Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 12:13:40 PM



Title: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 12:13:40 PM
So since the local resident atheist swamped a thread for christian/muslims. I thought I'd create a seperate thread.

The atheist asked who is God?

God is our creator the master of all creation.

We are dependant on Him, but he is independent of us.

God is the first and last: eternal

Nothing is comparable to Him in all of creation so that includes various creatures, objects, animate or inanimate, etc...

He is not in 'the creation' or creation itself.

God has no gender, age, limiting factors of the physical. God is not bound by the rules He created for the universe.

With Him is all knowledge


Title: Re: God
Post by: garebear on September 19, 2012, 12:26:19 PM
Oh ok.


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 19, 2012, 12:26:47 PM
So since the local resident atheist swamped a thread for christian/muslims. I thought I'd create a seperate thread.

I don't think you can just restrict threads arbitrarily.


The atheist asked who is God?

He did. Let's see how you do :)


God is our creator the master of all creation.

That answers nothing and it assumes a whole lot.


We are dependant on Him, but he is independent of us.

We are dependent on the sun but the sun is independent on us, but of course, that tells us nothing about the sun itself...


God is the first and last: eternal

You keep using words but you say nothing.


Nothing is comparable to Him in all of creation so that includes various creatures, objects, animate or inanimate, etc...

How do you know this? Did you compare him?


He is not in 'the creation' or creation itself.

How do you know this? And what does it tell us about God?


God has no gender, age, limiting factors of the physical. God is not bound by the rules He created for the universe.

But can you maybe list some attributes that God has? Because you know... nothing also has no gender, age and physical limiting factors and it's not bound by any rules. So how can I distinguish your God from nothing at all?


With Him is all knowledge

What does that even mean?


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 12:33:28 PM
God revealed this to us through consecutive messengers and prophets.


Title: Re: God
Post by: garebear on September 19, 2012, 12:40:57 PM
God revealed this to us through consecutive messengers and prophets.
Of course he did.

And you are never allowed to question that.


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 12:48:01 PM
Of course he did.

And you are never allowed to question that.

I do. Is it coming out of someone trust worthy or someone corrupted? Someone seeking personal gains or wealth of this world? Has what they predicted come true or has it failed that test? A lot of people have claimed to be prophets and messengers.


Title: Re: God
Post by: garebear on September 19, 2012, 12:50:18 PM
I do. Is it coming out of someone trust worthy or someone corrupted? Someone seeking personal gains or wealth of this world? Has what they predicted come true or has it failed that test? A lot of people have claimed to be prophets and messengers.
Right. No one is profiting from you not being allowed to question your religion and following it blindly.

Wait, whose point are you trying to make? I honestly can't tell anymore.


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 19, 2012, 12:54:09 PM
God revealed this to us through consecutive messengers and prophets.

We haven't even established what the term "God" means, much less that he exists. Let's not jump the gun and go to prophets and messengers.


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 12:55:21 PM
We haven't even established what the term "God" means, much less that he exists. Let's not jump the gun and go to prophets and messengers.

God is our creator. That is the first truth we accept as believers.

"God is the Creator of everything. He is the guardian over everything. Unto Him belong the keys of the heavens and the earth." (39:62, 63)

"No creature is there crawling on the earth, but its provision rests on God. He knows its lodging place and it repository." (11:6)

Your response was "That answers nothing and it assumes a whole lot. "


Title: Re: God
Post by: garebear on September 19, 2012, 01:07:03 PM
God is our creator. That is the first truth we accept as believers.

"God is the Creator of everything. He is the guardian over everything. Unto Him belong the keys of the heavens and the earth." (39:62, 63)

"No creature is there crawling on the earth, but its provision rests on God. He knows its lodging place and it repository." (11:6)

Your response was "That answers nothing and it assumes a whole lot. "
Congratulations on putting tradition before logic.

PS. You're what's wrong with the world.

Grow up.



Title: Re: God
Post by: Man of Steel on September 19, 2012, 01:07:17 PM
So since the local resident atheist swamped a thread for christian/muslims. I thought I'd create a seperate thread.

The atheist asked who is God?

God is our creator the master of all creation.

We are dependant on Him, but he is independent of us.

God is the first and last: eternal

Nothing is comparable to Him in all of creation so that includes various creatures, objects, animate or inanimate, etc...

He is not in 'the creation' or creation itself.

God has no gender, age, limiting factors of the physical. God is not bound by the rules He created for the universe.

With Him is all knowledge
As a Christian I agree with everything except that God the Father is male as is God the Son in Jesus Christ.  I don't recall if verses speak to the God the Holy Spirit as male or not....worth a look actually.

I believe God is in his creation through those that he lives within (and created).

I also grasp that everything you've just said or I've added is meaningless to aths and ags.  

I only add that my best evidence for God is in the form of the Holy Spirit that indwells his body of believers.  First comes the desire to know the risen Christ through faith and then comes the validation of the new relationship with Christ via the Holy Spirit.   The tangible encounters with the Holy Spirit are a life changing experience for most.....not all......but most.  Salvation through Jesus Christ is available to all and the presense of the Holy Spirit can be sensed and felt by believers that earnestly, humbly and honestly want to experience it.   That said, the historical and archeological proof is great, but nothing like the presence of the Holy Spirit....it's awesome.....awesome!!

  


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 01:19:24 PM
If you agree with everything I said you would be aware what the first commandment instructs, just like the qur'an that nothing compares to God in the creation or as in the bible it's described, neither the earth, heaven or water. Jesus is comparable to humans. Jesus is a human.

God is not the creation nor in his creation. The later of which is called pantheism. Believing that God physically 'dwells' in His creation. Certain idolators would say such things of idols.  And hindus would describe God in the creation a belief in pantheism not monotheism.

This is not the teachings of Jesus yet again.. but the teachings of later Christians... you are not doing service to this thread by bringing exclusively christian beliefs that someone will simply argue with as I was arguing with you in the other thread about the verses that indicate Jesus is not God and get ridicule for citing that God is a man.

Furthermore saying God is male, is your own words. God never uttered such thing. That would mean God has a male reproductive organ... God CREATED genders... God has no gender. You are being deluded yet again by Pauline/church teachings, not Jesus' own teachings or whats said in the scriptures... again saying God is a man when Jesus said no such thing and kept calling towards the same God of Moses, God of Abraham, etc... The one and only. Hear oh Israel your Lord God is one.

Science merely is able to disprove false deities, but it does not disprove God.


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 19, 2012, 01:20:28 PM
God is our creator.

That says nothing at all. And it assumes a whole lot: namely that we were created. There's no proof of that.


That is the first truth we accept as believers.

But is it rational to accept something you cannot define or understand?


"God is the Creator of everything. He is the guardian over everything. Unto Him belong the keys of the heavens and the earth." (39:62, 63)

You're quoting a book that's, supposedly, Allah's word as proof that Allah exists. That won't work. The book has no validity until you can define what Allah is.


