the major Signs of the Day of Judgement], tthen you will insha Allah be ok, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever repents before the death rattle reaches his throat, Allaah will accept it from him" (reported by Ahmad and al-Tirmidhi, Saheeh al-Jaami’, 6132) Galool, I hope the following will lift the depression. The Muslim Repents and Turns Back to Allah: From Abu Sa'eed al-Khudree (radiyallaahu 'anhu) who said that Allaah's Messenger said: The example of the believer with regards to eemaan is like the example of a horse with regards to its tethering stake; it roams around and then returns to its tethering stake, and the believer is negligent and then he turns to his eemaan. So feed the pious with your food and treat the believers well. Reported by Ahmad (3/38,55) Hadeeth qudsi: "O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and put your hope in Me, I will forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, if your sins were to reach the clouds of the sky, and you were to ask me for forgiveness, I will forgive you and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, if you were to come to Me with sins nearly the size of the earth, and you were to meet Me not associating anything with Me, then I would bring you forgiveness nearly the size of (the earth)." (Reported by al-Tirmidhi; Saheeh al-Jaami’, 4338). Abu Moosa reported that the Prophet(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to recite the following du’aa: "Oh Allaah, forgive me for my sin. My ignorance and my transgression (in keeping my duty to You), and whatever You know about me better than I do. O Allaah, forgive me for sins committed in earnest and in jest, by mistake and deliberately, and I have done all of that. O Allaah, forgive me for what I have done in the past and what I will do in the future, what I have done in secret and what I have done openly, and whatever You know about me better than I do. You are the One Who raises and lowers people’s status, and You are Able to do all things)." (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 5919, and Muslim, 4896. This version reported by Muslim).
|
| | Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 02:16 am TLG and Abu Ayuub, Maa-sha-allah, jazakouma allah kuul kheer. Galool has a brilliant mind, he is not that far from getting there. He is pretty pretty close from enjoying the fruits of Al-Fardus, insha-allah :-)
|
| | Friday, December 08, 2000 - 04:30 am Galool Bro, walaahay my intention was not depress you but rather to remind all of us about death. Remembering death is key to destroying our desires in this world. My Allag guide us all and make us of the faiziin, those who are successful both in this world and the hereafter inshaAllah!  And Allah Knows Best!
|
| | Friday, December 08, 2000 - 10:35 am TLG You can call me anything you want, young one. Ina abti would be nice, after Ramadan (and only when my wife is not watching!) Idea I hate fruit. I am a carnivore. Are camel steaks served in al-Fardus? I have been eating nothing but veggie samosas (thanks to my wife's 'Healthy fasting' Ramadan) over the last ten days. Amina What about losers? Are they not human beings deserving of 'success'? Where is the empathy for the weak? the Idea of `Faaiziin' seems to have come from Adam Smith's ugliest dreams. As to my worldly desires, ramadan is doing very well thank you.
|
| | Friday, December 08, 2000 - 11:52 am Galool, funny how you suddenly have a wife!!! Did you think TLG is trying to hit on you? TLG, sista, tell him you are not interest in someone with shaky beleif please...sister, u might consider Asad or common or FG...or I dunno if Asad or FG are available but common seems to be in your league.
|
| | Friday, December 08, 2000 - 03:54 pm Anon Have mercy on the girl. I mean asad!? He will immediately discover loads of "discrepancies" in her, quote unquote her and then cut and paste her! As for me, not only do I have a wife, she is black belt in one of those kick and scream thingies - so please don't put me in trouble.
|
| | Friday, December 08, 2000 - 04:56 pm Anon: please don't act like a 12 year old trapped in the body of an adult. People like you that hide behind "anons" are a pain in the rear end. I can't wait for the day Somalinet will introduce a system to keep your likes off this forums by introducing mandatory user names. Galool...lol that was funny. But don't close the market for the brother, i mean any girl that reads this will sprint.
|
| | Friday, December 08, 2000 - 05:52 pm Assalam alykum wa-rahmetullahi wa-barakatuhu. Brothers the main thing why this folder was made is not to come and argue. It is to remember Allah. Suratul Mu'minun [1-7] SUCCESSFUL INDEED ARE THE BELIEVERS. whose who offer their Salaat with all solemnity and full sumissivness. And those who turn away from Al-Laghw (dirty, false, evil vain talk, falshood and all the Allah has forbidden). And those who pay the Zakat. And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts). Except their wives or that their right hand posess,-then they are free from blame. But whoever seeks beyond that then those are the transgressors. So inshallah lets not waste our pressus time arguing and spend it benefiting eachother and showing example for the kuffar. your brother in Islam, Abu Ayyub NOTE: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED TAPE TO LISTEN. "3 Points Concerning Dissobediance to Allah" http://www.troid.org/new/audio/ibnhaadee/ibnhaadee.htm abledg@hotmail.com
|
| | Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 12:07 am TLG. Assalaamu caleykum. I don't think the sister meant any harm. Although you didn't like what she said, you could look at why she said instead. Galool. Asad is a nice guy as far as I could read his writings and you should respect the guy while he is absent and not here. Yur comment was unsomali if nothing else.
|
| | Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 02:12 am Optimist No harm was intended. It was a joke and asad has always proven to be man enough to take a joke. I am sure he will laugh at it. And anyway, he said he is interested in earth-bound females. The guy is looking forward to a whole battalion of Hour-al-ain in the next life!
|
| | Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 02:24 am Abu-ayub ..Wal xaafidiina wal xaafidaati furuujahunna!? ...Wamaa malakat aymaanahum? Allah's words?Interesting. Hold these for me till after Ramadan, will you?
|
| | Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 04:08 am why are ypoui waiting after ramadan. You question market after Allah's word , why? I have this thinking you are married to a somali lady, is that true Galool?
|
| | Sunday, December 10, 2000 - 07:45 am GALOOL---AS AN ATHEIST AND SINCE THE MENTION OF DEATH BRINGS DEPRESSION ON YOU, DO YOU FEAR WHAT MAY HAPPEN TO YOU AFTER DEATH (WHAT IS PROMISED FOR THE ATHEISTS IN THE HEREAFTER) OR DO YOU FEAR AND HATE THE LEAVING OF THIS WORLD? DO YOU WISH THAT YOU LIVED IN THIS WORLD FOREVER?
|
| | Sunday, December 10, 2000 - 09:55 pm ANON: why are undercover? the forums misses u :-)
|
| | Monday, December 11, 2000 - 07:28 am  Galool walaalo i don't know what ur on. I am hoping that your trying to spread some humour although i don't get it. But i really hope that the disrespect your displaying is a part of a very stupid joke. 'coz' this cannot be the attitude of a muslim. Furthermore, if u don't like my postings, u know what you can be doing- ignore them and plzz don't try to have a dialogue with me- i have no time for negativity and don't really wanna start disrespecting anyone. OK. Consider this a warning!! As for losers and successful ppl, well as far as i know it is the wish of every human being to become successful, that is a natural HUMAN instict. (YOU MAY choose to be different!!) AND YEZ YOU WILL DIE weather you like it or NOT!! Peace
|
| | Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 05:58 pm Amina Walaalo thanks for the reminder and just ignore Galool he is an arrogant athiest.
|
| | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 03:48 pm What about me? I am an "atheist" but not particularly arrogant (I think)--Yes, death depresses me, but that's because I don't believe there is anything after death (I think the idea of an "after-life" is a fairytale that humanity--in its infancy--concocted and is having a hard time letting go of). But I also think other people have a right to their own opinions, wrong-headed as they may seem BTW, since I know everyone is going to accuse me of being an "outsider": I am a Somali...really I am 
|
| | Friday, January 12, 2001 - 08:07 am Pragmaticgaal, i think, I think, I think, I think, what is your proof that there is no life after death.
|
| | Friday, January 12, 2001 - 09:47 am Salama... Pragma: I know you're going to reverse the question you were put on your desk. But, let me intervene before you answered or try to shoot it back to that sister's question in reverse. Only observe, as an atheist you may seem, 'one' of the nature around you. Did the trees die in Winter time? I know what you are going to say. However, I am letting you to explain it. _______________________ Mac-Salaama!!
