Your over-zealousness for your anti-religious stance is a little ironic

I'm irrational because I accept that the universe was brought into existence by an external force.

Whilst you are rational because you believe it just popped out of thin air all by itself.

This reminds me of the great debate between the illustrious Islamic Scholar Imam Abu Hanifa and the atheists of his time. When he arrived late to meet them, they noted how his poor punctuality was unbefitting for a Muslim, so he told them it was a miracle he even made it at all. As the bridge between his house and the meeting place had been destroyed, but luckily several trees had just chopped themselves down, carved themselves into the shape of platforms and pillars and then amazingly self-assembled into the shape of a bridge between his side of the bank of the river and the other. Needless to say the debate was short, and it was Islam 1-0.

But I'm sure you'll now rant and rave about how Imam Abu Hanifa must've placed a sword to their necks and forced them to accept his viewpoints...

I'm irrational because I accept that the universe was brought into existence by an external force.

Whilst you are rational because you believe it just popped out of thin air all by itself.

Sorry, I skipped this because it is so basic, but for your benefit, I will expand.

Do not say I believe it popped out of thin air, because that is not what I say.
I say I do not know how the universe began.
I say that science is making some interesting discoveries, but whether it will ever be a question with a totally comprehensible answer, is something I do not know, and have never claimed to.

Your totally illogical belief is that "SOMETHING" aka Allah, had to create it, because something cannot come from nothing.

The obvious next question is where did Allah come from?
Unless Allah is the nothing needed to create something, which means you believe in nothing.
And if you want simplify it, who creates the nothing?

The simple answer is you don't know, you have been taught a fairy tale that allows you to contextualise the universe from the perspective of an imaginary construct, you are free to do that if you wish, but never try and pretend that it is not illogical.

Mozz, religion is not irrational. Theism and atheism are no more or less rational than each other. You could argue that agnosticism is more rational, but I don't think even that would stand up to rigourous philsophical scrutiny. Your fallacy is linking rationality with limiting belief to some arbitrary standard of evidence based support. Saying that your line in the sand is inherently more rational than someone else's is just childish. I believe it reflects modern ignorance regarding basic philosophical groundwork underpinning other fields of knowledge. It has been replaced with propaganda equating it with some kind of absolute truth. If you do not know where your own knowledge stands from a philosophical standpoint, you have no anchor to put someone else's knowledge in perspective.

Young children are not considered to be religious. Most religions have a right of passage around the time of puberty that reflects the child's personal, informed choice to join the flock, rather than their parent's choice on their behalf. Their belief is not that different from yours. If a child's parents are vegetarians or gypsies then the child will be too. This is not child abuse. To suggest that it is the case with religion merely reflect your intolerance, and that of Dawkins.

As I said, Dawkins is rational, and relies on logical argument

No he doesn't. He falls for the same basic logical fallacies that other hyped up media tarts fall for. He sacrificed rigour for publicity and income, just like a dodgy Sunday morning televangelist. Here is one example:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1195014419

Your totally illogical belief is that "SOMETHING" aka Allah, had to create it, because something cannot come from nothing.

This is a fallacy of basic logic that seems unusually common with atheist proselytisers. They assume that other people must base their belief on the same fundamental assumtions that they base their beliefs upon. They cannot comprehend an alternative philosphy or an alternative set of assumptions. They cannot comprehend faith, so assume it must be some kind of extension of reason. They try to make quality subject to truth because they cannot see value in quality alone.

So the argument is: "I believe the flying spaggetti monster pooped the universe out of its holy bottom. You do not pretend to know how the universe came into being. So as I have an explaination, no matter how convoluted and idiotic, as I BELIEVE it to be true therefore I must be right."

Same basic flaw in logic there.

freediver wrote on Jul 28^th, 2008 at 7:57pm:


Not at all, my argument is that belief in a theory carries no more validity  than an inability to prove a theory, if the belief itself has no proof other than "I believe it to be so".

An agnostic says "I have no proof of how the universe was made"

A religious person states "I believe the Oopah Loopah created the universe."

Both are equal in validity, and neither trumps the other, as the basic proof does not exist.

However, the agnostic admits he has no proof, the believer believes that belief itself carries some virtue.

freediver wrote on Jul 29^th, 2008 at 11:40am:


It has virtue to the believer. To the non-believer though it may seem nothing more or less than the believer carries a delusion.

And when debating on a specific topic, the value of an unproven "belief" carries no weight.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 2:35pm:


It's about belief being nothing more than an ephemeral choice, rather than a reasoned and logically proven empirical fact.