"No creature is there crawling on the earth, but its provision rests on God. He knows its lodging place and it repository." (11:6)

See above.


Your response was "That answers nothing and it assumes a whole lot. "

Right, it answers nothing because it doesn't define what the term "God" means or give any attributes. And it assumes a whole lot, because without first establishing what God means it asserts, without any evidence, that this undefined and unknown entity created all the creatures on earth.

First you define what God is - providing specific attributes that allow us to distinguish God from, say, a potato, or an alien from the 5th dimension. You must do this without resorting to the texts that God supposedly authored. Because you must prove that God authored them. And before you can prove that you must first indepedently define what "god" means and prove that the entity in question exists.


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 01:24:36 PM
That says nothing at all. And it assumes a whole lot: namely that we were created. There's no proof of that.

You say there isn't proof. I say otherwise. Now what?

Quote
But is it rational to accept something you cannot define or understand?
I understand it, I defined it. You don't accept my understanding or my definition.

Quote
You're quoting a book that's, supposedly, Allah's word as proof that Allah exists. That won't work. The book has no validity until you can define what Allah is.

I did define who God is. However you reject God and you reject the qur'an because you don't believe in God to begin with.

Quote
First you define what God is - providing specific attributes that allow us to distinguish God from, say, a potato, or an alien from the 5th dimension. You must do this without resorting to the texts that God supposedly authored. Because you must prove that God authored them. And before you can prove that you must first indepedently define what "god" means and prove that the entity in question exists.

God is one and unique. Eternal. God does not resemble His creation. So comparing God to His creation such as a potato or even a '5th dimension alien' is not God.

And again I restate God is our creator.

Or what is your alternative explanation if we are 'not created' and we can talk about the proofs for creation? This?:

(http://sawiggins.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/evolution.jpg)


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 19, 2012, 01:38:30 PM
You say there isn't proof. I say otherwise. Now what?

Provide it.


I understand it, I defined it. You don't accept my understanding or my definition.

I don't think you understand what "definition" means.


I did define who God is. However you reject God and you reject the qur'an because you don't believe in God to begin with.

Before I could reject God, the concept would have to have some meaning. As it stands now, I don't even bother considering the concept. When someone can provide with a rational, concrete definition then I will examine it and decide whether to reject it or accept it.


God is one and unique.

So are you. You're one. And unique. No other like you exists; even if you have a monozygotic (i.e. genetically identical) twin, you're still a different, and quite unique, person.


Eternal.

So is the Universe, what with time being a property of it.


God does not resemble His creation.

How do you know this? And can you tell us what he does resemble?


So comparing God to His creation such as a potato or even a '5th dimension alien' is not God.

So far all you've only told us what God doesn't have: things like age and gender. Well, nothing also has no age and no gender... how can I distinguish your God from nothing?


And again I restate God is our creator.

Please prove that we require a creator, and that that creator is "God".


Or what is your alternative explanation? This?:

(http://sawiggins.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/evolution.jpg)

Our understanding of the evidence so far strongly suggests something along those lines, yes.



Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 01:39:33 PM
Okay. So to not waste my time with your every sentence quoting style.

So in a nutshell you believe that we are not created by God/Creator/Intelligent Designer. Rather you believe that we were monkies that 'evolved'. Correct?

FYI the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning and was created. Big bang? No not porno.


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 19, 2012, 01:51:58 PM
So in a nutshell you believe that we are not created by God/intelligent designer. Rather you believe that we were monkies that 'evolved'. Correct?

I do not believe we were created no. My belief is that life was a chance occurrence; that it flourished, and that we have evolved.

FYI the universe is not eternal, it had a beginning and was created. Big bang? No not porno.

It's true that the Universe had a beginning - what we now call the Big Bang. But that's not incompatible with it also being eternal. I will explain again that time is a property of the Universe itself, and that time has existed for as long as the Universe has existed and vice versa. The word "eternal" is meaningless without a temporal progression.

I guess you could quibble and argue that something eternal has neither a beginning nor an end; it's true that under that definition the Universe isn't eternal. But I don't think that particular definition is helpful or grants us any particular insight to make it preferable.


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 01:56:06 PM
Okay now we are unravelling the mystery that dwelt in this atheist's faith.


I do not believe we were created no. My belief is that life was a chance occurrence; that it flourished, and that we have evolved.

YOUR BELIEF is that it was a chance occurence and 'somehow' magically flourished and then magically 'evolved'. I don't find your belief rational at all. Okay so this is where we differ and we should focus on.


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 19, 2012, 02:02:30 PM
Okay now we are unravelling the mystery that dwelt in this atheist's faith.

Are we now? Ooh!


YOUR BELIEF is that it was a chance occurence and 'somehow' magically flourished and then magically 'evolved'. I don't find your belief rational at all. Okay so this is where we differ and we should focus on.

The difference between my belief and yours is that mine is rooted in observable evidence, science and logic and that I remain open to the possibility that I am wrong and to being convinced that I am wrong. Yours is rooted in magic and superstition and you refuse to consider the possibility that you are wrong.

I'm thinking that perhaps you didn't unravel quite what you thought you unraveled. ;D


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 02:06:34 PM
Are we now? Ooh!


The difference between my belief and yours is that mine is rooted in observable evidence, science and logic and that I remain open to the possibility that I am wrong and to being convinced that I am wrong. Yours is rooted in magic and superstition and you refuse to consider the possibility that you are wrong.

I'm thinking that perhaps you didn't unravel quite what you thought you unraveled. ;D

Well in case you are wrong, maybe you should change your faith in chance occurences and accidents and maybe consider a creator? You are open to possibilities right?

"observable evidence, science and logic".

Okay. Who said I don't observe or rationalize? Use my observations as evidence? Who says I don't use or know about science? Who says I don't follow logic? From a young age before ever touching a book of religion my first books were on astronomy, biology, physics. And in fact I love deductive reasoning and logic.

To me evolution is nothing but magic and superstition. No different than Xmen, spiderman, superman, wonder woman FAAAR from reality or what is observable. Citing imaginary numbers such as '100 million years' or 'millions of years ago' is not proof. Neither are pieces of bone God knows where from (hah pun intended)

An uneducated and ignorant bedouin may be a tad bit smarter than you when they see a tent, and think and realize it had an origin, maker and an owner. He will observe the world around him and think, maybe the world must have had an origin, a maker and an owner. People don't magically come to believe in things. They think.

Evidence? How about DNA? How about our reproductive organs, male and female? They to me are evidence of a creator. Shall we go on?


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 19, 2012, 02:29:25 PM
Well in case you are wrong, maybe you should change your faith in chance occurences and accidents and maybe consider a creator?

If rational, logically supported evidence was presented, then I would.


You are open to possibilities right?

