Religious Studies  permalink

The Meaning of Life

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 63
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by U14952611 (U14952611) on Saturday, 19th January 2013

    So here we are, bumbling about our daily lives, never questioning the values of the Victorian world. The belief that life has meaning, or that we ought to search for the meaning of life are false, quite false, as I will set out in as logical a way as I can.

    [1] Firstly, there is no God. Ouch! A painfully atheistic comment from a theist, but I must say it on the grounds that there is no evidence for a God that science, our most reliable system for finding truth, can base any small claim on. There is no need for a God in logical terms, as Occam's Razor would say - the universe doesn't need any man on a cloud or invisible spirit with complex traits to be its cause, as it is more likely that it was created in a big bang. Furthermore, religions have many mutually exclusive traits (e.g. belief in a jealous God vs belief in a loving God, a vengeful vs a forgiving, one vs many, etc., etc.), which implies that they cannot all be right. If not all religions are right,, how are we supposed to choose, and is there any point in them? If one religion can fall by logic - the Christian omnipotent, omni-benevolent God - then why not the rest? If that's the biggest religion in the world broken by logic, we're just as safe turning to Zoroastrianism or Falun Gong. Fundamentally it shows that there is no correlation between commonly accepted stories and the truth, only a story which is most pleasing.

    I'll admit there are flaws with what I say, and as a very conflicted theist, I am very much aware of them, but if we choose to accept this first argument, we can continue...

    [2] Every creation was created with purpose. Just as a chair was made for man to rest his backside on, or a sculpture made for its aesthetics, we can link the act of creation with the intention of creation. If we have accepted [1], then life, without a creator, was not created for any purpose. There is no meaning to life, as there is no creator.

    [3] Finally, if you're still reading, the idea that we should seek out meaning, or even as Sartre might have argued, construct meaning, is a bad idea, as if there is no meaning, we must not create insufficient meanings, but rather embrace meaninglessness. When we have our values crushed, as can be the case in war, or after having witnessed something horrific or shocking, like a death or even a UFO, we become depressed and saddened, sometimes to the extent that we lose our sanity or stability. If we recognise meaninglessness from the start, we never lose our values, which are only distracting us or limiting us. As the great writer Thomas Mann said, "a harmful truth is better than a useful lie." It is on this basis that we ought to accept there is no meaning of life.

    Kindest regards from a friendly existential absurdist,

    Antoine [Personal details removed by Moderator]

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by U15371933 (U15371933) on Saturday, 19th January 2013

    So here we are, bumbling about our daily lives, never questioning the values of the Victorian world. The belief that life has meaning, or that we ought to search for the meaning of life are false, quite false, as I will set out in as logical a way as I can.

    [1] Firstly, there is no God. Ouch! A painfully atheistic comment from a theist, but I must say it on the grounds that there is no evidence for a God that science, our most reliable system for finding truth, can base any small claim on. There is no need for a God in logical terms, as Occam's Razor would say - the universe doesn't need any man on a cloud or invisible spirit with complex traits to be its cause, as it is more likely that it was created in a big bang. Furthermore, religions have many mutually exclusive traits (e.g. belief in a jealous God vs belief in a loving God, a vengeful vs a forgiving, one vs many, etc., etc.), which implies that they cannot all be right. If not all religions are right,, how are we supposed to choose, and is there any point in them? If one religion can fall by logic - the Christian omnipotent, omni-benevolent God - then why not the rest? If that's the biggest religion in the world broken by logic, we're just as safe turning to Zoroastrianism or Falun Gong. Fundamentally it shows that there is no correlation between commonly accepted stories and the truth, only a story which is most pleasing.

    I'll admit there are flaws with what I say, and as a very conflicted theist, I am very much aware of them, but if we choose to accept this first argument, we can continue...

    [2] Every creation was created with purpose. Just as a chair was made for man to rest his backside on, or a sculpture made for its aesthetics, we can link the act of creation with the intention of creation. If we have accepted [1], then life, without a creator, was not created for any purpose. There is no meaning to life, as there is no creator.

    [3] Finally, if you're still reading, the idea that we should seek out meaning, or even as Sartre might have argued, construct meaning, is a bad idea, as if there is no meaning, we must not create insufficient meanings, but rather embrace meaninglessness. When we have our values crushed, as can be the case in war, or after having witnessed something horrific or shocking, like a death or even a UFO, we become depressed and saddened, sometimes to the extent that we lose our sanity or stability. If we recognise meaninglessness from the start, we never lose our values, which are only distracting us or limiting us. As the great writer Thomas Mann said, "a harmful truth is better than a useful lie." It is on this basis that we ought to accept there is no meaning of life.

    Kindest regards from a friendly existential absurdist,

    Antoine [Personal details removed by Moderator] 
    Can I just say that science is not reliable wasn’t it science that said the earth was flat? Or that the earth is in the centre of the universe ? Or that the moon’s light was its own? Science is only ‘right’ until its proven false!!!
    A person that knows a lot about science will know that the big bang could not have taken place without a cause. Isnt it science that says ‘there is no effect without a cause first’ ???
    Even Einstein said ‘science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind’
    ‘Furthermore, religions have many mutually exclusive traits (e.g. belief in a jealous God vs belief in a loving God, a vengeful vs a forgiving, one vs many, etc., etc.)’ – this isnt the case in Islam !!!

    ‘There is no meaning to life, as there is no creator.’ – u haven't really proven that there isnt a creator but I see what ur saying, if u believe that there is no purpose in life then why do u need to propagate the theory of the big bang… I mean if there is no purpose then why are u trying to convince ppl about the big bang because what they are doing (having a religion) isnt wrong as there is no purpose to life so what ever they choose to do with their life has nothing to do with u.
    ‘we never lose our values, which are only distracting us or limiting us’ imagine you have nothing to lose (which is what u are basically saying) why would u follow the law of the land, why would u not steal, kill, or start a war? – u have no purpose… nothing to lose .. Why not?

    I'm not saying this to offend you and sorry if I did

    Isam
    (Muslim btw)

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by U14952611 (U14952611) on Sunday, 20th January 2013

    Dear Isam,

    Sorry, but science is the most reliable system we have for extrapolating information about our world – that’s scientific fact I'm talking about, remember. Actually the belief in a flat Earth was around since the Stone Age, probably because if it weren't for science we too would assume it was flat. The belief that the Earth is in the centre of the universe was just a guess in Ancient Greece, but was adopted in the Christian Church during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, both periods of unfortunate religious oppression and scientific stagnation in the Western world. Science makes claims, then tests them again and again, whereas religion sometimes makes claims, but rarely backs them up; that’s not religion’s job.

    Ah, yes, the First Cause theory. Modern science does not say anything about it, but rather science in the time of Newton favoured a clockwork universe, where everything had a cause and effect. Since the rise of quantum theory, we now know that not every particle needs a cause, and that the universe could have just popped into existence. Without the need for a God, the theory of Occam’s Razor – a simpler theory ought to be favoured over a complex one – it is logical to assume that God did not create the universe. It is a lovely quote, though we can’t take Einstein to be a genius in theology. I agree that society has grown up with religion, and that people find hope in religion, but it is time to move to a new age of enlightened thought, where we scrap the old values and look towards innovation and answers.