|
| | Friday, January 12, 2001 - 02:29 pm Arawllo--I think too. You're the one claiming that there's life after death. YOU prove it. There is no way to disprove something so vague and hard to verify. Can you prove that I don't have blue eyes if I tell you I only have them when others aren't around? And there are no cameras? and you are not allowed to use any device to help you acertain my assertion? Ultimately, that's what belief in an afterlife is: something impossible to proof, but must be taken as fact. MMW: You knew i was going to ask her to prove her belief that theres life after death. Smart boy. "Did the trees die in Winter time?" Which trees?--evergreen trees (ex. fir) don't "die" in the winter, that's why they are called "evergreen" trees. A tree that has adapted to year-long summers (say, a Saharan cactus) would probably die if taken to say, Alaska. It's death would be permanent and unequivocal. Trees such as pine don't die either, they lose their leaves in the winter, and then grow them back. They lose their leaves because they stop maintaining them, since they are of no use during dark winter months. But the tree itself is very much alive. So what's your point.
|
| | Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 01:06 pm <Arawllo--I think too. You're the one claiming that there's life after death. YOU prove it. There is no way to disprove something so vague and hard to verify.> In critical thinking, just because you can't prove the existence of something does not mean that the entity does not exist. It is a fallacy to make such an assertion. The fact that you can't disprove it leaves you with two options: either rely on FAITH and accept its existence or not argue that it does not exist (since you can't prove its non-existance). A few years ago, if we argued life cannot exist on Mars, we would have looked like fools. <Can you prove that I don't have blue eyes if I tell you I only have them when others aren't around? And there are no cameras? and you are not allowed to use any device to help you acertain my assertion?> This argument is flawed. You are comparing apples and oranges. Before I take this argument apart, can you tell us what the purpose of life is? <Ultimately, that's what belief in an afterlife is: something impossible to proof, but must be taken as fact.> The burden of proof is not on the one claiming its existance but the one denying it. <Which trees?--evergreen trees (ex. fir) don't "die" in the winter, that's why they are called "evergreen" trees.> Actually, this is a lil misleading. All trees die (as all living things) whether they are evergreen or not. The "evergreen" denotes that they retain green leaves year round. Again, all living things die at one point or another. BTW, I like the user name. Pragmaticgal: One that views matters from a practical point of view! Welcome to the Forum.
|
| | Monday, January 15, 2001 - 11:30 am Trauntlabgirl: <In critical thinking, just because you can't prove the existence of something does not mean that the entity does not exist. It is a fallacy to make such an assertion. The fact that you can't disprove it leaves you with two options: either rely on FAITH and accept its existence or not argue that it does not exist (since you can't prove its non-existance).> You are right--except that in science, you can't make an untestable claim and expect to be taken seriously. If you want to say something factually meaningful, it must be testable. Saying there is life after death is not testable, ergo it's not worth making claims about it. But if we are talking about FAITH, then I still stand by my assertion: I don't belief there's life after death. And besides, I am to believe in life after death because it's not possible to disprove it? Is this a variation of Pascal's Wager? Whether or not there ever was life on Mars is testable, whether or not there's life after death is not. My argument was just to point out one thing: if there is ABSOLUTELY no way to prove something, then by the standards of "critical thinking", it's not logical to make claims about it: like saying there is an afterlife (impossible to prove), and then also saying what the afterlife is going to be like (who goes to hell or heaven). Like if I said: "my impossible to see blue eyes have flecks of gold and green in them" :-) <Before I take this argument apart, can you tell us what the purpose of life is?> I'm always a little puzzled by this question: what exactly do you mean by "the purpose of life"? If you mean personally, what YOU are supposed to do, then I can't really answer that for you--only you can decide what to make of your life. But if you mean you and I, and everyone else all the way to plants and bacteria, then I would recommend Richard Dawkins' "Selfish Gene". He suggests we are just the disposable machines of our genes, which are only interested in reproducing themselves. It's quite a fascinating--albeit often unnerving--read. <<Which trees?--evergreen trees (ex. fir) don't "die" in the winter, that's why they are called "evergreen" trees.> Actually, this is a lil misleading. All trees die (as all living things) whether they are evergreen or not. The "evergreen" denotes that they retain green leaves year round.> Actually your understanding is a lil deficient: If you re-read my post, I think it would be clear that I meant year-to-year (I said "don't die in the WINTER" ) , and that I am quite aware that trees--and all living things--die. Although I have doubts about that in some instances. BTW, I like your user name too, although it's not nearly as obvious as mine: perhaps you have an aversion to science labs? Thank you for welcoming me.
|
| | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 11:39 am Salama... Pragm.: "God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! God doth guide whom He will to His Light: God doth set forth Parables for men: and God doth know all things." {Quranka Kariimka 24:35} No wonder a whole Surah had been devoted to Light; and will you then know its importance. __________________________________ Look around you. Observe yourself. See how your environment was produced. Aha, I am tired to hear it is "mother-nature." It is that mother-nature caused all of those, how insensible. Why not observe and analyse your body, how it works, how it co-operates, how it relates to one another. And, yet, nothing extra is 'unneeded' or is superfluous. I am sure this majestic art is produced by 'something,' and that something is not 'mother-blah-yada-nature." It is atheist's wish that to call anything that strikes is behind by this 'mother-nature' thing. Oh, perhaps, mother-nature is a 'token' of God? Because, now they may believe it, because that is something beyond their {and your} imagination to grasp but admittingly confessed that there is some 'force' behind it. "Now have come to you from your Lord proofs to open your eyes: if any will see, it will be for (the good of) his own soul; if any will be blind it will be to his own (harm): I am not (here) to watch over your doings." {The Glorious Qur’an 6:104} I want you to function your little small {if you don't thank its Creator, Him Forbid} brain to ponder and pay a 'little' heed those excerpts from Harun Yaxya's book: _______________________________ Take a look around you from where you sit. You will notice that everything in the room is ‘made’: the walls, the upholstery, the ceiling, the chair where you sit, the book you hold in your hand, the glass on the table and countless other details. None of them happen to exist in your room of their own accord. Even the simple loops of the carpet were made by someone: they did not appear spontaneously or by chance. A person who is about to read a book knows that it has been written by an author for a specific reason. It would not even occur to him that this book might have come into being by chance. In the same manner, a person who sees a sculpture has no doubt whatsoever that it was made by a sculptor. And not just works of art: even a few bricks resting on top of one another make one think that they must have been brought to rest just so by someone within a certain plan. Therefore, everywhere where there is an order – either small or big – a founder and protector of this order must also exist. If, one day, somebody came forward and said that raw iron and coal came together to form steel by chance, which in turn constructed the Eiffel Tower again by chance, would not he and those who believed him be regarded as insane? The claim of the theory of evolution, the unique method of denying the existence of Allah, is no different than this. According to the theory, inorganic molecules formed amino acids by chance, amino acids formed proteins by chance, and finally proteins formed living creatures again by chance. However, the probability of a living creature being formed by coincidence is less than the probability of the Eiffel Tower being formed in the same manner, because even the simplest human cell is more sophisticated than any man-made structure in the world. How is it possible to think that the balance in the world came about by coincidence when the extraordinary harmony of nature is observable even with the naked eye? It is the most unreasonable claim to say that the universe, each point of which suggests the existence of its Creator, has come into being on its own. Therefore, there should be an owner of the balance visible everywhere from our body to the farthest corners of the inconceivably vast universe. So, who is this Creator that ordained everything so subtly and created all? He cannot be any material being present within the universe, because His must be a will that existed before the universe and created the universe thereupon. The Almighty Creator is One Whom everything finds existence, yet Whose existence is without any beginning or end. Religion teaches us the identity of our Creator Whose existence we discover with our reason. Through what He has revealed to us as religion, we know that He is Allah, the Compassionate and the Merciful, Who created the heavens and the earth from nothing. Although most people have the capability to grasp this fact, they spend their lives unaware of it. When they look at a landscape painting, they wonder who its painter is. Later, they praise the artist at length for his beautiful work of art. Despite the fact that they face numerous originals of that painting the moment they turn around, they still disregard the existence of Allah, Who is the only owner of all these beauties. In truth, not even a lengthy research is needed to understand the existence of Allah. Even if one had to live in a room from the time he was born, countless pieces of evidence in this room alone would be enough for him to grasp the existence of Allah. The human body so overflows with evidence that it could not be contained in many multi-volumed