The "atheist" movement keeps shooting itself in the foot by failing to reach a consensus regarding the meaning of "atheism."
-Jeff Jay Lowder
A comic strip on this controversy.
The real definition of atheism: the belief that there is no God.
The fake definition of atheism: the lack of belief in God.
Proof:
A = Without
Theos = God
Atheos = Without God
Thus
Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
The references state what the real definition of atheism is:
•"Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not" (Academic American Encyclopedia).
•"Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason" (Random House Encyclopedia-1977).
•"Atheism (from the Greek a-, not, and theos, god) is the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God, the use has become the standard one" (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy-1995).
•"Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods" (Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995).
•"Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God" (Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996).
•"Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist" (The World Book Encyclopedia-1991).
•"According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god…"(rejects eccentric definitions of the word) (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967).
•"Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good" (Encyclopedia of Religion-1987).
•"Atheism (Greek and Roman): Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in the denial of every kind of supernatural power. Atheism has not often been seriously maintained at any period of civilized thought" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II).
•"Atheism denies the existence of deity" (Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia-Vol I).
Furthermore, I went to my local library and randomly picked out a dictionary to see what atheism meant. This is what I found from this dictionary.
----------------
Real atheists who are... well, real atheists
Also, there have been real atheists who define the real definition of atheism as a belief that there is no God. That would be people like:
Julian Baggini - "Atheism is in fact extremely simple to define: it is the belief that there is no God or gods." (from Atheism: A Very Short Introduction)
Paul Edwards - "[An atheist is] a person who maintains that there is no god." (from Encylopedia of Philosophy)
Doug Krueger - "Atheism - the belief that there are no gods." (from What is ATHEISM?)
Jeff Jay Lowder - After saying that atheists would be under the heading of "naturalism", he defines it as someone who belives that "[t]here are no supernatural beings. If naturalism is true, there is no God, no devil, no angels, no heaven and no hell." (from Jeff Jay Lowder's debate with Phil Fernandes)
David Mills - "Essentially, an atheist is a person who rejects the concept of god." (from Atheist Universe)
Theodore Drange, Quentin Smith, J.L. Schellenbergjust are also real atheists... this is just to name a few. As far as I can tell there have been no fake atheists who had the courage to say that these real atheists were wrong about the definition of atheism.
----------------
Even Charles Darwin (an agnostic) knew the real definition of atheism:
"I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God."
- Letter to Rev. J. Fordyc, July 7, 1879.
----------------
However fake atheist, Michael Martin, uses the fake definition of atheism:
"In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God."
Shandon Guthrie rebuts the definition:
***BEGIN QUOTE***
In this case another "bait and switch" method is being employed but in a more obvious contradictory setting. On the one hand we are to concur that "'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.'" On the other hand we are supposed to conclude from this that "without a belief in God" is what the term means. This is perhaps to the hope that the reader will not see the imported word "believe" from one sentence to the next. I do agree with Martin that the term is certainly a negative view in that it negates something. But, as Martin unwittingly admits or intentionally distorts, it is the negation of God himself not a negation of a belief in God given Martin's comment that "'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.'" Wouldn't this suggest that atheism is to be etymologically understood as without/no - god?
Due to the disparity between conventional and contemporary understandings (revisionist views?) of atheism, philosophers have attempted to branch atheism into two separate categories: positive atheism and negative atheism. Positive atheism is the classical understanding contra Martin. It is the definitive view, the strong view, that God (or any god) does not exist. Negative atheism, the weak view, is the mere absence of belief in God (or any divine being - sometimes it serves as a synonym for naturalism). In this relatively new understanding atheism enjoys a category split so that both definitions can maintain their place amongst their parent heading atheism. However, this amounts to reducing atheism to nothing more than agnosticism. Agnosticism was originally coined by the 19th century lecturer at the School of Mines in London, Thomas Henry Huxley. He is best noted as being "Darwin's bulldog" since he adamantly defended Charles Darwin's infant theory of evolution. Huxley himself, concerning his adoption of the term agnostic, writes:
Huxley wrote:
"Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word 'Agnostic' to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with utmost confidence...It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."