    Um, I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean – Islam contradicts with Christianity, and Christianity against Judaism, and Judaism against Hinduism, and so on. All religions have their own ideas of the true way, and each way contradicts with every other. Islam is no different to any other.

    I'm trying to say that it is more logical to believe the Big Bang had no cause than that God caused the universe, and if we assume that there is no God, then there is no meaning in life.

    There is no meaning, we must live in the way we see fit or how we want to. Sure, why follow the law? We could steal, kill, etc. If there is no God, anything is permissible.

    Kindest regards from a friendly existential absurdist,

    Antoine-Clément (Not surname, double first name, Mods)

    (Conflicted Christian, veering towards agnosticism)

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by U15371933 (U15371933) on Sunday, 20th January 2013



    Okay for the sake of argument lets just say that god didn’t create the universe -isnt it logical to say that whatever did create the universe couldn’t be part of the universe !! Because then how could it have existed and not existed at the same time!! Therefore believing in god is more logical then believing the big bang happened by magic!! As god is not part of the universe
    Scientists are not saying there isnt a god – they are saying this cant be god or that cant be god. they're Not saying there isnt a god period!!
    Why don’t you accept that god created the big bang. I mean scientist came up with this theory what 100 years ago maybe 200?? Well, the Qura’n speaks about the big bang 1400 years ago who could have known this … nobody but god!!
    Infact if you read the quran there are soooo many scientific miracles, that scientists came to know now, but the quran speaks of these in a time when there wasn’t the technology of today. Nobody could have known this. – except god!!
    And I agree with you religions do contradict with each other, and I say well of cause they do, they have been changed and rewritten throughout the years not the Qura’n though … it is the exact way word for word that it came down in and that’s a FACT!!
    I cant speak on behalf of any other religion but Islam has logic behind everything, you will not find any law or any command that doesn’t have logic behind it !
    actually its more logical to believe that god created the world then believe that the world came by chance
    I mean everything is sooo complex that it could not have happened by chance or coincidence
    Everything happens for a reason.
    Like your name by the way .. Is it French?
    (The whole joint first name thing happens to me all the time because I’m Arab and we like have our name, then our fathers, then our grandfathers- But it is all classed as out first name and then surname is where we are from!! )
    Isam smiley - smiley

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Han Ban (U14706661) on Sunday, 20th January 2013

    How can you say the time of the Ancient Greeks was a time of little scientific endeavor? The Greeks invented the majority of our technology and were the basis for most of our science, especially physics and maths. Not only that, but they were some of the most creative and inventive people in history.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by U14952611 (U14952611) on Sunday, 20th January 2013

    Dear Isam,

    You are now assuming that the Universe was created, and didn’t just expand without cause. The Big Bang did not happen by magic, just as quantum particles to not spontaneously appear by magic – not everything needs a cause, and Occam’s Razor would therefore want us to believe that it did just happen.

    While I cannot speak for all scientists, I can confidently say that scientists see no need for God to explain our Universe. You are right, this is not the same as saying God does not exist, but again Occam’s Razor would continue to say that it is more logical not to believe in a God.

    The Qur’an did not come up with the theory of the Big Bang. In Surah Al-Anbiya (21:30) it says merely “…Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity…”, which to me sounds very vague, and not reliable as scientific statement, or else we’d believe that Nostradamus really did predict 9/11 when he said, “"In the City of God there will be a great thunder, two brothers torn apart by chaos," which I’m sure you’ll agree is ridiculous.

    Yes, amazing science that you can interpret from the Qur’an, such as Surahh Az-Zumar 39:6, which some Muslims boast as scientific knowledge of the time of pregnancy: “He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation, within three darknesses.” If three ‘darknesses’ refer to seasons, we can agree with such knowledge, though this was in fact not new science at all, it was observed since humans first became pregnant. What groundbreaking scientific theories come from the Qur’an that weren’t just common knowledge or vague, newly interpreted verses?

    And I agree with you religions do contradict with each other, and I say well of cause they do, they have been changed and rewritten throughout the years not the Qura’n though … it is the exact way word for word that it came down in and that’s a FACT!!

    Religions do contradict each other, yes. They may have been changed slightly, but not in any dramatic ways. It is unlikely that the one God revealed himself, early humans wrote out his words, and then edited it into Hinduism. We have to accept that religions have different messages, which I’m sure weren’t originally all Muslim. Christianity is all about forgiving the bad whereas Islam wants justice for the good. Buddhism wants enlightenment in our current lives, whereas Hinduism wants Moksha into God from out of Samsara. All religions have slightly different goal or purpose. I’m not saying any is better than any other, but that they cannot all be right, and there is no reason to suppose Islam is the way any more that Judaism or Sikhism.

    So every law in the Qur’an is perfectly logical and true? Even Surahh An-Nisa 4:11, which declares, “for the male, what is equal to the share of two females.” So are you really a sexist? You sound intelligent, but do you really believe this is a logical quote?

    Everything is beautiful and complex, but science can explain it. We still marvel in awe at the beauty of the Universe, but scientific theories can explain it.
    Can you explain the spontaneous virtual particle? If these particles can spontaneously be created and then disappear, why not the Universe? Not everything needs a cause.

    No God, no meaning. No meaning, no reason to find the Meaning of Life.
    Haha, yes, my name is French. Boy, that sounds complicated, but also nice that you’re carrying your family with you in your name.

    Antoine-Clément

    P.S. I didn't want to sound as aggressive as I seem to, so just to say I admire all believers for their faith in God, whatever their religion.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by U14952611 (U14952611) on Sunday, 20th January 2013

    Dear Han Ban,

    I did not say that the Ancient Greeks weren't scientific, but rather the Dark Ages and Middle Ages (c.500 AD - c.1300 AD) were periods of unscientific, religious oppression in the West, (though not in the East, I hasten to add).

    Sorry for the confusion, I too am a fan of Greek philosophy and science,

    Antoine-Clément

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Han Ban (U14706661) on Monday, 21st January 2013

    Ah I see, phew, thank the gods smiley - winkeye!

    Hmm in some ways yes, but I think the literary and artistic merits of the time are worth noting, the Legend of King Arthur, the myths and legends of this land, some of the tapestries and paintings are of the most beautiful and highest quality (don't forget this is the time of the Bayeux Tapestry, one of the most important historical records in history!). Plus as is often the case the role of women is forgotten and the importance of herb lore is quite lost to the Christian oppression of the time, nevertheless the skill of wise-women was vital to modern medicine today.

    Plus as Biblical literature came to the forefront of this time it is impossible to refute the impact it had over all literature, from this time through the Renaissance and the modern age. The amount of times poets liken a beautiful garden to Eden is unreal!