Yes. Rational, logically supported possibilities.



So you are open to changing your belief/faith through "observable evidence, science and logic".

Of course. Isn't that the hallmark of any rational man and good scientist?


Okay. Who said I don't observe or rationalize? Use my observations as evidence? Who says I don't use or know about science? Who says I don't follow logic? From a young age before ever touching a book of religion my first books were on astronomy, biology, physics. And in fact I love deductive reasoning and logic.

That's great.


To me evolution is nothing but magic and superstition. No different than Xmen, spiderman, superman, wonder woman FAAAR from reality or what is observable. Citing imaginary numbers such as '100 million years' or 'millions of years ago' is not proof. Neither are pieces of bone God knows where from (hah pun intended)

Oh... Remember just a few lines before this when you asked "Who says I don't use or know about science?" I submit that you answered that question yourself. If you consider evolution "magic" and "superstition" then I can only conclude that you know little to nothing about science in general and evolution in particular.


An ignorant bedouin may see a tent, and think and realize it had an origin, maker and an owner. He will observe the world around him and think, the world must have had an origin, a maker and an owner. Sure that may be primitive observation, but it is observation, people don't magically come to believe in things.

Oh the irony ;)

Our Bedouin friend may realize all that. But does that analogy scale? The answer may surprise you...


Evidence?

Yes please!


How about DNA?

How about it? I don't see "Copyright © Allah" anywhere in the DNA. Laboratory experiments have showed that the proteins behind the four base pairs can be created from raw materials without any divine intervention.


How about our reproductive organs, male and female?

How about them? Do you feel that they prove we were created? How exactly?


They to me are evidence of a creator. Shall we go on?

So you "feel" that genitals indicate that we were created. Alas those feelings don't necessarily reflect reality. Can you provide any actual, concrete, incontrovertible evidence of design? I'll bet you can't.


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 02:42:12 PM
Oh... Remember just a few lines before this when you asked "Who says I don't use or know about science?" I submit that you answered that question yourself. If you consider evolution "magic" and "superstition" then I can only conclude that you know little to nothing about science in general and evolution in particular.

Yes I do, because it to me is not science. Even if there are classes and majors on evolution studies... there are also classes and majors on genetic engineering keyword ENGINEERING. It takes a mover, a maker, an engineer, an intelligent designer. Science is a tool to observe something, prove something and repeat that something. You learn all about DNA, but you did not make it to begin with. You then prove that you can alter it or recreate it even. But then arrogantly say naaah not a creature it was just chance but what WE are doing is engineering DUUUH we are intelligent evolved monkies!

Darwinism and evolution theory is the faith of many atheists I am sure, but it is to me not science at all but mere conjecture and wishful thinking in arrogance of denying God but sticking to it as it is your ONLY faith you can depend on as an atheist.

Observing a few pieces of bones and organizing them in a certain manner then claiming they must have 'evolved' over millions of years into each other (eg: species) is not science to me at all.

Windows was created by microsoft. Some alien coming to our planet and seeing windows 3.1, windows 95, windows 2000, Xp, 7, etc... will not say HMMM it must have evolved over millions of years. Or even a porsche 911 or a mitsubishi evolution (lol), these people if they saw our remnants but no humans wouldn't go AAAH HAA evolution !

Science is able to observe the raw ingredients around us and how they react, what they are, great. It is not proving any such process of 'evolution' of creatures basically accidentally popping out of no where. Sea creatures coming to land, land creatures flying. Etc...

(http://www.klangart.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/evolution_fishjoke.jpg#evolution%20jokes)

Hence my xmen/spiderman commentary. That's how unsophisticated to me it is. Magic and wishful thinking

Quote
How about it? I don't see "Copyright © Allah" anywhere in the DNA. Laboratory experiments have showed that the proteins behind the four base pairs can be created from raw materials without any divine intervention.

Human intervention?

Right so you understand the raw materials. So they all magically came together to form a human being or x number of other creatures or their components?

Look look! This forum magically compiled its' own code and came on the internet!

Quote
So you "feel" that genitals indicate that we were created. Alas those feelings don't necessarily reflect reality. Can you provide any actual, concrete, incontrovertible evidence of design? I'll bet you can't.

Yes, because if it weren't for the perfect balance of things in the body (eg: hormones, nutrition, etc...) and healthy perfectly functional organs (both unique in each gender). You and I my friend would not exist, and fertility clinics of today would be out of business.

Did darwin suddenly go AH evolution, I don't need to procreate anymore. I'm just going to sit around or walk in the sun and I will EVOLVE


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 19, 2012, 03:01:58 PM
Yes I do, because it to me is not science.

Oh well.. that changes everything! ::)


Even if there are classes and majors on evolution studies... there are also classes and majors on genetic engineering keyword ENGINEERING. It takes a mover, a maker, an engineer, an intelligent designer. Science is a tool to observe something, prove something and repeat that something.

This line of reasoning just flat out fails... so since we can now do genetic engineering, this somehow makes evolution impossible?


You learn all about DNA, but you did not make it to begin with. You then prove that you can alter it or recreate it even. But then arrogantly say naaah not a creature it was just chance but what WE are doing is engineering DUUUH we are intelligent evolved monkies!



Darwinism and evolution theory is the faith of many atheists I am sure, but it is to me not science at all but mere conjecture and wishful thinking in arrogance of denying God but sticking to it as it is your ONLY faith you can depend on as an atheist.

You are misusing the word "faith." Faith is belief in the absence of (or even contrary to) evidence.


Observing a few pieces of bones and organizing them in a certain manner then claiming they must have 'evolved' over millions of years into each other (eg: species) is not science to me at all.


Windows was created by microsoft. Some alien coming to our planet and seeing windows 3.1, windows 95, windows 2000, Xp, 7, etc... will not say HMMM it must have evolved over millions of years. Or even a porsche 911 or a mitsubishi evolution (lol), these people if they saw our remnants but no humans wouldn't go AAAH HAA evolution !

That's also not an accurate analogy.


Science is able to observe the raw ingredients around us and how they react, what they are, great. It is not proving any such process of 'evolution' of creatures basically accidentally popping out of no where. Sea creatures coming to land, land creatures flying. Etc...

Instead let's assume that a magical sky creature (which popped out of nowhere) put things together... yeah, that's a good idea. Let's roll with that! ::)


(http://www.klangart.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/evolution_fishjoke.jpg#evolution%20jokes)

More evidence that you don't know anything at all about evolution, despite your numerous claims to be a lover of science and a prodigious bookworm.


Hence my xmen/spiderman commentary. That's how unsophisticated to me it is. Magic and wishful thinking

It may be "unsophisticated" to you, but that's only because you haven't studied the subject and just rely on a few talking points you keep spouting back again and again.


Right so you understand the raw materials. So they all magically came together to form a human being or x number of other creatures or their components?