"Soft" agnosticism, shall we say, is the mere absence of belief in God (or any deity) since it suspends judgment about matters of metaphysics and theology. The more appropriate epistemological position that Huxley may of had in mind is what is known as "hard" agnosticism - it is impossible to determine whether or not God exists. In either case, agnosticism neither confirms nor denies any epistemological claims about God and thus it properly satisfies the status of being a default position. In a sense, the agnostic places phenomenological brackets around the propositions "God exists" and "God does not exist" to explore unchartered areas of research that may offer insight toward reaching a conclusion.
Despite the historical and philological difficulty with deviating from the roots of atheism and its mainstream approaches to it, perhaps we shall have to consider the matter open to the atheist who wears the label negative or positive atheist. In the spirit of charity, we may be forced to acknowledge against the most reliable and broadest understanding of atheism to include mere deniers of belief in any god in our casual encounters and dialogues. But it should not cause us to go astray from the conventional and usual meaning of the term from which many modern atheists have deviated.
***END QUOTE***
----------------
Why then do fake atheists chump out and use the fake definition of atheism?
Ken Samples explains:
***BEGIN QUOTE***
By definition, atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. To be more specific, traditional atheism (or offensive atheism) positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?
The atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. The Christian should therefore emphasize that the offensive atheist is unable to provide a logical disproof of God's existence.
*Defensive Atheism.* Many sophisticated atheists today are fully aware of the philosophical pitfalls connected to offensive or dogmatic atheism. Prominent atheists such as Gordon Stein and Carl Sagan have admitted that God's existence cannot be disproven. This has led such atheists to advocate what I call defensive atheism. Defensive atheism asserts that while God's existence cannot be logically or empirically disproven, it is nevertheless unproven.
Atheists of this variety have actually redefined atheism to mean "an absence of belief in God" rather than "a denial of God's existence." For this more moderate type of atheism, the concept of "God" is like that of a unicorn, leprechaun, or elf. While they cannot be disproven, they remain unproven. Defensive atheism's unbelief is grounded in the rejection of the proofs for God's existence, and/or the belief that the Christian concept of God (or any other God) lacks logical consistency.
An appropriate Christian rejoinder at this point is that defensive atheism is using a stipulative or nonstandard definition for the word atheism. Paul Edwards, a prominent atheist and editor of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, defines an atheist as "a person who maintains that there is no God." Atheism therefore implies a denial of God's existence, not just an absence of belief. It should also be stated that defensive atheism's absence of belief sounds very similar to agnosticism (which professes inability to determine whether God exists). The Christian should force the defensive atheist to show just how his (or her) atheism differs from agnosticism. Does he know or not know that there is no God?
***END QUOTE***
----------------
There you have it. The smoking gun on the real definition of atheism. With all the evidence right in front of their faces the fake atheist will never concede the real definition of atheism.
-Jeff Jay Lowder
A comic strip on this controversy.
The real definition of atheism: the belief that there is no God.
The fake definition of atheism: the lack of belief in God.
Proof:
A = Without
Theos = God
Atheos = Without God
Thus
Atheism is the belief that there is no God.
The references state what the real definition of atheism is:
•"Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not" (Academic American Encyclopedia).
•"Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason" (Random House Encyclopedia-1977).
•"Atheism (from the Greek a-, not, and theos, god) is the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God, the use has become the standard one" (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy-1995).
•"Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods" (Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995).
•"Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God" (Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996).
•"Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist" (The World Book Encyclopedia-1991).
•"According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god…"(rejects eccentric definitions of the word) (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967).
•"Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good" (Encyclopedia of Religion-1987).
•"Atheism (Greek and Roman): Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in the denial of every kind of supernatural power. Atheism has not often been seriously maintained at any period of civilized thought" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II).
•"Atheism denies the existence of deity" (Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia-Vol I).
Furthermore, I went to my local library and randomly picked out a dictionary to see what atheism meant. This is what I found from this dictionary.
----------------
Real atheists who are... well, real atheists
Also, there have been real atheists who define the real definition of atheism as a belief that there is no God. That would be people like:
Julian Baggini - "Atheism is in fact extremely simple to define: it is the belief that there is no God or gods." (from Atheism: A Very Short Introduction)
Paul Edwards - "[An atheist is] a person who maintains that there is no god." (from Encylopedia of Philosophy)
Doug Krueger - "Atheism - the belief that there are no gods." (from What is ATHEISM?)