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by U15371933 (U15371933) on Monday, 21st January 2013

    Antoine-Clément,

    I am not saying the Qura’n came up with the big bang what I am saying is that it is mentioned in the Qura’n 1400 years ago. Okay for the sake of argument it is a bit vague the ayah you quoted from the Qura’n but read on a bit on, and the translation should have been; "Do not they not see that the heavens and the Earth were once one mass, then We rent them apart?"  (Qur'an surah Al-Anbiya (The Prophets) 21:30) "And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it."(Qur'an surah Ad-Dhariyat (The Scatterers) 51:47) PROOF ENOUGH??  "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder, and We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"(Qur'an surah Al-Anbiya (The Prophets) 21:30) "and the heavens we created with might (power) and we are expanding it." (Qur'an surah Ad-Dhariyat (The Scatterers) 51:47) This one will amaze you  "When the sky is torn apart, so it was (like) a red rose, like ointment."  (Qur'an surah Ar-Rahman (The Beneficent) 55:37)<< now go on google images and type in ‘The Cat's Eye Nebula; an example of a planetary nebula.’ AMAZING !! WHO COULD HAVE KNOWN THIS !! 1400 years ago without the technology of the 21st century???? No-one but Allah
     "It is He Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They swim along, each in an orbit. "(Qur'an Al-Anbiya' (The Prophets) 21:33) "The sun and the moon follow courses precisely computed"  (Qur'an surah Ar-Rahman (The Beneficent) 55:5)  “Have We not made the earth as a wide expanseand the mountains as pegs?” (Qur’an surah An-Naba' (The Announcement) 78:6-7)  “And we have made the earth egg shaped”.(lit.trans: ostrich egg) (Qur’an surah An-Nazi'at (Those Who Yearn) 79:30) There are so many proofs in the quran everything in the quran has either been proven to be true by science or has neither been proven true nor false (like not discovered… yet!) 
    “He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation in three veils of darkness.” (Quran- surah Az-Zumar (The Companies) means, in the darkness of the womb, the darkness of the placenta which blankets and protects the child, and the darkness of the belly. It doesn’t refer to seasons.

    About the ayah you quoted about men and women surah An-Nisa' (The Women) ; it IS logical :
    The people of Jahiliyyah (the state in which the Arabs were before Islam) (Jahiliyyah is ignorance, or lack of knowledge) used to give the males, but not the females, a share in the inheritance. Therefore, Allah commands that both males and females take a share in the inheritance, although the portion of the males is twice as much as that of the females. There is a distinction because men need money to spend on their, work and fulfilling their obligations. Consequently, men get twice the portion of the inheritance that females get. When women get married their husbands must provide for them anyway so they don’t really need more than men, as a man HAS to provide for his wife and children but a women doesn’t HAVE to provide for the family!
    (to the male, a portion equal to that of two females); testifies to the fact that Allah is more merciful with children than their own parents are with them, since He commands the parents to be just and fair with their own children.
    Do you get it ?
    Its not sexist its logical!!

    Isam

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by U14952611 (U14952611) on Tuesday, 22nd January 2013

    Dear Isam,

    If the theory was first mentioned in the Qur’an, you are in effect saying it was the Qur’an that first came up with it, or rather that God had it written in the Qur’an first.

    Actually, I really do not think it’s proof enough – you have quoted two different passages that are both vague. Why do you have to imply that the Qur’an was ahead of its time in scientific advances? The Qur’an ought to be respected for its religious truth, not its vague verses that could be interpreted as scientific truths.

    The verse “And when the heavens are split open and becomes rose-coloured like oil” really doesn't show me anything; it clearly wasn't talking about a collection of gases in space, it’s just another vague but poetic verse about the sky splitting. I really don’t think it was talking about nebulas, and in all these cases you haven’t shown me why these verses aren't clear or accurate. Again, if we find vague and interesting enough verses, we can apply them to any modern event as they have done with Nostradamus.

    “Its not sexist its logical!!” It’s not sexist to give men twice as much inheritance as men? And you are attributing this to a sexist society? Why couldn't God have simply said that men and women were equal, should be given equal rights and freedoms and be paid the same in wages and in inheritance? Because it is an illogical verse. I have nothing inherently against Islam, but one has to admit that there are verses, as there are in all religious texts, that are illogical or just plain wrong.

    My real discussion was not really supposed to be about God, but the Meaning of Life, as the discussion title would imply, so I was wondering if you could give me a meaning and reason for believing that… I will post another argument against the Meaning of Life when I get the chance.
    Many thanks,

    Antoine

    [Personal details removed by Moderator]

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by U15371933 (U15371933) on Wednesday, 23rd January 2013

    Antoine-Clément,

    ‘If the theory was first mentioned in the Qur’an, you are in effect saying it was the Qur’an that first came up with it, or rather that God had it written ‘
    Yeah I am !
    The qura’n is not a book of science it is written in a way that says like ‘do you not see..’ or ‘how can you deny…’ they are all signs to show people that everything has a reason.
    It is logical and it isnt sexist. Imagine there are two men, one is a wealthy man he has enough money, clothes, water, food etc. and the other doesn’t he is a poor man, no clothes, food etc. you have 1000 dollars to give away, what would you do give it all to the poor man ?….all to the rich man?......... or split it equally???....logically you would give it to the poor man as he NEEDS it whereas the rich man doesn’t. same applies with the share that is twice for the man, as men NEED the money to spend on their families on food, water, a home etc. while the women doesn’t NEED the money as her husband or father or brother or uncle or someone looks after her, sure you could give it to her just like you could give the money to the rich man but is it logical to give money to someone that doesn’t need it. Women and men are equal but they both have different responsibilities, hence the NEED for more for one and less for the other. God is not saying ‘oh men are better than women’ its a just way to split the inheritance. I hope u get my example because I don’t know how else to explain it to you.

    There arent ANY verses in the Qura’n that are illogical or wrong!! << just because you don’t understand them doesn’t mean that they are wrong, it helps to know the background and reason for the ayah.
    I know that your discussion was about the meaning of life but God does come into the meaning of life. A lot of people in this world believe that the meaning of life is to follow the commandments of God!

    Isam

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 5.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by U15492444 (U15492444) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    Actually it was the Christian theologians and Papacy who claimed that for centuries based on the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. The scientists of this time were pretty much theologians thus all they said had to be compatible with the Church's teachings.
    Science has only existed as an independent entity free from the influence of religion for four centuries or so.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by U15492444 (U15492444) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    Yes, the God of the New Testament if very different from the God of the Old Testament.
    And it could be argued that the Hebrews/Israelites conjured their 'God' as a means of justifying their practices and wars e.g. 'the Lord commanded them to attack the camp'.
    It is also interesting that the Genesis story was formulated in response to the Babylonian 'Enuma Elish' creation story which pre-dates it (I think). And we can see this Israelite-Babylonian vendetta throughout the Old Testament in the form of abusive slurs against Babylon.

    And regarding religions, the Bible declares that 'the only way to the Father is through Jesus Christ', therefore ruling out the possibility that all, most or some of the religions are compatible including Islam because, despite acknowledging Christ as a prophet, they do not accept his death and resurrection. Note that I am not saying that the Christian view is true, only that it seems unlikely because there are billions of other faithful followers of other religions that would be sent to 'Hell'.
    Furthermore, people are born and raised into these other religions so it wouldn't seem fair for them to be condemned. A philosophical Hard Determinist might say they were not free to choose.