encyclopaedias. Even giving a few minutes of conscientious thought to it all is enough to understand the existence of Allah. The present order is protected by Allah and maintained by Him. The human body is not the only food for thought. Life abides in every square millimetre of the earth, be it observable by men or not. The world overflows with many living beings, from unicellular organisms to plants, from insects to sea animals, and from birds to human beings. If you take a handful of soil and look at it, even therein you can discover manifold living creatures with diverse characteristics. The same is true also for the air you breathe. Even on your skin, there are many living creatures whose names are unknown to you. In the intestines of all living beings are millions of bacteria or unicellular organisms that help digestion. The animal population in the world is many times greater than the human population. When we also consider the plant world, we see that there is not a single spot on the earth where there is no life. All of these creatures that are spread over an area of millions of square kilometres have different body systems, different lives and different contributions to the ecological balance. It is preposterous to claim that all these have come into existence by chance with no aim or purpose. No living being has come to exist through its own accord or effort. No coincidental happening can ever result in such complicated systems. All of this evidence leads us to the conclusion that the universe works with a certain ‘consciousness’. What, then, is the source of this consciousness? Surely it is neither the living nor the non-living beings in it. Nor can they be the ones that maintain the harmony and preserve the order. The existence and glory of Allah reveals itself in countless proofs in the universe. In fact, there is not even a single man on the earth who will not accept this evident reality from the heart. Yet they still deny it ‘in iniquity and arrogance though their souls are convinced thereof’ as stated in the Qur'an. (Surat an-Naml, 14) This book is written to point out this reality from which some people turn away because of its being at odds with their interests, and also to disclose the frauds and senseless deductions on which some untrue allegations stand. This is why many diverse subjects are tackled in the book. Those who read this book will once more see the indisputable evidence of Allah's existence and witness that Allah's existence encompasses all things: the ‘reason’ knows this. Just as He has created this all-pervading order, He is the One Who also maintains it incessantly. ____________________________ Again, open your eyes to the Light: ____________________________ Everyday you wake up to a new day. Getting out of bed, you wash your face, prepare and, most probably, rush somewhere. Like everyone else, you, too, hasten not to be late to school or work and soon find yourself engrossed with everyday routines. In the rapid flow of the day, in school or at work, you struggle to learn something or to meet a deadline, and in the blink of an eye, you notice that it has almost become evening. When you arrive home in the evening, you do your daily housework. Sometimes, just for a change, you visit your friends, go to movies and then return home to sleep. The next morning you start the same vicious circle all over again. During these daily routines, is it possible that you remain indifferent to other important things in life? In the daily rush of your life, is it possible that you forget, don't notice or pretend not to grasp some important things? The answer of almost everyone should be "Yes." Because the majority of people fail to think or wonder about many details pertaining to their lives. You can start by thinking the following: While you are in your room reading this book, are you aware that some astonishing incidents are happening? For instance, have you ever thought that you are now moving at 1,670 kilometres an hour through space? Alternatively, have you ever thought that the room you are in right now occupies a tiny space in the universe, just as if it were a dust particle? Or, are you, as a human being – the only being endowed with the faculty of thinking – aware of the perfect order existing in the universe? There are surely hundreds of similar questions you could ask yourself. The purpose in mentioning these questions is to unveil – albeit slightly – the covering over the human mind, which is already obscured by daily tasks, and help to expand its horizons. Our intention here is to reflect on some crucial issues. Now, consider the following: "What is the significance of these questions for my life? Is it really important to think about them while I have hundreds of things to accomplish? My final examinations… the meeting that will be held in late afternoon… don't they have priority?" These thoughts reflect a common mistake many people make. No doubt, plans pertaining to one's education, home or future are important. Yet there are some issues which are more important. Primarily, a person should reflect on the purpose of his existence in this world, on what exists beyond this life, on how this magnificent planet on which he lives came into existence, and on who is the Creator of all living things, including him. If one thinks earnestly without pretending not to grasp the facts one comes across, one would arrive at a single conclusion: In the immense universe, an astonishing variety of plants and animals, all beings – animate or inanimate – and more importantly man himself, are parts of the flawless creation of Allah, the Almighty. Man doesn't see his Creator, yet, pondering on the countless pieces of evidence surrounding him will make him comprehend Allah's existence and His attributes. In his efforts, his sincerity will provide him with a way to understanding his Creator's commandments and the ways to attaining His good pleasure. Allah relates in the Qur'an: "Eyesight cannot perceive Him but He perceives eyesight. He is the All-Penetrating, the All-Aware. Clear insights have come to you from your Lord. Whoever sees clearly, does so to his own benefit. Whoever is blind, it is to his own detriment. I am not here as your keeper." (Surat al-An'am: 103-104) You also reflect on this fact and never pretend you don't grasp the superior creation of Allah. __________________________________ Mac-Salaama...Yaa Muslims!!
|
| | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 03:58 pm Good evening everyone, M-W-M-W: You wrote: <It is that mother-nature caused all of those, how insensible. Why not observe and analyse your body, how it works, how it co-operates, how it relates to one another. And, yet, nothing extra is 'unneeded' or is superfluous.> If I thought to take your posting seriously, the above comment quickly make me realize what a waste of time that is: You think nothing in the human body is "unneeded" or superfluous? Well, you're wrong: the appendix is superfluous--it serves the function of processing cellulose from grass in cows and horses, but humans--who can't break down cellulose for energy--have no need of an appendix. Actually, it may be a liability as so many who have suffered the painful condition of appendicitis would attest. In biological circles, it's known as a rudimentary organ, an once useful structure that has become obsolete, but is not detrimental enough to be selected against. Oops, another evidence for evolution. Another interesting rudimentary characteristic is the pelvis of some snakes. As you MIGHT know, snakes don't walk--so why a pelvis? Well, it turns out that snake ancestors--long long ago--walked. Then they evolved and lost their legs, but it just hasn't been enough time to lose a somewhat neutral characteristic like a pelvis. Other examples include the panda's thumb (read Stephen Jay Gould's book by that name for more details). As for how well the body cooperates with itself, obviously you have never suffered from rheumatism, asthma, or any autoimmune disease, in which the body's defense against pathogens accidently turns against it. And cancer is a condition in which a few cells ghoulishly divide out of control, without realizing that they should be "co-operating" as God made them to: cellular free will perhaps? YOur posting show that you're speaking from a very simplistic knowledge of nature and biology, as if you were stuck in the sixth century, as the Qur'an obviously is! By the way, why is it that people can't see God with their own eyes? Don't give me that BS about God being too bright or exalted or whatever: if God wanted to, he could have created us with better eyesight, could he not? So why does God rely on this strange entity called "faith"? Why not make it abundantly clear that he exists, say by striking down any who dare to doubt him (like me) instantly? For that matter, why create people who he knows will question his existence? Why doesn't he just create people who are going to believe him? If God wants people to worship him, all he has to do is drop by the local Mosque, or Church, or Synagogue, and personally thank everybody for coming, and remind him of his new book "I am Here", due out next Friday (or Sunday, or Saturday). Why did God keep appearing practically every other day before written history, but never now? Has he taken a sabbatical? Died? Or maybe he never existed to begin with. Muhammed says, "I am the last of the Prophets, and the Qur'an is the final revelation". He also instructs his followers to pray for him constantly, and to love him more dearly than they do their own parents. He cannot be doubted. Henceforth, any one claiming to be a prophet is obviously lying, and true believers cannot deviate from his teachings. The Qur'an is in Arabic, and it must be in Arabic to be considered The Qur'an (in prayer for example). Consequently, non-Arabs admire the Arabic language and Arabs get another jolt of much-needed reverance: their dress is copied, their speech, their customs and beliefs. Non-Arab Muslims side with them in disputes, and prefer to leave the decision-making to them. Does anybody see all this business about the Qur'an, the Last Messanger, and God, as just that--business? I do. If we are to believe that God has created organisms in their present form, why give them organs they don't need (like our appendix)? Is this God experimenting? And why do species go extinct? Is God unaware of which species can survive, and if he is, why create one's that can't? You know what, all your article did is show me how you, and others like you, are absymally ignorant about even what you so forcefully deny. I am talking about science and, particularly, evolution. You and Harun Yaxya are basically arguing that EVOLUTION is impossible because BOOKS and BUILDINGS cannot arise by chance. It's mind-boggling. Let me give you a slighly better idea of what's meant