The Atheist vs. Non-Atheist: Who is Correct?

June 16th, 2015

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

The Atheist vs. Non-Atheist: Who is Correct?

Is the atheist correct to any degree through denying the existence of God? In modern jargon such a one is defined as a person who “disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God.” In earlier dictionaries the definition was ” “a belief that there is no God.”

Curiously, the scriptural definition for an atheist, in this case the Qur’aan, is “godless.” Moreover, godless implies the lack of having the thought or consideration of this Being in the heart. The Arabic term for godless is also revealing, that is kufr, which means “darkness.” Furthermore, it is said that those who reject the existence of God hold a novel kind of emotion in that ‘dark’ heart, which is a kind of self-importance to the extreme, defined by this book as nothing other than “false pride.” It is also described as “stubbornness,” a kind of obnoxiousness to the extreme. It is a stubbornness/obnoxiousness of refusing to realize the obvious signs of a universal creator. While there is no attempt to ‘prove’ that God exists through this dissertation, there is the attempt to make it clear that the signs for this Being’s existence are obvious, for any who would consider it.

Could that be, then, that it is merely internal pride or a false sense of arrogance that comes between belief in God and failure to do so? What, then, is worshiped or held in reverence by the atheist if it isn’t an Almighty Force? Is it not, then, anything other than worship of the self, a false god, the one of self-aggrandizement?

A “belief,” just like the belief that there, in fact, is a divine Being, a God: an almighty creative Being.

Yet, is it not more than a mere belief? Is there not an element of being able to sense or determine the existence of such a Being?

Even so, it is logical to state that one camp is correct, the other, incorrect. There doesn’t seem to be an in-between or alternative option. The claim that a creative God doesn’t exist is a personal position, just as is the position that He does exist. There is, though, no scientific basis for the lack of existence of an all-powerful, all-wise divine force. Rather, the scientific data at hand fully indicates the existence of such an entity.

“False arrogance?” Just what is such false arrogance? It is a false sense of self-greatness, that is greatness enough to claim that there is no all-powerful Being to which a person is fully responsible, a Being who will hold such a one to account. The atheist, regardless of his/her specific belief, does not wish to be held accountable for any actions or to even consider any such accountability. This is the basis of any arguments. Atheists simply do no wish to consider any culpability before God. This is why they argue against the entire idea of His existence so vociferously. If they admitted to His existence, then, they would have to also admit to their accountability in this regard, and they refuse to consider it: that they will face Him.

When the arguments are made, vague generalities are relied upon, for instance, “There is no evidence for God’s existence” or “If God created the universe, then, who created God?” In fact, if a person says in the attempt to enlighten such a one, “See this vast universe, its greatness, and its sophistication. How could it occur by chance. Even the scientists now hold this as impossible. It is too organized, too systematic. It could not occur other than through the powers of a creative God.” When such arguments are presented, that is when the atheist comes forth with the question, “So, who created God?”, which is merely an attempt to contest and argue. In fact, it is an admission of His existence, since it implies that the universe is a created phenomenon and that by no means could it happen blindly.

Is it worthy to even answer such a question when it is proclaimed merely as a means of blind argument? An obviously created being, a mere mortal, cannot be the one who would intelligently argue against God’s existence. Such a one is a mortal, after all: and will in short order die. Yet, the Being who creates the mortal and who even creates the phenomenon of life and death is going to be explained or contested against in the eyes of the mere mortals He creates? It is sufficient to know that the godless one seeks merely to argue to elevate his own stock, therefore the statement that it is all “fables,” all mere fiction.

Regardless, these are mere attempts at contesting. There is no ‘evidence’ against the existence or presence of this Being merely by making such statements. Yet another statement commonly made by atheists is to equate God with a fairy tale, deeming as well his divinely inspired words as, incredibly, “fables of the ancients.” Fables, really? A fable is defined as a fake, a mere “fictitious tale.” It is also defined as “a short story, typically with animals as characters, conveying a moral.” How many divine passages use animals as the main theme of a plot? How rare such usage is.

Fiction, really, For instance, is the statement found in the Qur’aan in contest against the godless of the fact that there are a plethora of signs of His existence that are undeniable such as heavenly bodies, the moon and the sun, for instance, “floating through space” anything other that a hard fact of science?

