Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

I am an ex Muslim. Ask me anything. Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shahbaz)
    Yes, but you cannot disprove god however improbable it is.
    I also cannot absolutely disprove there are unicorns living in mars.
    The burden to proof lies on the one making the claim
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Velasco)
    Before you gave up on Islam, did you lead a double life of sorts for a while? If so, what was that like? Did you find friends of your own age/background growing up who went through similar process?
    I don't know to be honest. I guess you could say I was researching stuff alone using internet and books, while to everyone else I was praying on fridays acting as though I have zero doubts. Yes, there was a friend in my class who doubted stuff with me and got pissed off at the same stuff with me but he remained a Muslim, I think...there was another classmate who became openly atheist in school and some of the teachers and students all just talked **** about him and he got **** for it too, and I really want to avoid that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExMus)
    I also cannot absolutely disprove there are unicorns living in mars.
    The burden to proof lies on the one making the claim
    I understand were you are coming from but we can prove unicorns do not egsist on mars as we understand what the atmospere of mars is composed of and we have many images, drones ect.

    Like you I can think very logicaly about religon and using science we can get many answers to life's questions but many questions I believe will not be answered such as what caused the big bang or inflation, what were there before that, does god egsist, I even sometimes think we live in a computer program and god is a programer.

    So its not as clear cut as you think.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    What's your angle? It's not up to unbelievers to prove a god doesn't exist (because the vast majority do not suggest that this is the case).

    Absence of evidence for a positive claim (such as 'god exists) may not constitute evidence of absence, but it doesn't leave the claim in very good shape.

    What does the atmosphere have to do with unicorns? They breathe rainbows and gain nourishment from cosmic rays. Duh
    Yeah but it also depends on your definition of god, do you belive in a god who watched over us with angels ect. Or do you belive god as in, laws of physics = god like Einstein. Or there may be god in a very different sense.

    A lot of the time we use god or gods to explain things we are unsure of, we have seen this throughout history.

    We may never find out, so I say just go with what your comfortable with.

    The unicorn thing, I thought you meant of the unicorns which were horses with hornes growing out of their head lol.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    How do you derive what is morally correct and what isn't?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shahbaz)
    I understand were you are coming from but we can prove unicorns do not exist on mars as we understand what the atmospere of mars is composed of and we have many images, drones ect.

    Like you I can think very logicaly about religon and using science we can get many answers to life's questions but many questions I believe will not be answered such as what caused the big bang or inflation, what were there before that, does god egsist, I even sometimes think we live in a computer program and god is a programer.

    So its not as clear cut as you think.
    They could be living under the surface and may be adapted for the environment. Point is: until it is proved that Unicorns exist, I will maintain that they don't exist since there is so no evidence to do so.
    What makes you think they won't be answered? Does the big bang need a cause? Does the universe need a cause?
    I personally think since there is no apparent scientific evidence for god's existence, a belief in god is as insane as a belief in a half-whale-half-sea unicorn somewhere in the ring of saturn.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExMus)
    They could be living under the surface and may be adapted for the environment. Point is: until it is proved that Unicorns exist, I will maintain that they don't exist since there is so no evidence to do so.
    What makes you think they won't be answered? Does the big bang need a cause? Does the universe need a cause?
    I personally think since there is no apparent scientific evidence for god's existence, a belief in god is as insane as a belief in a half-whale-half-sea unicorn somewhere in the ring of saturn.
    The universe does need a cause, because nothing can come into being without a reaction kind of like newtons 3rd law.