by evolution and natural selection: One of the consistently misanderstood points of evolution is that LIFE DOES NOT ARISE ALL OF A SUDDEN, OR IN IT'S PRESENT FORM! I cannot stress that enough: What evolution says is that mutation produces random variation, and then natural selection acts on this variation, over very long periods of time. Natural selection simply means individuals survive and reproduce differentially, depending on how well they are able to interact with the environment. For example, imagine a group of animals, say beavers, that are more or less the same except that a few are--by chance--resistant to the rabies virus. These resistant beavers are not remarkable in any other way, or they may even be at a disadvantage. Imagine that our beavers are not that many in number, and that they are somewhat isolated from other beaver populations--maybe there are mountains separating them from beavers in the next valley. Then imagine that rabies is introduced to the population, either through another beaver or through other carrier species. Now, most of the beavers will die except those few individuals who were resistant (and one or two others who were lucky). These few will have more food to themselves, they will reproduce exponentially until they run out of food, and then the population will now consist of mostly resistant beavers, happily doing whatever it is that beavers do--that is, until the next catastrophe. Anyone can see that this happens in nature, and even in humans (for example, the trait for sickle-cell anemia). So, now we have mutation, which is random, and natural selection, which is NOT random: over long periods of time our beavers, isolated from other beavers, with a slighly different environment and exposed to different pressures, will continue to change and adapt. Given enough time, these beavers will be different enough from our original beavers, and beavers in the next valley, that they may be considered different species altogether. Now the question is, has God created these new species? __________________________________________________
|
| | Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 03:42 am Pragmaticgal When you find out that answer you will not like your environment. You see pragmaticgal, what you are saying is that mother nature is very intelligent, eternal, allways gets dices in the right order to win, Funny. Evolution remains a theory not a fact, go see how they reconcile new findings in Ethiopia that has shaken their stupid theory. Instead of looking at similarities in creatures as the work of a single superbeing, you explain it as a process where lifeless matter got together by chance, formed a simple cell by chance, those cells grouped to form a simplified organism, by chance, and it continues. So this posting that I am writing will find its way to your computer by chance, no switches, cables, fibers, software, hardware, administration, it is by chance, a plane flies, finds its destination, keeps the altitude, stays away from other planes, all those indicators have no purpose, they were put there by chance, natural selection, cuz the plane needs it,. The Monalisa evolved from older wall painings in mesapotamia, or the Aztecs, it was all evolution. After one billion more years, we will evolve to be a head , we will no longer need limbs, cuz, everything will be done by artificial intelligence, all we need is command and control. So one of these heads went to this bar an started to drink a lot of liquer. To the amazement of the bar tender, when he had his first drink, his torso popped out, another drink, and his leggs popped out, untill he had all his limbs. He became excited, and drunk, he went out to the street to enjoy feeling like a primitive man like you today, but he was hit by a head-moving train and he died. The bar tender came out and said , "He shoulda quit when he was A-Head" LOL You are indeed the simplistic person in this argument, cuz you do not seem to look beyound your nose. Your argument is based on the fact that there is no purpose in life, we came here by chance, and we die by chance, there is no justice, no judgement day, no God, no soul, or spirit, what you can not see do not exist. Once a Russian athiest teacher teaching athiesm in a school lifted his pen and asked the kids " do you see this pen, they said "yes" "this pen exists he said" "Do you see God" he asked " NO" replied the kids " God does not exist" he said One of the kids asked the same questions, but instead of God he asked " do you see the intelligence of our teacher" The kids said " NO" " The teacher is stupid" the Kid said. Stop making your business to deny the existence of the very one who created you.
|
| | Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:49 am Salama...Yaa Muslims Pragm.: It is more illusion to believe a mere dryness bone that was said it is millions, if not billions, years old. How easy it is for its blindness faith to believe that! Aha, don't tell me mother-nature had led you to believe it. How deceiving that you were evolved from a 'fish,' if you are not one of it now. Try not to tell me that was ape or gorilla the ones you were evolved from. Darwin sure did believe all the animals--including the fishes--were but one. ___________________________ We have the Quran its pure language, unadultered ones, uncorrupted since it was formed, thus to alter is the simplicity is the example how corruptness the Bible had became--that is why the Quraanka Kariimka must be in caRABIc, see even that there is in that word itself the word Rabi--and there is no coincidence to be a miracle enough of that. Your own ignorance to prejudice, you wrote: "By the way, why is it that people can't see God with their own eyes?" Aha. Of course, since we believe the Quraanka Kariimka the infallible Word of Allah, and the answer will be as clear as a lucid star. Allah directly and the likeness of you answers--the Qureesh, they were more stuborn than you. More adamant to stick their 'sub-gods' faith than your nothing beliefness. And this verse that is going to answer your question is basicly meant to be dealed the likeness of you: "Their parable is like the parable of one who kindled a fire but when it had illumined all around him, Allah too away their light, and left them in utter darkness-- they do not see." [2.17] "The followers of the Book ask you to bring down to them a book from heaven; so indeed they DEMANDED of Musa a greater THING than that, for they said: Show us Allah MANIFESTLY; so the lightning overtook them on account of their injustice. Then they took the calf (for a god), after clear signs had come to them, but We pardoned this; and We gave to Musa clear authority." [4.153] Why Allah wants us to be in a Masjid? To us, Muslims, everywhere is a Masaajid, be it in our homes or in our offices or even on the streets. But, as we are but one single brotherhood, we do have to show our community and careness, our concern, our brotherhood, our love for the sake of Allah alone. If we pray alone, it is good, but if we pray practically together it is better, because it shows how powerful it is that we are standing in front of the Mighty, and yet still we are all the offsprings of Aaden and Xaawa. We are all brethrens, and that is our compassion toward to one other. You are obvious judging your own judgement based on the consequence of the Christian Church; Islam and Christianity has nothing in common, since it is a lost 'faith' and no where do its adherants practise what they were required to do. "Why do we have to follow Muxamad {S.C.W.}, the language of the Quran, caRABIc, and his customs?" The Quran commands us to follow our beloved prophet as best as we can; as emulated as we try; as examples of the best as to be. He {Muxamad, s.c.w.} is the best person ever risen from mankind, the rightly guided. His, thus, examples should be valued. We should follow his practises because Allah {S.W.C.} himself had chosen him to be his vehicle of the Message. We have, thus, to love him more than our family, friends, or any other person. He speaks the Truth. The Truth, hence, should be shined above all. He didn't claim this for the fame of himself; he was absolutely hated to be more honoured than a fellow humble man, but Allah chose him and told us to love him more than ourselves. And we rest our case there, undisputedly. And concerning caRABIc, it is pure, the simplistic, and, yet, unaltered language of our Holy Quran; howsoever, you atheists, polytheists, pantheists, etc, try to disconnect us that we do have one single Book in a one single language format. Again, as I said earlier, we do not need translation. It is enough that pure sounding caRABIc language is enough for our satisfaction. A person who lives a remote village in Indonesia can clearly understand and pray together with a fellow brother who inhabits the desert of Mauritania. And that is no miracle, only a majestic preserved Quran in its core and pure language produced and made that possible--Alxamdulillah!!!! "Regarding why wouldn't Allah punish the people like you? Allah the Most High made it clear, so clear that you would even admit it that you do have a free limited choice. You do have a 'free-will.' And that is all what is behind your sickening opinion you are presenting here. Without that free will, we wouldn't discuss anything at all. Free will is what separates the faithful from the other. And try not to say that because I am that mighty, intelligent that I shouldn't be punished. Allah {S.W.C.} told us that Fircoon has more pride than you do. He was more arrogant than any other person. And we do know what that lead to. Was his final vowing to admit the existtence of the Sustainer led anywhere: Noooooooooo!! ___________________________ Well, I am sure that you'd let me to show you some few points: Place yourself in the terror of Titanic tragedy. Imagine you were one of those fellow men and women and children who were so scarely tried to escape that disaster. "Would you have no fear?" Of course, I am sure you will. "But, to whom are your terrors fearing from?" The mother-nature, or the material of this life. Or perhaps, to die. Noo!! There is no after-life. You shouldn't fear at all. You should not tremble at all. There is no punishment, but why this fear. Don't try to deceive your heart at this moment that you wouldn't feel the terror in that ship at all. No fear. No nothing. It was going to be like any other day. "Is this what you are thinking this moment?" To be not fear. Oh, com' on, you are misleading your POUNCING heart now. And you have but one 'heart.' You couldn't fool it. You couldn't warm or pressure it while you do not want the way you don't. No. That is your soul. Your soul doesn't want to stand the Reckoning Day. It is fearing itself for its own destruction for not believing its Creator. __________________________ Mac-Salaama!!