Jeff Jay Lowder - After saying that atheists would be under the heading of "naturalism", he defines it as someone who belives that "[t]here are no supernatural beings. If naturalism is true, there is no God, no devil, no angels, no heaven and no hell." (from Jeff Jay Lowder's debate with Phil Fernandes)
David Mills - "Essentially, an atheist is a person who rejects the concept of god." (from Atheist Universe)
Theodore Drange, Quentin Smith, J.L. Schellenbergjust are also real atheists... this is just to name a few. As far as I can tell there have been no fake atheists who had the courage to say that these real atheists were wrong about the definition of atheism.
----------------
Even Charles Darwin (an agnostic) knew the real definition of atheism:
"I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God."
- Letter to Rev. J. Fordyc, July 7, 1879.
----------------
However fake atheist, Michael Martin, uses the fake definition of atheism:
"In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God."
Shandon Guthrie rebuts the definition:
***BEGIN QUOTE***
In this case another "bait and switch" method is being employed but in a more obvious contradictory setting. On the one hand we are to concur that "'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.'" On the other hand we are supposed to conclude from this that "without a belief in God" is what the term means. This is perhaps to the hope that the reader will not see the imported word "believe" from one sentence to the next. I do agree with Martin that the term is certainly a negative view in that it negates something. But, as Martin unwittingly admits or intentionally distorts, it is the negation of God himself not a negation of a belief in God given Martin's comment that "'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.'" Wouldn't this suggest that atheism is to be etymologically understood as without/no - god?
Due to the disparity between conventional and contemporary understandings (revisionist views?) of atheism, philosophers have attempted to branch atheism into two separate categories: positive atheism and negative atheism. Positive atheism is the classical understanding contra Martin. It is the definitive view, the strong view, that God (or any god) does not exist. Negative atheism, the weak view, is the mere absence of belief in God (or any divine being - sometimes it serves as a synonym for naturalism). In this relatively new understanding atheism enjoys a category split so that both definitions can maintain their place amongst their parent heading atheism. However, this amounts to reducing atheism to nothing more than agnosticism. Agnosticism was originally coined by the 19th century lecturer at the School of Mines in London, Thomas Henry Huxley. He is best noted as being "Darwin's bulldog" since he adamantly defended Charles Darwin's infant theory of evolution. Huxley himself, concerning his adoption of the term agnostic, writes:
Huxley wrote:
"Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word 'Agnostic' to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with utmost confidence...It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."
"Soft" agnosticism, shall we say, is the mere absence of belief in God (or any deity) since it suspends judgment about matters of metaphysics and theology. The more appropriate epistemological position that Huxley may of had in mind is what is known as "hard" agnosticism - it is impossible to determine whether or not God exists. In either case, agnosticism neither confirms nor denies any epistemological claims about God and thus it properly satisfies the status of being a default position. In a sense, the agnostic places phenomenological brackets around the propositions "God exists" and "God does not exist" to explore unchartered areas of research that may offer insight toward reaching a conclusion.
Despite the historical and philological difficulty with deviating from the roots of atheism and its mainstream approaches to it, perhaps we shall have to consider the matter open to the atheist who wears the label negative or positive atheist. In the spirit of charity, we may be forced to acknowledge against the most reliable and broadest understanding of atheism to include mere deniers of belief in any god in our casual encounters and dialogues. But it should not cause us to go astray from the conventional and usual meaning of the term from which many modern atheists have deviated.
***END QUOTE***
----------------
Why then do fake atheists chump out and use the fake definition of atheism?
Ken Samples explains:
***BEGIN QUOTE***
By definition, atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. To be more specific, traditional atheism (or offensive atheism) positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?
The atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. The Christian should therefore emphasize that the offensive atheist is unable to provide a logical disproof of God's existence.
*Defensive Atheism.* Many sophisticated atheists today are fully aware of the philosophical pitfalls connected to offensive or dogmatic atheism. Prominent atheists such as Gordon Stein and Carl Sagan have admitted that God's existence cannot be disproven. This has led such atheists to advocate what I call defensive atheism. Defensive atheism asserts that while God's existence cannot be logically or empirically disproven, it is nevertheless unproven.