No. A magical sky creature put them all together using his magical powers! ::) Why don't you actually study evolution and natural selection to understand the concepts before making an ass of yourself on the Internet?


Look look! This forum magically compiled its' own code and came on the internet!

Apples and oranges.


Yes, because if it weren't for the perfect balance of things in the body (eg: hormones, nutrition, etc...) and healthy perfectly functional organs (both unique in each gender). You and I my friend would not exist, and fertility clinics of today would be out of business.

And this proves what exactly? That if things aren't as they they wouldn't be as they are?


Did darwin suddenly go AH evolution, I don't need to procreate anymore. I'm just going to sit around or walk in the sun and I will EVOLVE

More evidence still that you don't know anything at all about evolution, despite your numerous claims to be a lover of science and a prodigious bookworm.


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 03:13:45 PM
(http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h149/demotivator/EVOLUTIONISTS.jpg#evolutionists)
lol i love it. An atheist telling me I don't know anything because I am not putting my faith in his belief :) How stereotypical. Like a child throwing a tantrum at his mom for taking away his toys.

Clearly I don't understand it because I don't believe it  ::)

(http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif)

(http://www.truthnet.org/genesis/5-created-in-gods-image/Human-Evolution-Chart.jpg)

Oooh pretty pictures!

Quote
This line of reasoning just flat out fails... so since we can now do genetic engineering, this somehow makes evolution impossible?

Oh so you are talking about possibilities and the impossible? Wow, your faith in evolution is that weak? You certainly are not affirming my faith in evolution just providing me faith away from it :)

Just ironic, that the one that's created, is basically saying hey we can create but no we weren't created :)

“Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no firm Belief.
Or are with them the treasures of your Lord? Or are they the tyrants with the authority to do as they like?”[al-Toor 52:35-37]


Quote
You are misusing the word "faith." Faith is belief in the absence of (or even contrary to) evidence.
No I believe I am using it quite correctly. Your darwinian atheist faith has not proved to me anything nor shown me any evidence besides children's cartoons, broken bones and broken promises of millions of years of evidence  ::)

Quote
Instead let's assume that a magical sky creature (which popped out of nowhere) put things together... yeah, that's a good idea. Let's roll with that!

Except that's not how it happened. We will not roll with that.


You talk about raw materials of the DNA in a LAB, an EXPERIMENT that HUMANS conduct with proteins. GREAT! So that argument itself works against you. You are intervening and using your INTELLECT behind the process. The only thing you are not in command of is the raw materials. Yes a provision to us from God. Or no, the universe just magically 'came to be' by an accident and everything in it.

Since we chose to talk about sexual reproductive organs.

You and I would seize to exist if anything goes wrong with them. They have to be WHOLE and COMPLETE.

Now lets put two and two together. You conduct some lame experiment in a lab with proteins... we have genetic engineering. We have humans who are whole. First and foremost two genders COMPLETELY seperate from one another with totally unique sexual organs.

Explain me this? If even once in your imaginary tale of evolution one organ failed we'd be doomed. Now explain to me how this organ came to be in both genders, how the genders came to be...? And now explain me this... The CONSTRUCT of the human being including the organs had to be conceived prior. Which would require genetic engineering and a process of reproduction. BOTH have to be complete, you cannot have a human with no reproductive system then magically develop a reproductive system. And the concept of a reproductive system itself in both seperate genders is nothing without the male or female human. Therefore BOTH must be whole. Very unique and intricate, beautiful at that.

Cut off any component from that process and you have nothing.


Title: Re: God
Post by: Man of Steel on September 19, 2012, 03:21:47 PM
If you agree with everything I said you would be aware what the first commandment instructs, just like the qur'an that nothing compares to God in the creation or as in the bible it's described, neither the earth, heaven or water. Jesus is comparable to humans. Jesus is a human.

God is not the creation nor in his creation. The later of which is called pantheism. Believing that God physically 'dwells' in His creation. Certain idolators would say such things of idols.  And hindus would describe God in the creation a belief in pantheism not monotheism.

This is not the teachings of Jesus yet again.. but the teachings of later Christians... you are not doing service to this thread by bringing exclusively christian beliefs that someone will simply argue with as I was arguing with you in the other thread about the verses that indicate Jesus is not God and get ridicule for citing that God is a man.

Furthermore saying God is male, is your own words. God never uttered such thing. That would mean God has a male reproductive organ... God CREATED genders... God has no gender. You are being deluded yet again by Pauline/church teachings, not Jesus' own teachings or whats said in the scriptures... again saying God is a man when Jesus said no such thing and kept calling towards the same God of Moses, God of Abraham, etc... The one and only. Hear oh Israel your Lord God is one.

Science merely is able to disprove false deities, but it does not disprove God.

If  you knew the Holy Spirit in your life you'd understand.  I'm not speaking of the angel Gabriel either.


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 03:27:08 PM
If  you knew the Holy Spirit in your life you'd understand.  I'm not speaking of the angel Gabriel either.


I read the scriptures and I know enough about what Jesus said. I go by that. For divine guidance, we are to follow the prophets and messengers. Not mere sayings of ordinary men who have ulterior motives. We are able to think, but not conjure up our own false beliefs. Not paradoxical, contradictory teachings of the church that clearly go against the very fundamental sayings of Jesus using scripture. You bring no proof from the scriptures when you make blank statements like that. Keep it in the trinity/bible thread. You still are ignoring the verses where Jesus talks about not his will but the will of the father (God). And Jesus saying he doesn't know something (the hour) but only God does.

God does not contradict, mislead or misguide. Men do. Jesus was a mighty messenger of God or as the bible even says "a prophet". Yes the bible, that was one of the quotes from that video you questioned. You are the one lying against God and lying against Jesus. You are not doing yourself or others justice doing that.

So next time you say no Jesus was not a prophet read your bible:

The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee."Matthew 21:11

"And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:"
Luke 24:19


In fact there are so many verses in the bible where Jesus is called a prophet :) I am posting two just to prove a poin

"And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Verily! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was [revealed] before me in the Torah"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Saf(61):6


And in this thread you are not doing any monotheist service when you say God is a human being or 'male' (gender is something God created and certainly man is something God created). Nor is any of that pantheistic or trinitarian stuff helping you. Jesus certainly was a monotheist, not a pantheist or polytheist or trinitheist or whatever you want to dub it.

Like I said, science disproves in the absolute any false deities, but it does not disprove God. Saying God is a man, science and rational thought will prove it false quite easily.


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 19, 2012, 04:01:07 PM
An atheist telling me I don't know anything because I am not putting my faith in his belief :) How stereotypical. Like a child throwing a tantrum at his mom for taking away his toys.

No, I'm telling you that your statements indicate you don't know what you're talking about.


Clearly I don't understand it because I don't believe it  ::)

Clearly you don't understand it if the statements you make are accurate indication of your understanding.