|
| | Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 12:13 pm Salama...Yaa Muslims Pragm.: To continue to answer this question: ""Regarding why wouldn't Allah punish the people like you?" Here is your answers: "And when We said to the angels: Make obeisance to Adam they did obeisance, but Iblis (did it not). He refused and he was proud, and he was one of the unbelievers." {2.34} See, in the presence of the Mighty Allah {S.W.C.} Ibliis is using his account--vis. his free-will. He did destruct himself, though. See, he was so pride as though he considered himself to be the Creator. How arrogant was he. See, nothing would it bring to see the Majestic Light of Allah {Him forbid} by having with your own arrogance. It had been spoken about your atheistic view: "And his wealth was destroyed; so he began to wring his hands for what he had spent on it, while it lay, having fallen down upon its roofs, and he said: Ah me! would that I had not associated anyone with my Lord." {18.42} That is a person like you. The likeness of you is that what you had made forward is fruitless and eventually destroys yourself. Again: "And the Book shall be placed, then you will see the guilty fearing from what is in it, and they will say: Ah! woe to us! what a Book is this! it does not omit a small one nor a great one, but numbers them (all); and what they had done they shall find present (there); and your Lord does not deal unjustly with anyone." {18.49} Ah, how beautiful it sounds that last laugh. Again: "And whomsoever Allah guides, he is the follower of the right way, and whomsoever He causes to err, you shall not find for him guardians besides Him; and We will gather them together on the day of resurrection on their faces, blind and dumb and deaf; their abode is hell; whenever it becomes allayed We will add to their burning." {17.97} Again: "And the parable of those who disbelieve is as the parable of one who calls out to that which hears no more than a call and a cry; deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand." {2.171} Allah now tells us how 'blind, dumb, and deaf' you and the likeness of you really are; and no wonder it is clear that amplies to you. ________________________ Mac-Salaama!! Yaa Muslimiin!!
|
| | Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 05:50 pm Amina-supporter, <You see pragmaticgal, what you are saying is that mother nature is very intelligent, eternal, allways gets dices in the right order to win, Funny.> Wrong. That's the exact opposite of what I am saying: the fossil record shows the HUGE number of extincions that occured since life began on Earth. How can this mean that "mother nature...get dices in the right order to win?" What of those species that so spectacularly lost? They lost, explains evolution, because their environment changed so dramatically ( sudden glaciation, impact with asteroids etc.), that they could not survive. Rather, extinction puts a big question mark over the concept of creation, not evolution: God is thought of as perfect, eternal, very intelligent, right? So why do his creations keep dying out? I mean, he has foresight, correct? Shouldn't he be able to see which organisms can survive and which ones can't, and then only make those that can? And we are talking not about a species or two, but millions, probably billions of species that were completely wiped out. What's going on? <Evolution remains a theory not a fact, go see how they reconcile new findings in Ethiopia that has shaken their stupid theory.> Actually, you are again wrong: evolution is a fact, its natural selection that's still a theory. Evolution was being debated before Darwin (most people think Darwin "invented" evolution), accepted within a decade after Darwin published "Origin of Species", and used today in all areas of biology. Natural selection is questioned, half-hearted, by scientists who accept evolution but are unwilling to accept natural selection as the main mechanism for the creation of new species. But so far, no theory equals natural selection in terms of making predictions, easily explaining natural phenomena, and so forth. The "new findings" in Ethiopia don't disprove evolution, they knock another nail into the concept of creation via Adam and Eve. When laypeople read about "New Evidence Darwin May Have Been Wrong" they think it means Darwin was wrong about evolution, when in fact its just a sensationalist way of saying there's another theory to explain evolution besides natural selection, or that natural selection is more complicated then previously thought. Or that some irrational theist (not all religious people deny evolution) has doctored evidence and forged results so he/she could proclaim that "Darwin was wrong!" <Instead of looking at similarities in creatures as the work of a single superbeing, you explain it as a process where lifeless matter got together by chance, formed a simple cell by chance, those cells grouped to form a simplified organism, by chance, and it continues.> But why ARE there similarities in creatures? Why didn't God make them all unique? What makes God stick to the same old formula? It can't be because its the only way to make organisms because sometimes you get structures that are not the ideal shape for their functions. For example, the forelimb of humans bears striking resemblance to those of wolves, bats and chimpenzees. Yet these creatures have wildly divergent uses for their forelimbs. We use our arms to carry things, fashion tools, etc. Chimps use it for pretty much the same things, but wolves don't carry things with their front paws; they walk/run on them, use them for grooming, bringing down prey, etc. And bats FLY. Birds have much better wings adapted for flight (bats are mammals, not birds). God would have done the bats a much bigger favour if he'd created them more like birds and less like humans. So why are creatures more alike then they need to be, if God created them. In fact, why do we all (bacteria, plants, animals,) have DNA? How come we don't have different molecules since we were made wholly differently? <So this posting that I am writing will find its way to your computer by chance, no switches, cables, fibers, software, hardware, administration, it is by chance, a plane flies, finds its destination, keeps the altitude, stays away from other planes, all those indicators have no purpose, they were put there by chance, natural selection, cuz the plane needs it,.> This whole paragraph shows the faulty reasoning of anti-evolutionists: They equate evolution with chance. In fact, evolution is the OPPOSITE of chance. Evolution predicts that if an organism appears suddenly by chance, it would most likely die--fast. Because in order for it to survive, it has to be ADAPTED to whatever environment it happens to be in. This is what natural selection is: and the proof for it is endless, and stands up to half-baked reasoning always. Oh, and natural selection doesn't operate on airplanes: they are not alive. Although one could argue their shape is affected by a kind of natural selection: only those planes capable of flight get copied, they keep getting better and better at flying, and a faulty airplane would probably kill its pilot and therefore not get made by intelligent engineers. But they are most definitely not alive, and so cannot be shaped by natural selection directly. <The Monalisa evolved from older wall painings in mesapotamia, or the Aztecs, it was all evolution.> Again, what's not alive cannot evolve like species do, although of course the Mona Lisa is a sort of descendent of earlier attempts at art. As well, art changes from period to period, but the tools used to fashion today's sculpture is very similar to the tools used a hundred years ago. Put it this way, Leonardo da Vinci couldn't have done such a good job (although I don't know what all the fuss is about--she's not even blonde), if he had been the first one to wield a brush. <After one billion more years, we will evolve to be a head , we will no longer need limbs, cuz, everything will be done by artificial intelligence, all we need is command and control.> Aha, but that's assuming 1) that we live a billion years, and 2) we are evolving now (not really). What's more, if we did evolve, we could go the opposite way: brainier people might somehow develop a disadvantage (perhaps a virus targeting those who have more than a billion neurons in their head), and it would instead be your descendents that would be swinging from trees, or even walking on all fours. You're making the assumption that just because humans have a larger brain relative to other apes, we will continue to evolve bigger and bigger brains. Physically, this is highly unlikely: bigger brains means bigger heads, which means females with broader pelvises, and therefore women would need to get bigger bodies, not smaller. And what if the "artificial intelligence" gets wise to us? Robots with a certain amount of consciousness may decide not to do as we command, and then were would our big heads be? <So one of these heads went to this bar an started to drink a lot of liquer. To the amazement of the bar tender, when he had his first drink, his torso popped out, another drink, and his leggs popped out, untill he had all his limbs. He became excited, and drunk, he went out to the street to enjoy feeling like a primitive man like you today, but he was hit by a head-moving train and he died. The bar tender came out and said , "He shoulda quit when he was A-Head" LOL> Lol. Think we would still have bars and trains then? And is the bartender an "artificial intelligence"? <You are indeed the simplistic person in this argument, cuz you do not seem to look beyound your nose.> I am looking beyond my nose (at the computer screen at the moment), but then maybe I shouldn't: my nose is an excellent example of evolution: it identifies me as a person whose ancestors adapted to a hot, arid climate. More later.