Atheists of this variety have actually redefined atheism to mean "an absence of belief in God" rather than "a denial of God's existence." For this more moderate type of atheism, the concept of "God" is like that of a unicorn, leprechaun, or elf. While they cannot be disproven, they remain unproven. Defensive atheism's unbelief is grounded in the rejection of the proofs for God's existence, and/or the belief that the Christian concept of God (or any other God) lacks logical consistency.
An appropriate Christian rejoinder at this point is that defensive atheism is using a stipulative or nonstandard definition for the word atheism. Paul Edwards, a prominent atheist and editor of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, defines an atheist as "a person who maintains that there is no God." Atheism therefore implies a denial of God's existence, not just an absence of belief. It should also be stated that defensive atheism's absence of belief sounds very similar to agnosticism (which professes inability to determine whether God exists). The Christian should force the defensive atheist to show just how his (or her) atheism differs from agnosticism. Does he know or not know that there is no God?
***END QUOTE***
----------------
There you have it. The smoking gun on the real definition of atheism. With all the evidence right in front of their faces the fake atheist will never concede the real definition of atheism.
wow all this over a name!?
ReplyDeletewhat do u call a person who rejects ur notion of god
hey we r all atheists i just believe one less god than u
(xeanu, thor, what ever the hudhu's believes, Yaweh......)
im an atheist but i believe there is a chance that god might exist but that doesn't mean i believe that god exists
ok for the sake of argument can u tell me something that u dont believe in for a 100%
there just might be a ghostly giant dragon sitting on urhead r u an agnostic about that?
Just dropping by.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised that for someone so obsessed with Atheism, you do not seem to know much about their stands.
(The graphic you showed that somehow claims that Atheists do not mind pedophilia, rape, murder, etc. because they do not believe in an 'ultmiate morality' is actually kind of stupid.
Atheists believe morality comes from within the person, not from a book. In fact, Atheists claim that we use this innate morality to CHOOSE which book and/or which part of the book and which verses are most moral. Thus, depending on a person's morals he can choose to be violent or peaceful despite following the same 'religion')
As to answer your questions from the Atheist philosophical stand.
1)Who created you?
The fusion of a sperm and an egg cell. Before that the parents were created from a similar process. Before that the human species evolved from a more primitive life form.
Atheists have the irrefutable evidence of evolution to back them up here.
2) How is it possible to come into existence by yourself?
It's an hugely improbable occurrence indeed. But in an impossibly vast universe, improbable becomes highly probable.
We know we exist because we can see ourselves. But atheists prefer not to delude themselves that they are the center of all creation, and that the universe revolves around them.
Atheists believe they are just another species that will eventually die out, just like the 99% of species that ever lived on earth.
3) Why are you in this world?
Because our forefathers lived in this world. Evidently, if they had lived on Mars, then we'd have likely been on Mars too.
However, in a broader perspective, we are NOT here as some kind of divine experiment on morality. In fact, atheists understand that we're just a stage in evolution, not even the final product.
Why do mosquitoes exist? Why do blob fish exist? Why do those microbes that live in inhospitable sulphur pools exist? Why do wild bananas exist?
These are all valid questions. But if a wild, inedible banana can exist, live, reproduce and multiply without facing moral and ethical tests, atheists see no reason why humans should not.
4)Where were you before u were in your beloved Mother's womb?
Atheists would say this is a rather silly question.
Where was the earth before it was created? Where was the Sun before it was formed?
5)Where will you go after your death?
Nowhere. Your body decomposes and disintegrates through biological action into minerals, mixing with the soil. These nutrients can be used to grow beautiful flowers and trees.
6)Whats death?
The end of life. Atheists don't believe this is caused by the will of a super divine power.
Foetuses die, babies die, good people die, bad people die, old, young, rich, poor.
This divine being seems to choose his victims at complete random.
Atheists believe death is the death of vital tissue. Caused by lack of blood supply to the heart muscles, for instance. Or cancers. Or a weak immune system.
Thus, when science comes up with new vital drugs, it's not a change of God's plan.. but human controlled factors that decide human lives and longevity.
wow where do u get ur stats
ReplyDeletedo u think thor is the same god as allah
btw 99% of the world believed earth was flat
1 my mother & father
2 the other sperms wasnt fast enough
3 cause my mother n father wanted to have sex & reproduce
4 y im staying alive is because i want to live
5 if i wasnt born then i do not exist(what do u remember pre birth?)