    However, the absence of God does not necessarily render life as meaningless. It would be wise to seek peace and harmony with others and generally work hard.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by U15492444 (U15492444) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    It could be argued that your argument is based on 'wishful thinking'. The quote about the apparent record of the creation of the universe in the Qur'an may have been referring to something completely different, and that you only saw it as a description of the scientific account because you WANTED to see that description. Also, it could just be a coincidence that the text describes something similar to the scientific account,

    I agree with all that you said after this though, I do believe life is purposeful and that there is a God. I also see that you have addressed the common misunderstanding on sexism in the Qur'an and (if I may say) the Bible. These books suggest that woman was made different from man, not as inferior to man,

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by U15492444 (U15492444) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    I agree. The theory of evolution was first suggested by an ancient Greek philosopher, and not by Darwin as many of us like to think.
    Actually, there is a good chance that the theory was devised even before this Greek philosopher that we know of, because many of them didn't write down their ideas (Socrates for example) and for many of the ones who did, their written ideas have not survived.
    So, we only have a handful of the written ideas yet we still find evolution among them, and that is saying something because if we had all of the ancient Greeks ideas, evolution may be mentioned lots of times.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by U14952611 (U14952611) on Wednesday, 30th January 2013

    Isam,

    My previous comment was blocked for some reason, even if we are all teenagers here, but anyhow I will rephrase my argument.

    If you are saying the Qur'an came up with it, then why did you say, "I am not saying the Qura’n came up with the big bang..."? So long as you make your view clear I will continue.

    It is a book of moral teachings and vague, beautiful poetry that we can put any slant on with the benefit of modern science. It didn't enlighten people in the past. They didn't all start talking about nebulas in the sky, they took it as poetry, and it is only with the progress of science that some people are trying to find religious backing. Religious texts are for religious truths, and scientific for scientific. It is pointless conflicting the two.

    Why does a woman need to be looked after? Why can a woman not run a family, a business, a country? The old system of women having a subordinate role to men has been done away with, so why should women still be disadvantaged in fundamentalist Islamic countries?

    No illogical verses? Surah 65 mentions, I believe, men being allowed to girls. There are also countless verses which advocate the rejecting of 'unbelievers' in many ways. Don't get me wrong, it's not just Islam I'm showing up as illogical. Every religion has its forgotten or embarrassing verses that are now having to be interpreted in new ways.

    Why blindly follow the commandments of a possibly existent God if it comes to odds with one's own moral convictions?

    Antoine

    [Personal details removed by Moderator]

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by U14952611 (U14952611) on Wednesday, 30th January 2013

    If there is no God, we were given no purpose in our creation. The only purpose we have is that which we construct for ourselves, but these are insufficient, as when we experience greater evils, we are challenged, and our purpose in life becomes a painful burden that we must protect. Embracing meaningless is the way to go.

    Antoine

    [Personal details removed by Moderator]

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by U15371933 (U15371933) on Wednesday, 30th January 2013

    Antoine-Clément,

    Sorry, reading over my post now I realize that it doesn't make sense what I wanted to write was that the ‘big bang’ was mentioned in the Qura'n hence saying that the big bang was done by god.
    ‘Why does a woman need to be looked after? Why can a woman not run a family, a business, a country?’
    A women can have a business, the point is that in Islam women are like pearls (precious right?), if you had a diamond or something really valuable would u not look after it?? Every women needs a… you could call it a chauffeur, to protect them (must be a male close family member) its not superiority on the mans half its respect. And especially in this society wouldn't you want to be protected??
    ‘why should women still be disadvantaged in fundamentalist Islamic countries?’
    Its not a disadvantage, you should ask a Muslim girl if she feels at a disadvantage or not  ‘No illogical verses? Surah 65 mentions, I believe, men being allowed to girls.’ I don’t know what you are referring to in being illogical this Surah just talks about divorce? Please expand
    ‘There are also countless verses which advocate the rejecting of 'unbelievers' in many ways.’ don’t know what you mean by this, not come across any that are not logical, just a point though when you read a ayah make sure that you know the background behind it and what it is actually talking about.
    ‘ possibly existent God’ I could ask you the same question, why believe what you believe?
    Isam

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by U14952611 (U14952611) on Sunday, 3rd February 2013

    Isam,

    Right, so long as that's clear!
    This is ridiculous, because both men and women are precious. They deserve equal rights, protection and freedom. Why should a woman be hindered by males to 'protect' them? They do not trust women to care for themselves and make their own decisions, when both men and women are as responsible as each other. Sure, protection is good in theory, but why can a woman not flirt with whom she likes, go where she likes, meet who she wants, etc. when a male can without interference? Believe me it is a disadvantage when you aren't allowed to drive a car (Saudi Arabia), where a uniform niqab in public, no matter how uncomfortable or dull in colour and most of all acquire six men to be with her if she needs to buy or sell property, or even go to court - a clear disadvantage in the justice system against women. Besides, why are women more precious than men (inferred as men do not need 'chauffeurs' as you'd call them.

    Sorry, I meant to write "men being allowed marry to girls.", which is pretty disgusting as it is often against her will.

    "Slay them [the unbelievers] wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter [...] But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." Surah 2:191. It's hardly a very pleasant verse, but no doubt there is a perfectly logical reason to advocate the persecution and murder of followers of different religions?

    I believe nothing, and that is exactly what I am advocating. Reject empty belief that comes from vague sources, we MUST act as our own moral agents, and do what we see as just and good without being too influenced from any one book or person. Morality, truth, freedom, all subjective terms repressed to deny us as individuals to gain our own liberty. We must be free to think separately from society - "To be independent of public opinion is the first formal condition of achieving greatness" GWF Hegel said once, and by that same independent freedom we must find for ourselves the truth.

    Personally I believe God is dead - the West started to kill him in the Renaissance, and he fell stone dead by 1945. Western society, at least in Europe, are no longer oppressed by the theocracies that once dictated our world. With no God, there is no cause, and therefore no inherent meaning to life. A pretty nihilistic view must be undertaken in order to seek truth in this funny world.

    Antoine-Clément,

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by U15371933 (U15371933) on Sunday, 3rd February 2013

    Antoine-Clément,

    ‘They deserve equal rights, protection and freedom.’ I totally agree << Like I said before they (men and women) just have different responsibilities!
    ‘but why can a woman not flirt with whom she likes, go where she likes, meet who she wants, etc. when a male can without interference?’ << in Islam ‘flirting’ is haram doesn’t matter if you are a women or a man.
    ‘Where a uniform niqab in public<< (I think u meant ‘wear’) how is this a disadvantage do you know why women wear hijab and niqaab?? to be modest, have dignity, what kind of a woman is someone who doesn’t mind sharing themselves with the whole world??
    ‘No matter how uncomfortable or dull in colour’<<< what do you want them to wear bright yellow? << The whole point of this is to not grab anyone’s attention. Bright yellow would attract men’s attention and therefore haram.

    ‘Besides, why are women more precious than men (inferred as men do not need 'chauffeurs' as you'd call them.’ Because in case you haven’t noticed men and women are different imagine you are in a fight who would you call to help u, ur brother or your sister???

    ‘“Men being allowed marry to girls.", which is pretty disgusting as it is often against her, will.’ << A – in Islam a marriage is not accepted unless both the man AND women want to get married i.e. out of their own free will and B- what do you mean by ‘men being allowed to marry girls’ what would u prefer men to marry men ?? Hate to break it to you dude, but that is haram !!


    ‘"Slay them [the unbelievers] wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter [...] But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." Surah 2:191. It's hardly a very pleasant verse, but no doubt there is a perfectly logical reason to advocate the persecution and murder of followers of different religions?’ <> this is talking about in battle can u name any general , any leader (of any army) that would say ‘ when the enemy comes just sit there and let them kill you’ no I didn’t think so!!!! This is talking about battle anybody in their right mind will say ‘if they attack you, attack back’ is this not logical? It kinda funny how you didn’t mention the verses after which says ‘But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving,
    Most Merciful.’ Which indicates that If they stop fighting then you should stop aswell. Whoever fights them afterwards will be committing an injustice. Aggression can only be started against the unjust. This is again mentioned in I think surah Toubah (9) it is logical you just read it out of contene u cant just pluck random verses from the Qur'an and expect them to make sense of casue they will sound illogical if you do that.