Oooh pretty pictures!

::)


Oh so you are talking about possibilities and the impossible? Wow, your faith in evolution is that weak? You certainly are not affirming my faith in evolution just providing me faith away from it :)

As I explained before I don't have "faith" in evolution. Faith requires believe in the absence of or contrary to evidence.


Just ironic, that the one that's created, is basically saying hey we can create but no we weren't created :)

Repeating the "we were created bit" won't make it true.

“Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no firm Belief.
Or are with them the treasures of your Lord? Or are they the tyrants with the authority to do as they like?”[al-Toor 52:35-37]

No I believe I am using it quite correctly.

We've already seen that your beliefs aren't all that accurate.


Your darwinian atheist faith has not proved to me anything nor shown me any evidence besides children's cartoons, broken bones and broken promises of millions of years of evidence  ::)

There you go away with "faith"... I'll play along : my "faith" in evolution doesn't require that you believe.


Except that's not how it happened. We will not roll with that.

Oh? You don't think Allah created everything in six days? Bad Muslims! Bad! Don't make me get the spray-bottle!

You talk about raw materials of the DNA in a LAB, an EXPERIMENT that HUMANS conduct with proteins. GREAT! So that argument itself works against you. You are intervening and using your INTELLECT behind the process. The only thing you are not in command of is the raw materials. Yes a provision to us from God. Or no, the universe just magically 'came to be' by an accident and everything in it.

 ::)

Since we chose to talk about sexual reproductive organs.

You and I would seize to exist if anything goes wrong with them. They have to be WHOLE and COMPLETE.

So no circumcision for you?


Now lets put two and two together. You conduct some lame experiment in a lab with proteins... we have genetic engineering.

No. You conduct an experiment where the raw elements that were available on earth a few billions of years ago combine to form proteins needed for DNA and RNA synthesis without any human intervention. That is not genetic engineering. Playing with genes, adding, removing, turning some off and others on, that is genetic engineering. Please use terms correctly.


We have humans who are whole. First and foremost two genders COMPLETELY seperate from one another with totally unique sexual organs.

"COMPLETELY" is a very strong word. Do you know anything about how the sexual organs develop in fetuses?


Explain me this? If even once in your imaginary tale of evolution one organ failed we'd be doomed.

Extremely unlikely. Besides, natural selection is all about selecting the fittest. Billions of organisms failed and didn't continue evolving because their mutations didn't prove beneficial or didn't bestow a significant enough genetic advantage.


Now explain to me how this organ came to be in both genders, how the genders came to be...?

You want me to explain sexual differentiation? I'm sure wikipedia has an article on the subject. Let me check on that for you... And yes, I was right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_determination_and_differentiation_(human)


And now explain me this... The CONSTRUCT of the human being including the organs had to be conceived prior.

Why would you think that?


Which would require genetic engineering and a process of reproduction. BOTH have to be complete, you cannot have a human with no reproductive system then magically develop a reproductive system.

Again you are only achieving one thing. Showing just how clueless and uninformed you actually are.


And the concept of a reproductive system itself in both seperate genders is nothing without the male or female human.

This sentence makes no sense...


Therefore BOTH must be whole. Very unique and intricate, beautiful at that.

Unique? Hardly. The overwhelming majority of the animal kingdom has two distinct genders; the animals that use asexual reproduction are in the minority.


Cut off any component from that process and you have nothing.

OK, and?


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 19, 2012, 04:07:55 PM
LOL earlier you were arguing about evolution theory and genetic engineering comparison and how it is not 'impossible'. Yet you ridicule that God creating the universe in 6 days/periods whatever it may be exactly as impossible and worthy of your sarcasm? Funny funny indeed. So many things we built today in the past were deemed as 'impossible'. I don't find anything to ridicule for God our creator to be able to create the whole universe in six days or six periods (periods whatever that means, not necessarily 24 hours)


LOL@ "but you dont understand it", "you dont know anything about it". You're sounding exactly what you accuse theists of and trust me I've gone through this numerous times with atheists the outcome is always the same :) It's just plain amusement to my ears. When someone disbelieves in your faith you tell them "no no, you dont understand", "you are clueless". Before finally resorting to childish name calling, cynicism and sarcasm. Oh wait you already have numerous times until now! I am losing faith in you :) Seems like I am discovering how crumbling your basis of what you believe in actually is and how that which you accuse of others applies quite well to you. You come on self glorifying, know it all, superior, yet in fact all you have is miserly beliefs that cover your atheism and uncertainty.

Do you not see the paradox of this faith of yours?

A human reproduces and only persists to exist via the availability of a male and a female with fully functional sexual reproductive systems aka procreation.

The genetic code exists so that through this process we have an outcome creature. A human? Or lets even say some other creature, but lets focus on humans. With a? Reproductive system!

So we can't just have a human without the reproductive system. Nor can we have the reproductive system and then a human coming out of no where! Kind of the like the chicken and the egg argument..

To me the chicken and egg argument is a no brainer as a theist. God created the chicken and designed a reproductive system for it, not one or the other but both.

The bottom line is. Humans WITH their respective reproductive systems, male or female... need to have this and need all their components in place. You do not have a human that 'evolves' to develop a penis or develop a vagina magically from being an asexual creature for example. It has to be whole.

Likewise with all the other systems in the body. No liver? Die. No heart? No blood, no life? No brain, a vegetable. No muscles, not going anywhere? No lungs, no oxygen for any organ or blood which passes through it.

Also you don't just stuff a male with estrogens and testosterone blockers and saw off their dick and they become a female with a vagina. Likewise with females, you don't just jack them up with AIs and testosterone and hope a penis grows with a reproductive system?

We are male or female, interfering in this process in any shape or form makes humans or any creature with a reproductive system seize to exist.

Catching my drift? All this has to be in place or there's nothing but components.


Title: Re: God
Post by: syntaxmachine on September 19, 2012, 05:26:37 PM

First you define what God is - providing specific attributes that allow us to distinguish God from, say, a potato, or an alien from the 5th dimension. You must do this without resorting to the texts that God supposedly authored. Because you must prove that God authored them. And before you can prove that you must first indepedently define what "god" means and prove that the entity in question exists.


A religious person with more ... capacious intelligence than what you're dealing with here would dispute the idea that he must provide a strict definition at the outset, pointing to a variety of investigations that do not proceed in this fashion.

If you read Plato's dialogues, a variety of important philosophical concepts that remain with us to this day (e.g., truth, knowledge, justice) are investigated, an adequate definition sought after in each work. Yet, that definition typically does not materialize. But that doesn't necessarily hinder the investigation or indicate that there is nothing there to investigate. Even if you think philosophy is utter shit, there are other examples to draw upon, e.g., linguistics' use of 'meaning' to do explanatory work despite nobody knowing precisely what the word, well, means.