In fact, this precise statement in this book of the nature of heavenly bodies is put in place as an argument of those who outright reject Him, preceded by statement that it is given as evidence for those who “stubbornly turn away” from even the consideration of His existence.

The atheist, therefore, cannot be right when claiming the basis of belief in God is mere man-made story-telling. The Qur’aan was revealed in the 7th century A.D. No human in existence had any idea regarding the actual nature of the heavenly bodies in reference to their movements or suspension in space.

Then, what kind of person could call such an obvious fact in question? Even so, surely, the Qur’aan is not an astronomy book, although all it alludes to regarding astronomical issues are deliberate facts, and there is no exception to this. Yet, once again, what kind of person who purposely argue against an established, undeniable issue? It is the who contests against it for no other purpose other than “overweening, self-conceit.” It is the conceit of presuming a state of self-sufficient, one of independence from God. Yet, it will be a state that the godless one, notes this book, “will never be able to satisfy.”

Nor can science “satisfy” the desired position of the atheist, which is to call the existence of the universal creator a mere falsehood. Furthermore, if the atheist holds the right to deny God as being a matter of personal right, then, for this, too, there is a response, as if to say, ‘So what, do as you will, since you have been given free choice. Yet, do you not have even the mind to consider?’ Because “Greater indeed than the creation of (mere) humankind is the creation of the vast universe (as a whole). Yet, few understand what this truly implies.”

The lie is apparently with the atheist: a lie that such a one who would impose upon the self without giving the slightest consideration to the facts at hand. Yet, when there is a crisis of dire proportions, such as the impending doom of sudden, potentially fatal event, like a car accident or potential mass transit tragedy, what does the atheist say, like all others? It is “Oh my God,” even asking at that catastrophic moment for His saving grace. Then, in the atheist’s mind there is a God, One whose existence is admitted under duress.

Thus, the atheist cannot be right to any degree, because such a one rejects obvious facts in order to uphold his position: even the facts of how he himself thinks or reacts.

Yet, in contrast is the believer in God the one in the ‘right?’ Is such a the only one ‘correct’ in his judgment? It cannot be said that the believer is able by his position to prove the atheist wrong. That is left to the godless one alone, who has proven himself to be fully in error and will continue to do so: by his own actions and words. All that can be stated is that the believer has seen the evidence for the existence of the creator and has sensed it and therefore freely follows what he senses. Such a one knows full well that he cannot ‘prove’ that God exists with physical phenomena. He knows God exists because of the obvious, even without physical divine revelation.

Does the atheist, too, know he exists in the deepest recesses of the heart? What kind of cover, or deep darkness, must such a one apply in order to reject that existence, that is the existence of what is glaringly obvious, which is that there is a supreme Being who has absolute control over this vast universe, including the earth and all who reside on it?

The oddity is this. By rejecting him the denier of truth cannot hurt God but rather only hurts himself. Even so, God is so merciful that He gives such a one deliberate warnings, through His mercy: if those who reject Him only knew.

Commonly, atheists join the arch-enemies of Islaam, the Zionists, in riding hard against it. Why do so? Why condemn it so vehemently? It is because Islaam is the fount of truth, and the atheists despise this and so wage war against it, which is further proof the their error and corruption.

Then, who is the true fraud, the one who invents mere stories and spreads false accusations, or the One who creates the human being’s ability to rebel and resist? The answer is obvious. There is no fraud or deceit in God and His original, untarnished revelations. The only fraud and fabrication is in those who vigorously deny them and who with all their might fight against commandments, the laws, which He has revealed. Such laws include the prohibition against the spread of corruption on the earth, thievery, lying, cheating, deception, and moral degeneration. It is all that would bring harm to humankind. Is this not the precise thing that may atheists claim to be fighting against?

They are laws which are to the benefit of humankind. Even the atheist cannot deny such a fact, and by that incapability of denying it proves himself to be even from a scientific point of view the incorrect one, the ultimate fraud.

Sources:

Asad, M. 1980. The Message of the Qur’an, pp. 724-725.

Khaleel, K. The Magnificent Message, Vol. 1, Chapter 16
http://www.pravmir.com/top-10-common-atheist-arguments-fail/#ixzz3dEQe2JO9

Source Article from http://nodisinfo.com/the-atheist-vs-non-atheist-who-is-correct/