    ‘We must find for ourselves the truth’ << I already have --- Islam!!! :D

    Isam

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by U15492444 (U15492444) on Monday, 4th February 2013

    I'd argue that you should not attack anyone even if they attack you. The logic you are operating on is 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth'.

    However, I agree with what you said about women wearing niqaabs. In the West, the attitude taken by women is disgraceful. Many girls in my school think it is okay to flirt and have sex with whomever whenever. I am very disillusioned with the Western society which I live in and I believe that the Islamic countries have a good philosophy smiley - smiley

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by U15371933 (U15371933) on Saturday, 9th February 2013

    I'd argue that you should not attack anyone even if they attack you. The logic you are operating on is 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth'.

    However, I agree with what you said about women wearing niqaabs. In the West, the attitude taken by women is disgraceful. Many girls in my school think it is okay to flirt and have sex with whomever whenever. I am very disillusioned with the Western society which I live in and I believe that the Islamic countries have a good philosophy smiley - smiley 
    I agree with you, but i used to live in america and over there everything is magnified people act 10 times worse than what they act like here in the UK. you can't walk out without lowering your gaze (not looking at people, men and women alike)
    Isam (Missing my homeland smiley - sadface )

    (Just out of curiosity have you been to any Muslim countries?)

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by U14952611 (U14952611) on Sunday, 10th February 2013

    I agree that the Golden Rule is pretty sound.

    I too am very disgusted by Western society, but also by all society that represses people. Why should girls not be allowed to flirt though? Or indeed have sex is caution is taken? I am disillusioned with all of humanity, and hope one day there will be freedom, equality, love and peace.

    Antoine

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 23.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Han Ban (U14706661) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    But then it all varies down to opinion and forcing your opinion onto someone else is a violation of human rights. For me, my faith offers a great philosophy too, only we don't see the problem with safe sex, homosexuality and independence within women. It's partly why I stopped being a Christian, because many of the teachings conflicted with my beliefs about women's rights, abortion and sex. My religion is a purely non-materialistic one, so it would make little sense to have a particular uniform or style of clothing (seeing as many people work sky-clad, which means in the nude, as that is the closest way to be to nature/our Goddess). Likewise, my faith makes clear the equality of men and women, you can't have one without the other. Any upset within the four elements creates an imbalance, so fire always needs water and earth always needs air (and so on). In the same way man needs woman and vice versa. There is also the importance of how women should have masculine characteristics and men feminine ones, to be a truly balanced person.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 23.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by U14952611 (U14952611) on Tuesday, 5th February 2013

    I agree the Golden Rule is a good idea, but we must experience our laws, not just blindly follow them.

    I can't understand fully why you are so bitter about the idea of consenting minors having sex, but I understand that caution in all cases is advised. Attitudes are decadent, but hey, we ought to live as we please and learn for ourselves the way that is most suited for us. I too am disillusioned with society, but all society. One day our governments will fall and we shall live at peace.

    Antoine-Clément

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by U14952611 (U14952611) on Sunday, 10th February 2013

    Isam,

    For some reason my reply was not posted. I shall attempt to do now again.

    Apologies, what I was trying to say was that women are forced to do things in the company of trusted men, which denies them their freedom. Sure 'protection' sounds nice, but, as Benjamin Franklin said, "(S)he who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither." Freedom is paramount, in other words. You yourself said that they deserve equal freedom, so why deny it?

    Now I understand I explained myself very badly before, so I will try and explain what I meant. I know what a niqab is for, and don't pick me up on careless errors; it is shallow - I could easily pick up on your use of 'u', not 'you', etc. I understand humility is important, but isn't it strange that it is women that must be covered, rather than men to curb their desires? Women are forced to be covered for the man to keep his virtue, when by the same logic, a man could simply cover his eyes or dissuade his passions. This is another example of men taking dominance over women. Ha, you know I actually meant that a woman couldn't choose how to dress, unlike a man, thus another freedom denied and granted only to men.

    Right, so it is purely the strength that defines how precious people are? And many women are stronger than men, perhaps they ought to be free to walk alone and weak men escorted? There is no logic here, Isam.

    Men being allowed marry to girls, as in old men and pre-teen girls. In fact, I believe that marriage is a deal between the groom and father of the bride, which goes to show that men are given power even over love... Besides, why shouldn't men be allowed to marry men? Or women with women? Love is love, regardless or race, colour, creed or gender, and ought to be acknowledged in society in the same way.

    Frankly, Isam, any God that tells you to kill cannot be a god worth believing in. Sorry, but we must be our own moral agents, and frankly why would anyone kill anyone? Why should you believe in a god that tells you to slay unbelievers in battle? It makes one question their moral authority, does it not?

    I'm interested to know whether you believe God created morality, or whether He just upholds it? And what do you think of that age old contradiction of omnipotence? Can Allah create a stone he cannot lift?

    We must find for ourselves the truth, WITHOUT just following the rules of the faith we were brought up in, or in fact any religion until we are adults. We have a youth to learn and find a path suited for us.

    Antoine-Clément

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by U15492444 (U15492444) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    Yes, the United States is a modern Babylon.

    I have been to a Muslim country. In 2006 my family and I went on vacation to Turkey. However, we stayed in a coastal resort which is very westernised.
    Indeed, Turkey is a state which is becoming more secularized by the minute as its government allies itself with the United States and her allies. Turkey is a member of NATO and may soon become a member of the European Union.

    I am Scottish by the way, and I presume you live in England?

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by U15492444 (U15492444) on Tuesday, 12th February 2013

    If you claim to promote things which are totally harmonious and in-line with nature, then how can you say that safe sex is okay?
    By using contraception, the semen is exerted onto something man-made and artificial rather than into the female.













    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by U15371933 (U15371933) on Friday, 15th February 2013

    Antoine-Clément,

    'Apologies, what I was trying to say was that women are forced to do things in the company of trusted men, which denies them their freedom.' << for the sake of argument lets just say that a woman was (what you call) 'denied freedom' why are u labeling all women the same??? In Islam nobody denies freedom for women???
    okay here's a story,
    Girl: (with barely any clothes on) "why should we cover up, why don't men just lower their gaze?"
    Boy: well, why is it that you spend your time making yourselves look pretty?? isn't it for men??
    see where i'm coming from??? why else would you wear revealing clothes? its to impress people right??

    And men have to cover in Islam too it is as important as it is for women!! a women can choose how she dresses as long as its modest!! (same for men!!)

    its not strength although i see your point my example wasn't the best, its hard to explain its about being gentlemanly and a man!!!!
    what kind of a man would stand back and let his sister get in a fight it doesn't matter is she is strong and he is weak its just something you do!

    'Men being allowed marry to girls, as in old men and pre-teen girls. In fact, I believe that marriage is a deal between the groom and father of the bride' << so you have a problem with age ?? what does age matter?? if the girl wants to get married... the dude wants to get married ... the family is okay with it whats your problem?? how is it hurting you that they are not the same age??
    And like i said before a marriage is not accepted unless both the man and woman want to get married!!

