[Faith-talk] Conversing with Atheism, part2. The universe and its design.

Mon May 26 01:17:32 UTC 2014

Hello brother Mustafa, I hope that all is well over there in Egypt. One
thing to remember when addressing some of these points is that the line of
reasoning that intellectual Atheist will take does not even embrace
Darwinism. As a matter of fact most prominent scientist don't support
Darwinism. It was basically dealt with on the scientific arena of academia
in the 1960's, but unfortunately that is how behind most public school text
books are and how intellectually dishonest the curriculum of scientific
education is in many institutions until a graduate school level of inquiry
is reached. A book that addresses the history of the deflation of the Darwin
craze and the scientific break down of not only Darwin's theories, but many
other famous theories that are in text books around the world is titled,
"Icons of Evolution. The man is Jonathan Wells, PHD, he is not a Christian
and does not come from a Biblical world view, but seeks to draw on a
rigorous scientific line of reasoning. 
Well, take care friend Mustafa.

-----Original Message-----
From: Faith-talk [mailto:faith-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mostafa
via Faith-talk
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2014 11:50 AM
To: faith-talk at nfbnet.org; ncwfsa at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Faith-talk] Conversing with Atheism, part2. The universe and its
design.

Dear all, peace be with you.

Today I would like to inshallah proceed on discussing the subject of
Atheism.

Atheism and Agnosticism are global phenomenons nowadays.

I will just briefly define Atheism and Agnosticism for quick revision. 

Atheism is the doctrine of declining the divinity.

Agnosticism is the theory of indecisiveness  about the divinity.

Last time, I generally talked about the reasons or the motivating factors
which availed the concept of godlessness to broadly disseminate  and
escalate.

Today I would like to inshallah discuss the first reason which I concisely
outlined in my previous post.

The defficiency of enlightened religiousness.

What does it mean when we say enlightened religiousness?

It basicly means the religiousness that is based on intellectual edification
and sophisticated development.

Well um, I still do not get it.

  Can you clarify a bit further?

Well basicly, it is the religiousness which encourages critical thinking, it
calls for philosophical dialogs, and it implements by providing tangible and
significant evidence.

It is the religiousness which is based on public scrutiny and mutual
discourse.

The Protestant Church appeals to western people more than the Catholic
because it leans towards treating human beings as human beings.

The reason why the Catholic Church is enormously defied in the west now, is
that it divinely exalts and elevates human beings, such as the Pope, the
Saint, and the Priest.

  As a Sunni Muslim, I consider Shiah a  herecy because it has distorted our
orthodox fundamentals.

Shia have exalted and elevated their imams and clerics to the extent of
divinity, and that is a predominant blasphemy in Islam.

That is considered infidility in Islam.

Everyone knows for certain how much we love and honour prophet Muhammad, but
we indeed will never  exalt or glorify him to the level of divinity.

  Tonight and according to the lunar calendar, Muslims around the world
commemorate the anniversary of prophet Muhammad and his blessed night
journey to Jerusalem, and then his blessed ascension to  heavens.

Nobody in the whole Muslim trend worldwide will consider that more than a
great miracle happened to prophet Muhammad by the Divine Discretionary of
his Lord.

However, we are quite aware of the plain denial of that incident which is
immensely governed by the orientalist disposal, which popularly submits to
the political element, which serves and complys to the Zionist authority.

  If Muslims claim their prophet going on a night journey to Jerusalem was
recognized by us, then we apparently or implicitly acknowledge their
presence in the land which was wrongfully given to Zionists by the British
regime in 1917.

So let us get back to the main point.

We were discussing and stridently  criticizing the religious exaltation of
human beings.

In Islam, it is strictly prohibited to exalt any human, let alone any
creature to the level of divinity.

  You may look for either a major or a pagan faith today that does not
somehow exalt a human being or a creature to the divine status.

Islam dominantly attributes the whole dominion to the Divine Sovereign, Who
is Allah glory be to Him.

Atheism declines the existence of a divine power whilst Agnosticism embraces
a doubtful notion about it.

Well, my question to them would probably be,  

Is that universe perfectly designed?

Do you see any imperfection in the thoroughly honed pattern of that
universe?

If your answer is no, then I may humbly ask you;

Who designed that and brought it into full being?

  Do not tell me it is the initial detonation which is hypothesized to have
marked the origin of the universe.

Still sir, who caused the big bang to occur?

Was it the spontaneity?

I think that Atheism and Agnosticism are in trouble here.

They both lack the rational basis to illustrate their either abnegation or
suspicion  of the divine power.

I believe we desperately demand to be engaged in a more enlightened
scrutiny.

Enlightened scrutiny is essentially based on logically proposed premisses.

  Is everything that is made demands a maker?

Is everything that is designed demands a designer?

Is everything manufactured demands a manufacturer?

Everything in the industrial  complex demands a producer.

So how the universe which entirely bears us along with the sun, the moon,
the stars, the sky, the ocean and its amazing creatures does not demand a
producer.

I feel ecstatic when someone disagrees with me on a rational sense.

So the rational sense basicly attests;

How come everything in this universe which is less perfected than the
universe itself demands a producer whilst the universe itself with its
substantial illustriousness does not demand a producer.

It just came out of  spontaneous explosion.

Does that make sense?

    I think it does not make sense because if this universe comprises
everything that is designed but the universe  itself is not designed, that
would really be quite absurd, ridiculous and radically ediotic.

I am striving to rationally fascilitate an intriguing scrutiny on that
regard.

I want to just emphasize again, you ought to set the Darwinian theory quite
aside, if you really want to talk about the creation of the universe.

The Darwinian theory is meant for proving the organic evolution of this
universe, and it is heavily irrelevant to compare that with the commencement
of the universe.

Well, I think that is enough for now.

That is what I have got for the time being.

I look forward to receiving your feedback regarding the context of my
essays.

In the meantime, and until I inshallah render another essay, stay blessedly
in the grace of Allah glory be to Him.

You ought to love in order to be loved, peace be with you.

_______________________________________________
Faith-talk mailing list
Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Faith-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/heavens4real%40gmail
.com