Alternative methodologies include providing an ostensive definition -- basically, pointing to an example of a thing --  or by highlighting just a few essential properties of a thing. For example, it is awfully difficult to provide a precise definition of the mental state 'pain,' yet we seem to know it via acquaintance and can identify some of its salient features. Just as we have a faculty for sensations, the religious will say, there is a similar sense divinatus that allows us to experience 'God'. And they will probably continue the analogy with sensations further, indicating God too is indefinable yet known via acquaintance.


Title: Re: God
Post by: syntaxmachine on September 19, 2012, 05:38:40 PM

LOL@ "but you dont understand it", "you dont know anything about it". You're sounding exactly what you accuse theists of and trust me I've gone through this numerous times with atheists the outcome is always the same :) It's just plain amusement to my ears. When someone disbelieves in your faith you tell them "no no, you dont understand", "you are clueless". Before finally resorting to childish name calling, cynicism and sarcasm. Oh wait you already have numerous times until now! I am losing faith in you :) Seems like I am discovering how crumbling your basis of what you believe in actually is and how that which you accuse of others applies quite well to you. You come on self glorifying, know it all, superior, yet in fact all you have is miserly beliefs that cover your atheism and uncertainty.


The difference in this instance is that you are making a variety of statements that genuinely indicate you don't understand evolution. As a random example, you have reiterated the claim that evolution claims we are evolved from monkeys. And this of course is false; we are apes who share a common ancestor with monkeys. If you can't be bothered to understand elementary propositions derived from the theory, how likely is it that you really understand the theory itself and its more complex aspects?

There might just be a reason people are repeatedly telling you you are failing to comprehend. I'm confident that if you left your basement and visited a nearby university, conversing with the resident evolutionary biologist there, it would quickly become apparent you understood relatively little. I don't think internet scholarship is enough to get a full grasp on evolution.


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 19, 2012, 06:54:34 PM
A religious person with more ... capacious intelligence than what you're dealing with here would dispute the idea that he must provide a strict definition at the outset, pointing to a variety of investigations that do not proceed in this fashion.

But such a religious person should provide at least a workable definition that allows us to agree on the concept we're discussing.


If you read Plato's dialogues, a variety of important philosophical concepts that remain with us to this day (e.g., truth, knowledge, justice) are investigated, an adequate definition sought after in each work. Yet, that definition typically does not materialize. But that doesn't necessarily hinder the investigation or indicate that there is nothing there to investigate. Even if you think philosophy is utter shit, there are other examples to draw upon, e.g., linguistics' use of 'meaning' to do explanatory work despite nobody knowing precisely what the word, well, means.

Alternative methodologies include providing an ostensive definition -- basically, pointing to an example of a thing --  or by highlighting just a few essential properties of a thing. For example, it is awfully difficult to provide a precise definition of the mental state 'pain,' yet we seem to know it via acquaintance and can identify some of its salient features. Just as we have a faculty for sensations, the religious will say, there is a similar sense divinatus that allows us to experience 'God'. And they will probably continue the analogy with sensations further, indicating God too is indefinable yet known via acquaintance.

You raise interesting points. I don't necessarily know that I agree with them all, but they are interesting nonetheless.


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 19, 2012, 07:18:21 PM
LOL earlier you were arguing about evolution theory and genetic engineering comparison and how it is not 'impossible'.

I don't think I was comparing evolution and genetic engineering. Can you provide the quote you think indicates this?


Yet you ridicule that God creating the universe in 6 days/periods whatever it may be exactly as impossible and worthy of your sarcasm? Funny funny indeed. So many things we built today in the past were deemed as 'impossible'. I don't find anything to ridicule for God our creator to be able to create the whole universe in six days or six periods (periods whatever that means, not necessarily 24 hours)

I ridicule the concept that the Universe absolutely required a creator/designer that is championed by people like you, who will, in the same breath, add that the creator/designer doesn't need a creator. ::)


LOL@ "but you dont understand it", "you dont know anything about it". You're sounding exactly what you accuse theists of and trust me I've gone through this numerous times with atheists the outcome is always the same :) It's just plain amusement to my ears. When someone disbelieves in your faith you tell them "no no, you dont understand", "you are clueless". Before finally resorting to childish name calling, cynicism and sarcasm. Oh wait you already have numerous times until now! I am losing faith in you :) Seems like I am discovering how crumbling your basis of what you believe in actually is and how that which you accuse of others applies quite well to you. You come on self glorifying, know it all, superior, yet in fact all you have is miserly beliefs that cover your atheism and uncertainty.

I think your statements speak for themselves - you either have no real understanding of the theory of evolution and natural selection, or you're intentionally distorting them. I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you wouldn't intentionally lie...

As for knowing everything - I don't and have never claimed to. The one making sweeping proclamations of knowledge is you.


Do you not see the paradox of this faith of yours?

As I've pointed out many times before, I don't have a "faith".


A human reproduces and only persists to exist via the availability of a male and a female with fully functional sexual reproductive systems aka procreation.

Right. But the failure of any one human's reproductive system affects only that one human. Not everyone. You claimed that a single failure in any one human would doom us all.


The genetic code exists so that through this process we have an outcome creature. A human? Or lets even say some other creature, but lets focus on humans. With a? Reproductive system!


So we can't just have a human without the reproductive system. Nor can we have the reproductive system and then a human coming out of no where! Kind of the like the chicken and the egg argument..

You are making an awful lot of assumption. Nothing prevents an evolutionary ancestor of humans from employing asexual reproduction - there are animals that reproduce this way today.


To me the chicken and egg argument is a no brainer as a theist. God created the chicken and designed a reproductive system for it, not one or the other but both.

Of course. To you everything is simple. "God did it" is your universal answer. Why is the sky blue? "God did it." Why do men have nipples? "God did it." Why <anything>? "God did it."


The bottom line is. Humans WITH their respective reproductive systems, male or female... need to have this and need all their components in place. You do not have a human that 'evolves' to develop a penis or develop a vagina magically from being an asexual creature for example. It has to be whole.

The evidence doesn't suggest that the evolutionary path of humans required the sudden and immediate evolution of a penis and a vagina, lest the species be unable to reproduce.


Likewise with all the other systems in the body. No liver? Die. No heart? No blood, no life? No brain, a vegetable. No muscles, not going anywhere? No lungs, no oxygen for any organ or blood which passes through it.

Sure. But then again, natural selection would take care of a mutation that suddenly took away, say, the heart. Or reduced brain capacity. Besides there's a ton of vestigial organs or parts that we do have. The coccyx, the vomeronasal organ, and the evolutionary remnants of a nictitating membrane in our eyes.


Also you don't just stuff a male with estrogens and testosterone blockers and saw off their dick and they become a female with a vagina. Likewise with females, you don't just jack them up with AIs and testosterone and hope a penis grows with a reproductive system?