    And referring to the battle stuff, what would you say to the army "stop fighting you shouldn't kill people, what happened to your moral agents ??" your logic makes total sense!!! (sarcasm)
    the stone lifting thing God can do everything except things that are logically -impossible (self contradictory) or are in conflict with his perfect nature. -like god can not die

    Isam

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by U15371933 (U15371933) on Friday, 15th February 2013

    Yep, london.
    i've been turkey but the east side beautiful place !
    Isam :D

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Han Ban (U14706661) on Friday, 15th February 2013

    Well then by all means use a sheep's bladder, but women have been using herbs for centuries in preventing/gaining a child. Contraception is nothing new and by safe sex I mean safety in regards to your spiritual and emotional health, as well as your physical one. There is no need for today's modern woman to have children at a young age, because our life expectancy has gone up and it is now perfectly safe for a woman to have children in her thirties. Besides, the sex I'm talking about is not solely concerned with the procreation of children, but the love and desire shown by the couple. Sex solely for the purpose of love and enjoyment is not unnatural either.

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by U14952611 (U14952611) on Saturday, 16th February 2013

    Isam,

    I am not labelling all women the same, but as you have laws against a whole gender, I am forced to say that all women are being denied freedom (even if they are doing what they like). In the same way that you might be happy in a locked room, you are nevertheless a prisoner, and should have freedom.

    We shouldn't be dressed up just to look attractive. In the summer, my sister for one likes to wear a T-shirt and shorts when she goes out, which is exposing her body effectively to the world. She's not trying to look appealing, just feel comfortable in the heat. If women are not allowed to wear what they want out of comfort, they are clearly being denied a vital freedom. I agree that a lot of clothes are revealing and sleazy, however, which I do not agree with, but hey, it's also their choice on how to dress. What is wrong, even, if men therefore think she is attractive? I cannot understand your Victorian values.

    Yes, and likewise with a sister. We all protect each other, in this day and age, and none of us need to be accompanied just to help us in case of danger.

    I believe you are advocating illegal activity - a pre-teen girl is in no position to make such a big decision or to protect herself from potential abuse from her husband. How can someone aged twelve or under even know what some strange man is like? And why would a man love a girl who hasn't even developed their character yet? These decisions are too big for children to make, and children can also be bullied in to doing what their families or what the groom-to-be wants, so it is not an acceptable or logical law. I don't care if two consenting ADULTS are in love, but pre-teens are very manipulatable. A man and a woman, not a man and a girl? Right. And since when were two men (or women) not allowed to get married as an expression of love?

    No man or woman should be compelled to do anything that conflicts with their own morals, or promotes taking decisions that are uncomfortable.

    So, let me get this straight - God can do ANYTHING... but break the laws of logic? So God is not all powerful? Right, I didn't realise that's what Islam believed, but alright...

    Antoine-Clément



    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by Han Ban (U14706661) on Sunday, 17th February 2013

    Perhaps we also need to question why men don't have a responsibility to control themselves? Why all this blame is heaped on the woman. Men are autonomous, individuals they can control what they do and it's not just women who wear revealing clothes that are abused or raped. When I was fourteen I got a whole heap of sexually abusive language thrown at me when I was walking up a street, but I was wearing my huge, ugly sweatshirt and plain trousers. It's really simplistic to think violence towards women only happens when they wear revealing clothes and it's really offensive towards women who have gone through that as it ought to be a man's responsibility to control himself.

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by U15371933 (U15371933) on Sunday, 17th February 2013

    Antoine-Clément ,

    'but as you have laws against a whole gender' << I'm sure I've mentioned at least twice that it is not just women that need to cover up it is also MEN!!!! women in Islam have more freedom then women who don’t follow Islam and i'm a guy and saying that!!!
    'my sister for one likes to wear a T-shirt and shorts when she goes out'>> okay, but she wouldn't go out butt naked would she?? she still wears what she thinks is decent. Why are you assuming that Muslim women don’t want to wear Hijab and clothes that cover them????!!! going out with short shirts and pants is like walking out naked to Muslim women.
    Victorian values?? Its called modesty. Imagine there are two pieces of candy on the sidewalk On of the pieces has its wrapper on and one piece doesn’t. ( I know you probably wouldn't but..) you had to eat one which would you eat?? Which one is better?? (hope you get the metaphor)
    ‘a pre-teen girl is in no position to make such a big decision’ <<<just because you wouldn't doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed.
    ‘protect herself from potential abuse from her husband’<< what has age got to do with this even a 30 year old might not be able to stop this. ‘And why would a man love a girl who hasn't even developed their character yet? ‘ >>>just because you wouldn't doesn't mean that everybody wont. ‘And since when were two men (or women) not allowed to get married as an expression of love?’ >> since the beginning of time i'm sure I've mentioned its Haram in Islam –totally 100% forbidden.
    ‘No man or woman should be compelled to do anything that conflicts with their own morals’ <<if we are talking about Muslims then their morals are Islam and what it teaches.
    God is all-powerful, you wouldn't understand if I told you to eat an apple and not eat an apple at the same time you wouldn't be able to do it right? You wouldn't be able to even begin to think how to do it, its like that its beyond your understanding!! How would we expect to know the power of God we are but mere humans, made out of mud.

    Isam

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 39.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 39.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 39.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 39.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 1.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Kate (U15631579) on Wednesday, 27th February 2013

    So here we are, bumbling about our daily lives, never questioning the values of the Victorian world. The belief that life has meaning, or that we ought to search for the meaning of life are false, quite false, as I will set out in as logical a way as I can.

    [1] Firstly, there is no God. Ouch! A painfully atheistic comment from a theist, but I must say it on the grounds that there is no evidence for a God that science, our most reliable system for finding truth, can base any small claim on. There is no need for a God in logical terms, as Occam's Razor would say - the universe doesn't need any man on a cloud or invisible spirit with complex traits to be its cause, as it is more likely that it was created in a big bang. Furthermore, religions have many mutually exclusive traits (e.g. belief in a jealous God vs belief in a loving God, a vengeful vs a forgiving, one vs many, etc., etc.), which implies that they cannot all be right. If not all religions are right,, how are we supposed to choose, and is there any point in them? If one religion can fall by logic - the Christian omnipotent, omni-benevolent God - then why not the rest? If that's the biggest religion in the world broken by logic, we're just as safe turning to Zoroastrianism or Falun Gong. Fundamentally it shows that there is no correlation between commonly accepted stories and the truth, only a story which is most pleasing.

    I'll admit there are flaws with what I say, and as a very conflicted theist, I am very much aware of them, but if we choose to accept this first argument, we can continue...

    [2] Every creation was created with purpose. Just as a chair was made for man to rest his backside on, or a sculpture made for its aesthetics, we can link the act of creation with the intention of creation. If we have accepted [1], then life, without a creator, was not created for any purpose. There is no meaning to life, as there is no creator.

    [3] Finally, if you're still reading, the idea that we should seek out meaning, or even as Sartre might have argued, construct meaning, is a bad idea, as if there is no meaning, we must not create insufficient meanings, but rather embrace meaninglessness. When we have our values crushed, as can be the case in war, or after having witnessed something horrific or shocking, like a death or even a UFO, we become depressed and saddened, sometimes to the extent that we lose our sanity or stability. If we recognise meaninglessness from the start, we never lose our values, which are only distracting us or limiting us. As the great writer Thomas Mann said, "a harmful truth is better than a useful lie." It is on this basis that we ought to accept there is no meaning of life.