|
| | Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 06:31 pm Amina-supporter, To continue, <Your argument is based on the fact that there is no purpose in life, we came here by chance, and we die by chance, there is no justice, no judgement day, no God, no soul, or spirit, what you can not see do not exist.> Er, why am I getting the impression you actually did not read what I wrote, but instead spouted off nonsense as a knee-jerk reaction to all atheists? I didn't say there is no purpose in life, only that YOU should give your life purpose--don't rely solely on others to tell you what to do, how to do it, and why you should do it. Instead, take responsibility for your actions yourself, don't turn away from doing the right thing because someone else tells you to, and don't be so credulous that you accept any baseless claim as the absolute truth. You can be theist or atheist but base your choice on a careful perusal of reality, not on ancestral prejudices and beliefs. And as I reiterated again and again, we "didn't come here" by chance. Our survival is exclusively dependent on our adaptation to life on Earth. <Once a Russian athiest teacher teaching athiesm in a school lifted his pen and asked the kids " do you see this pen, they said "yes" "this pen exists he said" "Do you see God" he asked " NO" replied the kids " God does not exist" he said One of the kids asked the same questions, but instead of God he asked " do you see the intelligence of our teacher" The kids said " NO" " The teacher is stupid" the Kid said.> I concur. The "Russian atheist teacher" was stupid. One key problem (other than the advisability of teaching children what he has no business teaching--personal beliefs) is the breach of a definite philosophical no-no: Evidence of Absence is Not Absence of Evidence. Just because there is no evidence to prove God exists doesn't mean he doesn't, just that we can't use scientific reasoning to infer his existence. That's why believe in God is called FAITH. <Stop making your business to deny the existence of the very one who created you.> My business is none of yours. But nonetheless, it does not involve disproving God's existence. This is just me in my volunteer position as public educator.
|
| | Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 09:03 pm Evolution is wrong and deceptive Evolution, often contributed to Charles Darwin, is a massively deceptive fable seeking to describe the creation of this world and it's inhabitants. Although this world does change, and is not the exact same over the years, this change is not the type of evolution, evolutionists are referring to. Evolution is not a belief founded solely on scientific study and knowledge, but is a belief forced into conception since the true fact of the creation of God had been annulled and rejected in peoples' mind. In other words, since some people don't believe in God, they had to describe the existence of the world in terms omitting God. How do you know there is no evolution Evolution has actually been laughed at. It is ridiculous, fanciful, and leaves a lot unexplained. It gives non-reasoning substances the power to amend themselves. It gives what is non-living the ability to create things more complicated than itself, apart from a brain. As you know, things in life tend to go downhill without human intervention. But evolution suggests things arranging themselves, making themselves better, and creating a stable unity between everything. Watch your socks slide down your leg if you don't pull them up. Watch your hair get nappy if you don't comb it. Watch your teeth rot if you don't clean them. Watch your ceiling in your house leak if you don't maintain it. Watch your weeds in your garden take over all the good plants if you don't weed your garden. You are a good witness to the tending disunity and disorder natural things pose to follow. Evolution, pulling all things together into unity and establishing such complicated things is merely an episode on Disney's fantasy movies. But look at all the proof No proof. None, whatsoever. The homo erectus fable is fiction. Cavelike "men" found, were either some type of animal, or some deformed humans. No evolution. When you look at this world, a lot of things seem like they line up in order with other things. For example, planets are round like my head is. I could then draw the conclusion that planets are people's heads. That's all evolution is. It is strange, broad, irrational , and disconnected conjectures made up from a mind full of hatred for God. Without evolution, many things are unexplainable Evolutionists say that evolution explains many things. They say that it explains why your hands look closely like bats' hands on their wings. Why? Because we evolved from a species that bats likewise evolved from? Why do fireflies glow? They are a type of sun. That is just as logical as evolution. Bat's are made the way they are simply because God made them that way. Humans are made the way they are because God wanted them to be made this way. Any similarities are simply similarities, not evidence of identical ancestors. There are many coincidences in nature. Everything doesn't have to be connected. In fact, connected things up was always behind fables such as superstition and witchcraft. It is superstitious to believe that monkeys with backs like humans evolved from the same forms humans evolved from. That's crazy, and is a brazen comparison. Things are not always so connected. Scientists need to learn that there are coincidences in nature too. But my hands look so much like a monkey's Your reasoning does too. Similarities don't always mean anything. It is the weak of mind, and the superstitious who have to always link all things together. Why can't we just settle with the fact that God made the monkey like the way it is, and made us like the way we are? The goal of evolution Like all the propositions of those rejecting God, evolution has an ultimate goal. It's goal is to supplant the clear evidence of a divine creation with a ludicrous alternative, so that humans can stop looking at the world from a "God-created" point of view, to a "it evolved" view. This helps them break down the honor God is due in creation with dishonorable deception. All such evolution degrades the wonderful humans to the level of a dog to an organism. By instigating an animal-like existence of human evolution devalues the life of humans. I do realize a LEVEL of change in organisms. Correct, this world is not a static environment, and the fickleness of it is demonstrated perpetually in plants, animals as well as humans. Often enough it seems as though scientist mistake the inherent changing of nature for the massive myth of contemporary evolution. For example, fossils found of animals no longer present are not necessarily fossils of earlier forms of animals we see today. Many fossils are simply fossils of extinct animals, which may in many ways remind us of animals we see today. To put all this into light, we must understand creation itself. When God created animals in the beginning, He did not create all the variations of animals we behold today. Certainly, cross-breeding itself explains many animals are the result of mixed groups. Who know how much cross-breeding could have been done by earlier humans? It is beneath human dignity to speak of humans and animals on the same levels, but just think how God created only two original humans, and how there are so many variations of the two. From those two humans we have pygmies, giants, blacks, whites, in-betweens, people with Chinese highlights, Eskimos, Indians and so on. For animals such variations likely also took place. But this type of change is about the farthest a change can go in humans as well as animals. Humans always have had five fingers, five toes, an upright back, two legs, two arms, skin, etc. although there were anomalies among such qualities every once and then. There is also a such thing as natural selection. But again, it doesn’t radically change organisms, and can almost be dropped out of the discussion with humans. Correct, if a certain female Bobwhite quail is weak, it is likely she will not survive and the physical qualities of a stronger female would then pervade in the next generation of quail born. Supposing the stronger quail had lighter feathers, and was more high-tempered, it is then likely some of her offspring would exhibit similar qualities. But variations such as this are about as far as natural selection is capable of instrumentally altering species. It CANNOT produce wingless quail, dog-size quail, ant-size quail, five-toed quail, etc. Natural selection simply alters a species within boundaries inherently natural to that species. It never results in a drastically different or entirely new species. Such false instances of proof for natural selection and evolution has deceived many people into subjection to the "sophisticated" ranting of evolutionary professors embedded in 20 years of scientific experience. When they are shown these small types of natural changes in species, they then advance further in the dangerous territory of lies. Evolution is acclaimed as fact, and natural selection being a theory explaining it’s ontogeny. Again natural variations in species can by one’s definition be labeled as "changes" (although for clarity, I wouldn’t call it that), and natural selection does contribute to it. But again, such "changes" are bound by the inherent variations specific for each species and never exceeds the boundaries which make one species different from another, or no longer that species. There are natural cases when a donkey and a horse many breed and a mule is procreated, but there is so much similarity between such equines, there is hardly a reason to consider a distinction. Mutations have also been proposed possibilities