Right and?


We are male or female, interfering in this process in any shape or form makes humans or any creature with a reproductive system seize to exist.

A lot of genetic mutations cause sterility. Many sterile people are born every year, and yet we haven't seized to exist.


Catching my drift? All this has to be in place or there's nothing but components.

I think your drift is going off on weird tangents. And it's slightly off.


Title: Re: God
Post by: Griffith on September 20, 2012, 02:53:15 AM
So since the local resident atheist swamped a thread for christian/muslims. I thought I'd create a seperate thread.

The atheist asked who is God?

God is our creator the master of all creation.

We are dependant on Him, but he is independent of us.

God is the first and last: eternal

Nothing is comparable to Him in all of creation so that includes various creatures, objects, animate or inanimate, etc...

He is not in 'the creation' or creation itself.

God has no gender, age, limiting factors of the physical. God is not bound by the rules He created for the universe.

With Him is all knowledge

As if the true God of the Universe would care what type of food we eat, what we drink or who we decide to have sex with  ::) and then offers a whole bunch of whores for a dead man to sleep with ??? This is just perverted and sick.

I would expect my God to at least have superior intellect to the pathetic minds of petty humans.

Your 'God' thinks like a human being.

At least Jesus Christ offers a message of peace, forgiveness, love and is against stoning or killing people who break the 'laws'.
The New Testament represented a more modern mentality due to the influence of the Greeks and Romans.

The Koran took the mentality back to the time of Abraham when people were primitive nomads who thought the world ended at the mountains in the distance.
This is what the Arabs were at the time, a very primitive people in comparison to the civilization of the Roman Empire which functioned on the principles of logic and reason they learned from the Greeks.
 
The Arabs/Moslems never had a Renaissance or Enlightenment so they never really progressed passed a superstitious medieval mentality.
Europe had its Dark Ages but they at least recovered.
Also, the Europeans realised that Monarchies are oppressors and to live in a monarchy is to be a slave.
Yet the Moslems want to live in a 'Caliphate'  ::)

The Greeks and Romans always viewed the servile nature of these people and their opulent masters as the worst kind of degenerate weakness and not worthy of any true respect.

The European mentality is to bow to no-one, have freedom and think for ourselves as based on the Athenian model of Democracy which the Romans followed during their Republic and made their greatest gains.
That is why we conquered the world and created the worlds greatest inventions.
To blindly follow a religion is not to think for yourself and is a form of mental enslavement.

The Middle East has still not got past much of the Dark Ages phase.


Title: Re: God
Post by: Radical Plato on September 20, 2012, 04:29:24 AM
God is AN atheist!


Title: Re: God
Post by: Man of Steel on September 20, 2012, 06:07:03 AM
I read the scriptures and I know enough about what Jesus said. I go by that. For divine guidance, we are to follow the prophets and messengers. Not mere sayings of ordinary men who have ulterior motives. We are able to think, but not conjure up our own false beliefs. Not paradoxical, contradictory teachings of the church that clearly go against the very fundamental sayings of Jesus using scripture. You bring no proof from the scriptures when you make blank statements like that. Keep it in the trinity/bible thread. You still are ignoring the verses where Jesus talks about not his will but the will of the father (God). And Jesus saying he doesn't know something (the hour) but only God does.

God does not contradict, mislead or misguide. Men do. Jesus was a mighty messenger of God or as the bible even says "a prophet". Yes the bible, that was one of the quotes from that video you questioned. You are the one lying against God and lying against Jesus. You are not doing yourself or others justice doing that.

So next time you say no Jesus was not a prophet read your bible:

The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee."Matthew 21:11

"And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:"
Luke 24:19


In fact there are so many verses in the bible where Jesus is called a prophet :) I am posting two just to prove a poin

"And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Verily! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was [revealed] before me in the Torah"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Saf(61):6


And in this thread you are not doing any monotheist service when you say God is a human being or 'male' (gender is something God created and certainly man is something God created). Nor is any of that pantheistic or trinitarian stuff helping you. Jesus certainly was a monotheist, not a pantheist or polytheist or trinitheist or whatever you want to dub it.

Like I said, science disproves in the absolute any false deities, but it does not disprove God. Saying God is a man, science and rational thought will prove it false quite easily.

Ahmed, I've told you before that I don't have the capacity to quickly churn out scriptural references and supplemental discussion points in the manor you want.  Further, because I haven't doesn't mean I'm unable, it just means I don't have the capacity now.  Although, I will indulge the exercise and provide you the response putting that issue to rest.  I can quickly churn out simple replies all day....we all can.  I just don't have canned, written responses at the ready like some; that said, some responses have to be crafted and/or sourced from multiple places. 


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 20, 2012, 11:17:51 AM
^The point is you can't argue against your own scripture saying something and then you saying something completely different, clearly. The bottom line is, you are following Paul's creed and as he said 'his own gospel' and what the church enforced.

If anyone reads the bible it's quite clear Jesus was a man. Alot of the verses that christians emotionally boast about are forgeries like the one about the 'three in heaven'.

Likewise you see someone in the posts mentioned how "Jesus was against the stoning of the adulterer".. Yet if only that person knew that that story was FABRICATED and found to be inserted about 400 years after Jesus. Clearly to enforce a certain view against the law.

Yet then you have Jesus talking about the law, tlaking about the commandments, saying he is not here to destroy it etc...

Quote
At least Jesus Christ offers a message of peace, forgiveness, love and is against stoning or killing people who break the 'laws'.
The New Testament represented a more modern mentality due to the influence of the Greeks and Romans.

You mean the more 'modern' pagans. And you realize the story about the adulteress not being stoned is a fabrication right and a far later insertion like 400 years after?

What will Jesus say on his return:

But I will reply, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God's laws.' Matthew 7:23

A similar thing is stated about Jesus in the qur'an. I can't recollect the verse right now off by heart.

The qur'an stuck to the original message of the prophets and continued off where Jesus left off. Ignoring indeed the church and paul's pagan inventions about Jesus

Lastly in respons to your quote. The bible RARELY talks about God's mercy or love. Are you kidding me? This is a modern phenomena post ww2 where the church was losing followers so they reformed and changed the approach of you're going to rot in hell if you dont accept Jesus as God to Jesus love you, Jesus is peace, Jesus is love, Jesus is mercy. Etc... which the scriptures contradict.

The qur'an actually pretty much solely focuses on the mercy and forgiveness of God. Almost everything is spoken of in terms of mercy and compassion that God has for us. God's 99 names and attributes in the qur'an illustrate that. The forgiving. The merciful. The compassionate. The loving. Etc...

Even when we begin something or pray we say in the name of God, the merciful, the most compassionate

The greeting of the believers is PEACE, salaam. How did Jesus greet people? SHALOM! Same thing.