    Kindest regards from a friendly existential absurdist,

    Antoine [Personal details removed by Moderator] 
    Do you mind if I add a little to this discussion? I hope you don't, but if so then there's no obligation to read it all (for I know it will be long) or indeed reply.

    I think that perhaps you're right, in that life does not have meaning and even that it's unhealthy to look for one. It's a consuming obsession, and I know that such a topic takes up a lot of my thoughts. We're not born with a role to fill or a goal to complete before the end of our short lives (or at least not which we know of). Due to this ignorance on our behalf to an aim, we often make meaning for ourselves. Many feel that creation is a way to feel significant and others think to help other living things or to love and be loved in return. There's even evidence (I use this word sparingly) that the purpose of life is to perpetuate intelligence. Either way, most of us - I think - are doing everything we can just to justify our existence. We're trying to comfort ourselves: give ourselves a reason to do something with this burden of a body. Humans want to feel as though they matter. This is a fundamental aspect of human consciousness.

    Consequently, I find the idea of a God depicted religiously (I want to draw attention to the importance to the differences between a God in religion and a God in agnosticism) is the product of humans attempting to comfort themselves, or - more worryingly - get their own way. Religious beliefs and texts are used so often to make a person do something or not do something... Often I feel that people forget that they texts were written by humans. We thrive on fiction. Words are so often use as a tool of power, and what better way to get what we want by saying that they are indeed God's words? Maybe I'm a cynic, but it seems odd to me that so many people live so strongly by rules created by previous generations. (Saying this, I suppose that sentiment could be applied to governments etc as well, and the argument can extend to whether or not morals and rules are necessary for the proficiency of humankind, but this is another argument entirely!)

    I think that I have made it clear that to me a direct meaning to life, especially one religiously inspired, is of no comfort. However, this is where I find that I turn to the marvelous universe, rather than a book written almost 3500 years ago.

    I, of course, feel the need to find purpose and meaning in my existence - I too want to matter, and I started questioning whether my body, my soul, my mind had any weight in the course of anything ever because of all these thoughts I had. I scribble them all down; I draw; I look - really look - at things; ponder about them; I wanted it to matter but no matter how much I think about it I couldn't find how in the world it ever would. I have been tempted to turn to God for answers on my significance to the world, and have dived deep into religious exploration for some relief. Instead, I came across some information that hints at a God, even if not necessarily the Christian or Islamic or Jewish God and even if it isn't necessarily called a God.

    Quantum Physics, as I'm sure you are aware, studies impossibly small particles and the interactions between them; basically, the things that compose the most basic units of matter. Now, one of the most beautiful truths that QP has taught me is that if look close enough, there are no boundaries between the air above your skin and your skin. If you look close enough, they're the same thing; they're made of the same stuff; the same kind of matter - this means that, subatomically, the entire Universe is strung together. We are basically this one magnificently beautiful and astronomically huge breathing, pulsing organism. If that doesn't make sense, let me tell you about something else Physics has taught me, which I'm sure you've heard about at least once: that we are made the stars themselves. We are part of the universe, but most importantly, the universe is a part of us.

    And that's how I found my place universe - by realizing I am not only indivisibly and undoubtedly part of it, considering I am part of its near-infinite cobweb of cosmic tissue, but I am also made of the same stuff it's made of - I am it, except recycled, renewed and aware of it. I could go on about this forever, but I think you've had enough of all this Physics talk. Basically, it's respite to me that there's a billion different ways I could have turned out - the reason I am who I am is because of every single little occurrence that I've ever been through. It renders me almost speechless when I think of it.

    I'm not even a science fan, to be honest, but I suppose I am fan of thinking and theories and concepts and ideas. I hope I've haven't bored you to death, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

    Kate

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by U15678649 (U15678649) on Sunday, 7th April 2013

    Antoine-Clément ,

    'but as you have laws against a whole gender' << I'm sure I've mentioned at least twice that it is not just women that need to cover up it is also MEN!!!! women in Islam have more freedom then women who don’t follow Islam and i'm a guy and saying that!!!
    'my sister for one likes to wear a T-shirt and shorts when she goes out'>> okay, but she wouldn't go out butt naked would she?? she still wears what she thinks is decent. Why are you assuming that Muslim women don’t want to wear Hijab and clothes that cover them????!!! going out with short shirts and pants is like walking out naked to Muslim women.
    Victorian values?? Its called modesty. Imagine there are two pieces of candy on the sidewalk On of the pieces has its wrapper on and one piece doesn’t. ( I know you probably wouldn't but..) you had to eat one which would you eat?? Which one is better?? (hope you get the metaphor)
    ‘a pre-teen girl is in no position to make such a big decision’ <<<just because you wouldn't doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed.
    ‘protect herself from potential abuse from her husband’<< what has age got to do with this even a 30 year old might not be able to stop this. ‘And why would a man love a girl who hasn't even developed their character yet? ‘ >>>just because you wouldn't doesn't mean that everybody wont. ‘And since when were two men (or women) not allowed to get married as an expression of love?’ >> since the beginning of time i'm sure I've mentioned its Haram in Islam –totally 100% forbidden.
    ‘No man or woman should be compelled to do anything that conflicts with their own morals’ <<if we are talking about Muslims then their morals are Islam and what it teaches.
    God is all-powerful, you wouldn't understand if I told you to eat an apple and not eat an apple at the same time you wouldn't be able to do it right? You wouldn't be able to even begin to think how to do it, its like that its beyond your understanding!! How would we expect to know the power of God we are but mere humans, made out of mud.

    Isam
     
    I totally agree with you bro and i'm a Muslim girl
    Love the metaphor smiley - winkeye
    Ayesha :D

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by U15678649 (U15678649) on Sunday, 7th April 2013

    Just wanna add to my last post!
    i wear hijab and i love wearing hijab who wouldnt want to cover themselves
    surely everyone must agree that ur body is ur body only why would u want to display it to the whole world !!
    Ayesha :D

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by Han Ban (U14706661) on Sunday, 7th April 2013

    Because it is a form of beauty and to be ashamed of something beautiful is to be ashamed of the self and whoever created such a piece of artwork. Our bodies tell our stories and life, they are not things to be hidden and kept away. I want people to see me because otherwise it would be a form of deception. I would lie to myself and others around me.