    Also making these claims about some wierd about these creatures is futile, as we have telescopes and physics denies the egsistance of such things.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExMus)
    They could be living under the surface and may be adapted for the environment. Point is: until it is proved that Unicorns exist, I will maintain that they don't exist since there is so no evidence to do so.
    What makes you think they won't be answered? Does the big bang need a cause? Does the universe need a cause?
    I personally think since there is no apparent scientific evidence for god's existence, a belief in god is as insane as a belief in a half-whale-half-sea unicorn somewhere in the ring of saturn.
    Maybe it is quite true to say that there is no apparent scientific evidence for God's existence. But isn't this the problem?
    When we refer to evidence we usually refer to it due to the empirical findings gathered in order to support the conclusion or claim.
    However, if we are to refer to evidence in this way to prove the existence of God, then doesn't this seem problematic?
    We are assuming, when we dismiss the existence of God through the absence of evidence, that there must be some sort of evidence which is composed of something empirical in order to verify the claim that God exists.
    As far as I am concerned, there can be no empirical verification for the existence of a God, if we are to consider the definition of God that is....
    Therefore to dismiss the existence of God on the basis of empirical evidence being absent for a thing which is beyond it might not be reasonable if there can be no empirical justification. And so we must rely on another way to dismiss the existence of God through purely reason.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatMuslimGuy)
    How do you derive what is morally correct and what isn't?
    I think about what is harmful to others and what is not. If it is harmful then I think it is morally wrong. Of course this is simplistic but the idea is that I think about it; my morality is self made.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExMus)
    I think about what is harmful to others and what is not. If it is harmful then I think it is morally wrong. Of course this is simplistic but the idea is that I think about it; my morality is self made.
    So its based on what you view will harm others? So if there is no harm it would be morally acceptable?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatMuslimGuy)
    So its based on what you view will harm others? So if there is no harm it would be morally acceptable?
    I cannot think of a harmless, immoral situation at the moment to be honest, so I guess. I really treat every situation individually but my sense of morality is self made if that is what you were asking.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExMus)
    I cannot think of a harmless, immoral situation at the moment to be honest, so I guess. I really treat every situation individually but my sense of morality is self made if that is what you were asking.
    What do you exactly mean when you say that your sense of morality is self made?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Stacey)
    Maybe it is quite true to say that there is no apparent scientific evidence for God's existence. But isn't this the problem?
    When we refer to evidence we usually refer to it due to the empirical findings gathered in order to support the conclusion or claim.
    However, if we are to refer to evidence in this way to prove the existence of God, then doesn't this seem problematic?
    We are assuming, when we dismiss the existence of God through the absence of evidence, that there must be some sort of evidence which is composed of something empirical in order to verify the claim that God exists.
    As far as I am concerned, there can be no empirical verification for the existence of a God, if we are to consider the definition of God that is....
    Therefore to dismiss the existence of God on the basis of empirical evidence being absent for a thing which is beyond it might not be reasonable if there can be no empirical justification. And so we must rely on another way to dismiss the existence of God through purely reason.
    The question of Gods existence is a scientific question since science is the best way we know to analyse and study the universe around us. But i dont think we should try to dismiss the existence of God. But rather, we shouldn't believe in God because there is no evidence to support his existence and the burden on proof should lie on the person making the claim. Simply put: religious people should prove the existence of god and it shouldn't be the job of non-religious people to dismiss it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExMus)
    The question of Gods existence is a scientific question since science is the best way we know to analyse and study the universe around us. But i dont think we should try to dismiss the existence of God. But rather, we shouldn't believe in God because there is no evidence to support his existence and the burden on proof should lie on the person making the claim. Simply put: religious people should prove the existence of god and it shouldn't be the job of non-religious people to dismiss it.
    The question of God's existence cannot be a scientific question if the evidences used in scientific research consists of empirical findings.
    As I have said before; evidence in scientific research rely on empirical findings in order to support the conclusion made or claims.
    Also, I must add that science is the best way to know and analyse the empirical world around us, and that our knowledge of things are therefore restricted to things within this empirical world.
    My point is that the verification for God's existence does not rely on an empirical world, therefore the question of God's existence cannot be made a scientific one.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Stacey)
    What do you exactly mean when you say that your sense of morality is self made?
    I think about it and decide for myself whether a teaching or action is right or wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExMus)
    I think about it and decide for myself whether a teaching or action is right or wrong.
    So when you observe or conceive of, let's say, a group of kids setting a cat in flames; what makes you decide that what you have observed or conceived is wrong?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Congratulations, welcome to the logical thinkers!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toadie)
    Congratulations, welcome to the logical thinkers!
    There are many atheists who are not logical thinkers lol


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExMus)
    I don't know to be honest. I guess you could say I was researching stuff alone using internet and books, while to everyone else I was praying on fridays acting as though I have zero doubts. Yes, there was a friend in my class who doubted stuff with me and got pissed off at the same stuff with me but he remained a Muslim, I think...there was another classmate who became openly atheist in school and some of the teachers and students all just talked **** about him and he got **** for it too, and I really want to avoid that.
    Was it a gradual process, or was there a clean break (mentally, emotionally, spiritually) at some point?
    Were there any events along the way that pushed or prodded you along this way...ie, any kind of pain or disappointments or unanswered prayers?
    How was it adjusting to life post-Islam?
    Did you have to start from scratch making new friends, finding a new support base? Even if you still have family in your life, do you find it hard(er) to fully commit your feelings to relationships with Muslims now that you are no longer one (and know they would reject you if they knew)?

    How has your behaviour changed? Your daily routine, how you interact with people, what's the same and what is different? Are you more open to outsiders and new experiences now, or is it the same?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Stacey)
    The question of God's existence cannot be a scientific question if the evidences used in scientific research consists of empirical findings.
    As I have said before; evidence in scientific research rely on empirical findings in order to support the conclusion made or claims.
    Also, I must add that science is the best way to know and analyse the empirical world around us, and that our knowledge of things are therefore restricted to things within this empirical world.
    My point is that the verification for God's existence does not rely on an empirical world, therefore the question of God's existence cannot be made a scientific one.
    Why can't it? God's existence may very well be subject to empirical evidence. Of course we don't know. I think there is a substantial lack of evidence for the existence of God, empirical or otherwise, which makes a belief in him illogical. Regardless, there must be some sort of evidence supporting a higher power for one to believe in such a power, but of course there isn't.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.