6 probably to my grave but my consciousness would have disappeared
7 my body stops functioning
y do u assume u go somewhere after u die?
did u ever stop to wonder that somehow this all started like a bunch of domino falling & even if it was a conscious being who dropped the first domino, that doesnt mean it has power like the omnipotent super god allah
much like how my mother & father didnt have any control over how i was going to turn out
whether i was a girl or a boy depended on which sperm that reached the egg first
so then answer my question
if u r just gonna assume that there is an all powerful creator
i just assumed there is a giant ghostly dragon sitting on ur head (it came to me in a premonition)
so does the dragon exist? do u take the atheist or agnostic stand point on the dragon
Where's the evidence that Allah created everything out of nothing? That he is the only God? It could've been Yahweh or Zeus or Ganesh or Shiva who created everything and you were praying to the wrong God. Then you'll say the evidence is in the Quran. Evidence is also there in the Bible and Geeta. So these scriptures are not objective evidences at all. If you want to prove Allah, you point to the Quran. If you want to prove Quran, you point to Allah. It's a circular argument which in reality proves nothing. Atheists can at least show true evidence for whatever they believe.
ReplyDeletewell u could at least answer my question before asking more
ReplyDeleteanyway
what is a soul? do u have any evidence for its existence
punishment of the wicked is the duty of the government, i dont believe in an after life simply because there is not a single bit of evidence even hinting that it is remotely possible
u see the everything is automatic
do u think that trees are being sculpted by god? it takes form to get better sunlight & water
& yea we r still evolving (there is no end goal in evolution it is just genetic variations)
chimps & humans have a common ancestor
we did not evolve from chimps
somewhat like how adam & eve had chinese, black, white & indian descendants
so u believe in the god of the gaps right
u r asking question to lead up to the point where i say i dont know then u jump up & say "GOD DID IT!!" right
so is ur answer for god, something unknown,
how can u believe in something unknown?
u havent been able to pull up any reasonable counter argument jumping from one pathetic question to another without even a slightest bit of evidence to back it up
its really sad & i do hope u the best
btw i am not trying to convert u or anything u asked me a question & i answered
& sorry if i insulted u
peace
I have one thing to say to the so-called Aetheist. When Allah (SWT) sends Quran to mankinds, he mentions in the beginning of Quran in chapter two, in the very beginning that Quran is solely for the beleivers. Therefore, for you to gain a beneficial outcome from the interpretation of Quran thats a condition Allah has set to us, and we can't intercede with that while being a disbeleiver and doubtful. And I have to say that despite in any advancement in Science, this miraculous wonder of how beleivers benefit from Quran could not be found by humans. Because we have a little fraction of knowledge and again Allah has mentioned it in Quran.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I've heard some Aetheist saying that they've seend contradictory verses in Quran in comparision to Science. For this what I have to say is that Quran always reveals facts which we are not aware of, while science is a social exploration and reasoning and it develops incrementally. Also science may not be developed to the state where it reached to the fact of cause. A good example is medical science, there are many causes which are not yet identified the caused of the problem, while Quran has facts about all these disciplines.
And finally, you cant set a condition to see God physically to accept religion. Because we are slaves of Allah. Therefore, Allah (SWT)has ordered us to beleive in Ghaib (the unseen) for us to be successful in hereafter. He mentioned in Surat Waqiah (interpretation of meaning) it is he who created us first time and who will create us after we dies in the second time and we humans have knowledge of our first creation and he only has the knowledge of both, (how he will create us in the second creation).
So, be prepared if you die as a disbeleiver your enjoyment in hereafter is boiling hotwater and Zaquum and again this is mentioned in Quran in Surah Waqiah in the last verse. So you can't say that Allah (SWT) didn't warned you.
@anon dec9 8:28am
ReplyDeletethank u, u just proved my point
we aint the blind followers u r (no offense - u just said it yourself)
"for u to understand anything in the quran u have to believe everything in the quran" that is one big logical fallacy (how could u tell that it was not the devil who wrote the quran?)
u see i cant just believe in something without reason, i dont have faith & if there is a god i dont think he'd be too happy that the only reason people worship him is because they r scared of the unknown & the only reason religious people r "good" is because they r afraid of hell fire
well anyway thats my thoughts on the subject
good luck in ur afterlife
tc