to the advent of evolution, but again mutations stay only within a certain level, and since mutations are 99% of the cases for the worse of an animal, natural selection, arguably ensures the mutated organism won’t pervade it’s genes much into succeeding generations. When God created organisms, He created a dynamic invention, capable of reproducing billions of variations after it’s own KIND. This means that no offspring will be exactly alike as it’s parent, and no sibling will be exactly alike likewise. This in turn, over the years can result in a gradual change within a species, but it does not produce SEPARATE species and neither does it change a species so drastically so that it looses it’s identity. It is likely those aspiring in scientific fields with a decent mind have mistaken these small facts as proof of evolution and thus were led astray. Some may want to say evolution resulting in a drastically different organism is the result of millions of years of small changes. This is not true because for one thing, the earth is not nearly a million years old, and second, all species reproduce only after their own kind, unless of course, there is human intervention. Humans have not evolved. Perhaps in general, they are less or more hairy than what earlier humans were in general, perhaps in general they are shorter, perhaps in general they are more sedentary, perhaps in general they have smaller muscles. But they are nevertheless humans and the earliest humans would have NO trouble recognizing any of us if they saw us today, as being "regular O human beings." The word evolution is, however, generally known to be referring to the advancement of species from less complicated and simpler forms. This idea is arguably devoid of scientific proof. This idea had its origin in people who had denied God and had supplanted the power of God in their minds, with the myth of evolution. This is what they were compelled to do since, of course, the existence of so many species had to have an explanation. Summing up all we have stated is to say that changes among species naturally due to natural selection and the fact that no two animals of the same species are even exactly alike has caused species to be slightly different today than what they were years ago. The interbreeding between species (and there is no guess on how much interbreeding earlier humans could have done with animals) also has given rise to numerous new forms. Chiefly, these two factors have been cited among evolutionists as concrete bulwarks for their fanciful propositions of evolution. Subtly and erroneously deriving such fallacy from fact has deceived many people in believing evolution is rooted in fact and proof and is therefore correct. Evolution is wrong, and only the result of people not embracing the truth they terribly disdain. Atheism can be technically defined as follows: Atheism - the instance or act of deploring and fighting against morality, and God Laws while buffering oneself behind the fanciful notion of the non-existence of God, and often satan, in order to avoid the appearance of the inevitable linkage with satan.
|
| | Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 09:22 pm Atheism and Death: Why the atheist must face death with despair The title of this paper may catch some off guard. You or someone you know might be an atheist and you feel as though you have no despair when contemplating your death. For the atheist to live without despair, they must do so inconsistently. I will show why it is logically inconsistent for an atheist to live and face death with happiness. Why death is a necessary evil within the atheistic world view? Someone said that death is philosophy's only problem. That is quite the statement. Not only is death a problem, but it is a large one. Why is death such a problem for someone atheists? I will attempt to show that death is a problem for all atheists. Atheism cannot offer any comfort in the face of death. You see, everything we do includes some kind of hope. However, what kind of hope can the atheist give in the face of death? One may say that death is the final freeing of all desires and thus is good. Or that one can have hope in death if they are suffering. These really are just false hopes that I hopefully will clearly show. After the death of his friend, Arthur Hallam, Alfred, Lord Tennyson composed his poem, "In Memorium". This poem show the stuggle he had as he wrestled with grief and the question of what ultimate power manages the fate of man. It shows the struggle he had between his realization of the consequences of his choice between atheism and God. I will quote a lengthy excerpt to feel the full impact. Thine are these orbs of light and shade Thou madest Life in man and brute; Thou madest death; and Lo, thy foot Is on the skull which thou hast made. Are God and Nature then at strife That Nature lends such evil dreams? So careful of the type she seems So careless of the single life,... "So careful of the type?" but no. From scarped cliff and quarried stone She cries a thousand types are gone; I care for nothing, all shall go. "Thou makest thine appeal to me I bring to life, I bring to death; The spirit does but mean the breath: I know no more." And he, shall he, Man her last work who seem'd so fair Such splendid purpose in his eyes, Who rolI'd the psalm to wintry skies, Who built him fanes of fruitless prayers, Who trusted God was love indeed And love creation's final law-- Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw With ravine, shrieked against his creed- Who loved, who suffer'd countless ills Who battled for the True, the Just, Be blown about the desert dust, Or seal'd within the iron hills? No more? A monster then, a dream. A discord. Dragons of the prime That tear each other in their slime, Were mellow music match'd with him. O life as futile, then, as frail! O for thy voice to soothe and bless What hope of answer, or redress? Behind the veil, behind the veil.[1] Atheism has parented this offspring, and it is her legitimate child--with no mind to look back to for his origin, no law to turn to for guidance, no meaning to cling to for life, and no hope for the future. This is the shattered visage of atheism. It has the stare of death, looking into the barren desert of emptiness and hopelessness. Thus, the Nietzschean dogma, which dawned with the lantern being smashed to the ground, now ends in the darkness of the grave. Is this true? Is there no hope in atheism? Is there no meaning in a world without God? William Lane Craig offers a resounding yes. Craig argues that if God doesn't exist, then man and the universe are doomed to die. There is no hope of immortality. Our lives are but an infinitesimally small point that appears and then vanishes forever. Jean-Paul Sartre affirmed that death is not-threatiening provided we view it in the third person. It isn't until we face the first person, "I am going to die, my death," that death becomes threatening. Most, though, never assume first person attitudes during their life. So the question arises, "Why is my death so threatening?" This is because within an atheistic world view there can be no meaning or purpose. I'm sure that many will be quick to disagree with me because they are an atheist or know an atheist who does ascribe meaning and purpose to their lives. But is this consistent within the atheistic world view? I don't think so. If everything is doomed to go out of existence, can there be any ultimate significance? If we are inevitably faced with nonexistence can our lives have any ultimate significance? Influencing others or influencing history doesn't give your life ultimate significance. It only gives it relative significance. Your life is important relative to certain events, but there is no ultimate significance to those events if all will die. Ultimately, your life makes no difference. Even the universe is doomed to die (due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics). So what ultimate difference would it make if the universe never came to exist at all if it is doomed to become dead? Mankind is thus no more significant than a swarm of mosquitos or a barnyard of pigs, for their end is all the same. The same blind cosmic process that coughed them up in the first place will eventually swallow them all again. If one's destiny is the grave, what ultimate purpose is their for life? The same is true of the universe. If it is doomed to become a forever expanding pile of useless debris, what purpose is there for the universe? To what end is the world or man in existence? There can be no hope, no purpose. What is true of mankind is true of individuals as well. So there can be no purpose in any individual's life. My life wouldn't be qualitatively different than the life of a dog. The fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. All go to the same place. All come from the dust and all return to the dust. The universe and man are cosmic accidents. There is no reason for our existence. Man is a cosmic orphan. Without God the universe is the result of a cosmic accident, a chance explosion. There is no reason for which it exist. As for man, he is a freak of nature--a blind product of matter plus time plus chance. Man is just a lump of slime that evolved into rationality. There is no more purpose in life for the human race than for a species of insect; for both are the result of the blind interaction of chance and necessity. If we are only cosmic accidents, how can there be any meaning in our lives? If this is true, which it is in an atheistic world view, our lives are for nothing. It would not matter in the slightest bit if I ever existed. This is why the atheist, if honest and consistent, must face death with despair. Their life is for nothing. Once they are gone, they are gone forever. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyound dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built. "Only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair,"? What can be placed on such a foundation? Even Jean-Paul Sartre affirms the absurdity of life when he says, "Being is without reason, without cause, and without necessity. The very definition of being release its original contingency to us." Three of the most important atheistic philosophers, Nietzsche, Russell, and Sartre, all admitted that apart from God life is meaningless and absurd. So how do people live happily with this world view? They live inconsistently. For if one lives consistently, he is unable to live happily Francis Schaeffer illustrates this problem well. He says that we live in a two stroy universe. On the first story the world is finite without God. This is what Sartre, Russell, and Nietzsche describe. Life here is absurd, with no meaning or purpose. On the second story life has meaning, value, and purpose. This is the story with God. Modern man resides on the first floor because he believes there is no God. But as we have shown, he cannot live there happily, so he makes a leap of faith to the second story where there is meaning and purpose. The problem is that this leap is unjustified because of his disbelief in God. Man cannot live consistently and happily knowing life is meaningless. When Sartre, who agreed with Nietzsche, was asked why he didn't commit suicide, he replied by saying that he didn't want to use his freedom to take away his freedom. This is an absurd solution though, because they say that freedom is the problem with its aimlessness, pain, and despair. Kaufmann argues that if we live life richly and not expect to live long lives then when we die we can combat the hopelessness of death because we won't feel cheated or won't feel as though we need more time. The problem lies in the fact kaufmann makes the jump to the second story. He wants to ascribe meaning to a richly lived life, which I've shown can't be done in a God-less universe. When he says that one won't feel as though they've been deprived of time when they die is wishful thinking. One of his contemporaries, Thomas Nagel (an atheist) shows the falsity in this thinking. Nagel begins his discussion of death with this statement, "If death is the unequivocal and permanent end of our existence, the question arises whether it is a bad thing to die."[11] He argues that if life is all we have, then its loss is the greatest loss we can encounter. Nagel's goal is to see whether death is in itself an evil, how great of an evil it is, and what kind of evil it is. If death is an evil, it is because of the loss of life and not the state of being dead, or nonexistant. Some say that dying is the the real evil. But Nagel points out that he wouldn't really object to dying if it wasn't followed by death. He says, If we are to make sense of the view that to die is bad, it must be on the ground that life is a good and death is the corresponding deprivation or loss, bad not because of any positive features but because of the desirability of what it removes. There are three objections that many have raised about the proposition that death is an evil. 1) One may doubt that there are any evils which solely consist in the deprivation or absence of possible good, particularly when one doesn't mind the deprivation (because they don't exist). What you don't know, can't hurt you. 2) How is the supposed misfortune assigned to the subject? So long as one exists, he isn't dead, and once he dies he no longer exist. So there can be no time when death, if it is a misfortune, can be ascribed to the subject. 3) Finally, the asymmetry of our attitudes towards our posthumous and prenatel nonexistence. Why can we view the eternity after our death as bad, but not the eternity before our birth? He illustrates the errors of the first two objections with a simple illustration that is analogous to death. Imagine an intelligent man being reduced to the mental condition of a content infant. Even though he is content, we pity him. Yet, he doesn't realize this tragedy, for he is a content infant. Does the phrase, "What we don't know doesn't hurt us," apply to him? If so why do we pity him? Second, it isn't the content infant who is unfortunate, rather, it is the intelligent adult who has been reduced to this condition. We shouldn't and don't focus on the content infant, instead we consider the person he was and the person he could be now. So his reduction to this state and the premature ending of his adult development is a catastrophe. Just as death is a catastrophe. What about the problem of our asymmetrical attitudes towards our posthumous and prenatel nonexisetence? Lucretius was the one who first pointed this out. He recognized that no one finds it disturbing to contemplate the eternity before their birth, which really is the same as the eternity after their death. Thus, it is irrational to fear death. Nagel disagrees, he argues that the time after death is the time in which nonexistence deprives a person. "Any death entails the loss of some life." So the eternity after death isn't the same as the eternity before birth, because one is deprived of life. Some may argue then, that one is deprived of life before birth as well because they could have been born earlier. But Nagel shows the fallacy of this thinking by pointing out that if one is born any earlier (except a few weeks premature), they would not be the same person. So it doesn't entail the loss of any life. Lucretius, and any one who agrees with him, is wrong in thinking that it is irrational to fear death on the basis that we aren't bothered by our prenatel eternity. Life makes known to us the goods of which death deprives us. Death, no matter when it happens deprives us of some continuation of life. While it is tragic for a 17 year old to die, it is just as tragic for a 90 year old to die because both are deprived of life and the good that comes with it. Viewed in this way, death, no matter how inevitable, is an abrupt cancellation of indefinitely extensive possible goods. Normality seems to have nothing to do with it, for the fact that we will all inevitably die in a few score years cannot by itself imply that it would not be good to live longer. Suppose that we were all inevitably going to die in agony -- physical agony lasting six months. Would inevitability make that prospect any less unpleasant? And why should it be different for a deprivation?[14] Not many atheists are as consistent as Thomas Nagal when they speak on death. Kaufmann says he can face death without hopelessness because he lives richly and that gives meaning to his life. But what kind of meaning is it? If Kaufmann never existed, what ultimate difference would it make? None. If the atheists faces this honestly, how can he view death with anything but despair? As shown in these two extended arguments, death apart from God cannot be faced with anything but fear and despair if one is to live consistently within their atheistic world view. The only way an atheist can face death without despair is by ascribing ultimate meaning to their life, which is a jump to the second story and is completely inconsistent with atheism. Certainly it doesn't follow, then, that theism is true simply because the atheist must face death with despair. If the atheist is right we must follow the instructions of Bertrand Russell and build our lives on the "firm foundation of unyielding despair." We must look for the truth and then logically structure our lives accordingly. Obtaining hope from religion for the sake of hope, when that religion is not true, is simply obtaining false hope. False hope is no hope at all. That is why it is crucial to examine our world views to see if they are logically consistent and correspond to reality. It does one no good to put faith and hope into a god who doesn't exist. However, if a god does exist, we must put our faith and hope into the right one. We've seen that within the atheistic world view there can be no meaning or purpose and this leads to hopelessness. The atheist must choose whether he wants to live consistently or happily. For as long as he is an atheist, he can't do both.
|
| | Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 09:41 pm The unreasonableness of Atheism: If the definition of an atheist is: someone who believes that there is NO God. Then we can ask 'how does he know?' In order to know that there is no God he must know all that there is to know. And therefore he would be God. But we know that an atheist is just like us, not God. However in claiming to be an atheist he is setting himself up, instead of God, as a kind of mini-god, since he claims that there is no God but is making himself to be a god with all knowledge. This is unreasonable. However in practise there might be other emotional rather than logical reasons why a person chooses atheism. Disillusion with established religion, the problem of evil, personal tragedy, fear, personal comfort and pleasure etc. A much more reasonable position is that of the agnostic who claims that he does not know whether there is a God. The atheist is happy to critique the theist view but is blind to the philosophical implications of his own view. He likes to object to the problem of evil but is blind to the fact of the ultimate lack of justice resulting from atheism. Of course if you are an atheist and have answers to these problems let me know. Of course one can be a happy atheist, I do not deny that, but ignorance is bliss. And of course the young atheist in the fullness of vigour can find life happy and satisfying, but as old or middle age approaches and the pleasures of youth become just dreams and you consider your own mortality then you begin to realise the futility and meaningless of atheism.
|