    But that's my view. Do as thou wilt, but harm none smiley - smiley

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by U15371933 (U15371933) on Monday, 8th April 2013

    Antoine-Clément ,

    'but as you have laws against a whole gender' << I'm sure I've mentioned at least twice that it is not just women that need to cover up it is also MEN!!!! women in Islam have more freedom then women who don’t follow Islam and i'm a guy and saying that!!!
    'my sister for one likes to wear a T-shirt and shorts when she goes out'>> okay, but she wouldn't go out butt naked would she?? she still wears what she thinks is decent. Why are you assuming that Muslim women don’t want to wear Hijab and clothes that cover them????!!! going out with short shirts and pants is like walking out naked to Muslim women.
    Victorian values?? Its called modesty. Imagine there are two pieces of candy on the sidewalk On of the pieces has its wrapper on and one piece doesn’t. ( I know you probably wouldn't but..) you had to eat one which would you eat?? Which one is better?? (hope you get the metaphor)
    ‘a pre-teen girl is in no position to make such a big decision’ <<<just because you wouldn't doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed.
    ‘protect herself from potential abuse from her husband’<< what has age got to do with this even a 30 year old might not be able to stop this. ‘And why would a man love a girl who hasn't even developed their character yet? ‘ >>>just because you wouldn't doesn't mean that everybody wont. ‘And since when were two men (or women) not allowed to get married as an expression of love?’ >> since the beginning of time i'm sure I've mentioned its Haram in Islam –totally 100% forbidden.
    ‘No man or woman should be compelled to do anything that conflicts with their own morals’ <<if we are talking about Muslims then their morals are Islam and what it teaches.
    God is all-powerful, you wouldn't understand if I told you to eat an apple and not eat an apple at the same time you wouldn't be able to do it right? You wouldn't be able to even begin to think how to do it, its like that its beyond your understanding!! How would we expect to know the power of God we are but mere humans, made out of mud.

    Isam
     
    I totally agree with you bro and i'm a Muslim girl
    Love the metaphor smiley - winkeye
    Ayesha :D 
    thanks sis
    my father taught me this metaphor along time ago!!
    Isam smiley - smiley

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by pockpock (U14907132) on Wednesday, 10th April 2013

    So here we are, bumbling about our daily lives, never questioning the values of the Victorian world. The belief that life has meaning, or that we ought to search for the meaning of life are false, quite false, as I will set out in as logical a way as I can.

    [1] Firstly, there is no God. Ouch! A painfully atheistic comment from a theist, but I must say it on the grounds that there is no evidence for a God that science, our most reliable system for finding truth, can base any small claim on. There is no need for a God in logical terms, as Occam's Razor would say - the universe doesn't need any man on a cloud or invisible spirit with complex traits to be its cause, as it is more likely that it was created in a big bang. Furthermore, religions have many mutually exclusive traits (e.g. belief in a jealous God vs belief in a loving God, a vengeful vs a forgiving, one vs many, etc., etc.), which implies that they cannot all be right. If not all religions are right,, how are we supposed to choose, and is there any point in them? If one religion can fall by logic - the Christian omnipotent, omni-benevolent God - then why not the rest? If that's the biggest religion in the world broken by logic, we're just as safe turning to Zoroastrianism or Falun Gong. Fundamentally it shows that there is no correlation between commonly accepted stories and the truth, only a story which is most pleasing.

    I'll admit there are flaws with what I say, and as a very conflicted theist, I am very much aware of them, but if we choose to accept this first argument, we can continue...

    [2] Every creation was created with purpose. Just as a chair was made for man to rest his backside on, or a sculpture made for its aesthetics, we can link the act of creation with the intention of creation. If we have accepted [1], then life, without a creator, was not created for any purpose. There is no meaning to life, as there is no creator.

    [3] Finally, if you're still reading, the idea that we should seek out meaning, or even as Sartre might have argued, construct meaning, is a bad idea, as if there is no meaning, we must not create insufficient meanings, but rather embrace meaninglessness. When we have our values crushed, as can be the case in war, or after having witnessed something horrific or shocking, like a death or even a UFO, we become depressed and saddened, sometimes to the extent that we lose our sanity or stability. If we recognise meaninglessness from the start, we never lose our values, which are only distracting us or limiting us. As the great writer Thomas Mann said, "a harmful truth is better than a useful lie." It is on this basis that we ought to accept there is no meaning of life.

    Kindest regards from a friendly existential absurdist,

    Antoine [Personal details removed by Moderator] 
    Surely science is the incorrect method to understanding God? If we are to agree that the God of classical theism is the correct definition of God, then we, as limited beings, will find it impossible to comprehend an unlimited being? And science as a method of finding truth? That goes against the fundamentals of science. There are no absolute truths in science, only inferences drawn from evidence gathered by the scientific method. That's why theories such as the Big Bang persist; they give an adequate explanation to the observations we have made. In the case of the Big Bang, it is the existence of red-shift, CMBR, galactic allotment e.t.c. Many religions accept the Big Bang theory, for example, in the Qu'ran, it is said that "The heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them" (21.30). Pope Pius XII declared in a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (I know, shock! The Church actually has something to do with science!) on the 22nd of November, 1951 that there existed no contradiction between the Big Bang theory and Catholic views on Creation. Furthermore, in Hinduism, there is a reference in the Rigveda, in the Hymn of Creation, that the world came from a "bindu" (10:129), which translates into English as a point, and expanded from heat. It is dangerous, in my view, to impose a general view on all religions and faiths. It is logically absurd to impose 21st century thought on teachings that were delivered centuries ago. And who said that the idea of God being omnipotent and omni-benevolent is exclusively Christian? All Abrahamic faiths, as well as quite a few Eastern religions, believe in the God of classical theism. I agree that all religions have similar traits, but if we are to use the same logic in humanity, just because we all have the ability to do evil, does that mean we can write ourselves off as being innately despicable beings? Are we to conclude that great figures in civilisation are in fact all bad human beings? Narratives in religious scriptures are a blend of anecdotes and parables. Yes, there are no correlations between stories in scriptures and the truth, but that only extends to some, not all stories. And are we, as human beings, inherently partial to value negative values and maligned catharsis? No! Positive emotion trumps negative emotion every time. We feel more compelled to act when we are inspired. When we are moved or touched by a story, it arouses within us the predisposition to act, to do good deeds, and to shun the bad. You have far too low an opinion of humans. Just because there a few within us who do bad, it would be wrong to paint us all with the same brush.

    [2] So are you now saying that your life is an empty shell? So what do you propose we do? Sit around idly doing nothing? If we are, for sake of argument, to agree that there is no higher being, does that mean we suddenly have lost all purpose? No! People feel a call to a certain thing. Doctors say they want to practice medicine so they can help other people. Chefs say they cook because they love food. Olympians want to compete at the highest level because they want to play at their best, against the best, for their country. Just because we all do not have a predisposition to religion, doesn't mean we should all write ourselves off from both religion and other parts of life.

    [3] So what do you call the changing face of society then? What do you class things such as the Arab Spring then? Futile attempts to fulfill an empty life? No matter how hard you try to remove yourself from contemporary humanity, you will always find yourself longing for something more. It our nature to seek, to explore, to discover, to enrich ourselves. All the events you describe come as a result of that 3% that distinguishes us as a member of humanity. We do not act on impulse, we act on thought and comprehension. If we accept meaningless in our life, there goes all hopes for a better tomorrow. Mankind won't bother innovating anymore. Mankind won't bother expanding our culture. We will stagnate and then, only then, will meaningless truly be accepted. And think about it, if we all accept meaningless, surely that gives justification for the robber to rob, because there is nothing in life, including moral values, to dictate our actions to our fellow human. It gives justification for the murderer to murder., because there exists no arguments against murder anymore. In the end, all we have as individuals of any true worth is our experience, our thoughts and our humanity. Take that away and you take away diversity and change and difference. Yes, I know that it sounds Orwellian and something resembling the environment in 1984, but that is what will happen if we lose meaning.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

Welcome to the GCSE Bitesize Messageboard

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

The BBC Bitesize messageboards are now closed

This messageboard is pre-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.