However it is totally untrue what you claim if you but read the bible or a bit of even recent history. This whole phenomena of selling christianity as 'peace love mercy' is a new phenomena. Less than a hundred years ago it was all about you will rot in hell you infidel if you dont accept Jesus. Seriously.

Quote
The European mentality is to bow to no-one, have freedom and think for ourselves as based on the Athenian model of Democracy which the Romans followed during their Republic and made their greatest gains.
That is why we conquered the world and created the worlds greatest inventions.
To blindly follow a religion is not to think for yourself and is a form of mental enslavement.

The Middle East has still not got past much of the Dark Ages phase.

I think you need to brush up on history, cause your statements clearly show your lack of  know-how on the subject. The reason Europe 'spread' is because of constant bloodshed everywhere not just in Europe. Europe was in the 'dark ages' for over a thousand years.

Muslims on the other hand were prosperous for over a thousand years and wherever they went the same was true for the locals.

The crusades just slowed down progress and caused bloodshed. Eventually colonialism took over the crusades and as the british and french made a pact to never allow a caliphate to ever resurface or muslims to progress, they did a fine job of dividing the muslim world for their 'great game'.

I keep forgetting what this document is called signed by the british and french to never allow muslims to progress and to always strive to divide them.

It is quite essential to understanding the muslim world of the past say even 100 years. Nothing but puppets, dictators, military rulers and lack of islam. Only in the very recent many years has there been an awakening and as such Islam is even spreading across europe and the majority of it's converts are in fact white university educated women.


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 20, 2012, 11:27:36 AM
Blabla you don't know what you're talking about you dont know science, you dont know evolution.

Bottom line we come from monkeys but you dont understand how or why but its not really monkeys but it is monkeys.

You miss the whole point. That's why you are just a fraud to me.

You keep boasting about evidence? What evidence the fossil record laughs at you.

We have whole species appear and dissapear. The end. There is no 'transitional forms' only your PERCEPTION where you will present a certain creature then say somewhere in between it became this.

That to me is as idiotic as the greek mythologies of gods and their drawings. Sorry.

You dont have me convinced.

I can use science to understand the cell, understand the human body, understand the various microscopic elements that make up all these processes. But I will not conclude that it came out of coincidence. It's pure retardation.

Keep to your blind atheist faith :) You as you accuse theists, actually are the one that has nothing substantial only talk talk talk. No evidence, nothing. Empty.

I laugh at your 'superiority'


Title: Re: God
Post by: Man of Steel on September 20, 2012, 01:21:52 PM
^The point is you can't argue against your own scripture saying something and then you saying something completely different, clearly. The bottom line is, you are following Paul's creed and as he said 'his own gospel' and what the church enforced.

If anyone reads the bible it's quite clear Jesus was a man. Alot of the verses that christians emotionally boast about are forgeries like the one about the 'three in heaven'.

Likewise you see someone in the posts mentioned how "Jesus was against the stoning of the adulterer".. Yet if only that person knew that that story was FABRICATED and found to be inserted about 400 years after Jesus. Clearly to enforce a certain view against the law.

Yet then you have Jesus talking about the law, tlaking about the commandments, saying he is not here to destroy it etc...

You mean the more 'modern' pagans. And you realize the story about the adulteress not being stoned is a fabrication right and a far later insertion like 400 years after?

What will Jesus say on his return:

But I will reply, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God's laws.' Matthew 7:23

A similar thing is stated about Jesus in the qur'an. I can't recollect the verse right now off by heart.

The qur'an stuck to the original message of the prophets and continued off where Jesus left off. Ignoring indeed the church and paul's pagan inventions about Jesus

Lastly in respons to your quote. The bible RARELY talks about God's mercy or love. Are you kidding me? This is a modern phenomena post ww2 where the church was losing followers so they reformed and changed the approach of you're going to rot in hell if you dont accept Jesus as God to Jesus love you, Jesus is peace, Jesus is love, Jesus is mercy. Etc... which the scriptures contradict.

The qur'an actually pretty much solely focuses on the mercy and forgiveness of God. Almost everything is spoken of in terms of mercy and compassion that God has for us. God's 99 names and attributes in the qur'an illustrate that. The forgiving. The merciful. The compassionate. The loving. Etc...

Even when we begin something or pray we say in the name of God, the merciful, the most compassionate

The greeting of the believers is PEACE, salaam. How did Jesus greet people? SHALOM! Same thing.

However it is totally untrue what you claim if you but read the bible or a bit of even recent history. This whole phenomena of selling christianity as 'peace love mercy' is a new phenomena. Less than a hundred years ago it was all about you will rot in hell you infidel if you dont accept Jesus. Seriously.

I think you need to brush up on history, cause your statements clearly show your lack of  know-how on the subject. The reason Europe 'spread' is because of constant bloodshed everywhere not just in Europe. Europe was in the 'dark ages' for over a thousand years.

Muslims on the other hand were prosperous for over a thousand years and wherever they went the same was true for the locals.

The crusades just slowed down progress and caused bloodshed. Eventually colonialism took over the crusades and as the british and french made a pact to never allow a caliphate to ever resurface or muslims to progress, they did a fine job of dividing the muslim world for their 'great game'.

I keep forgetting what this document is called signed by the british and french to never allow muslims to progress and to always strive to divide them.

It is quite essential to understanding the muslim world of the past say even 100 years. Nothing but puppets, dictators, military rulers and lack of islam. Only in the very recent many years has there been an awakening and as such Islam is even spreading across europe and the majority of it's converts are in fact white university educated women.

Who are you responding to here? 


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 20, 2012, 01:22:12 PM
You miss the whole point. That's why you are just a fraud to me.

If you think that we "come from monkeys" the only one who misses the point is you.


You keep boasting about evidence? What evidence the fossil record laughs at you.

 ::)


We have whole species appear and dissapear. The end. There is no 'transitional forms' only your PERCEPTION where you will present a certain creature then say somewhere in between it became this.

You may be willing to pretend that evidence doesn't exist. What makes you think I'm willing to do the same?


That to me is as idiotic as the greek mythologies of gods and their drawings. Sorry.

How is your particular mythology different?


You dont have me convinced.

It's impossible to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. I wonder if you fall in that category...


I can use science to understand the cell, understand the human body, understand the various microscopic elements that make up all these processes. But I will not conclude that it came out of coincidence. It's pure retardation.

Hey! You do!!! At least you're honest enough to admit that you have already reached a conclusion and will ignore any evidence presented to you that contradicts that conclusion.


Keep to your blind atheist faith :) You as you accuse theists, actually are the one that has nothing substantial only talk talk talk. No evidence, nothing. Empty.

 ::)


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 20, 2012, 01:22:42 PM
WHAT EVIDENCE?! You have NOTHING lol and its not me saying we come from monkeys, i dont believe that crap. Your evolution theory priests do.

Wait you want to say primates, or apes? oOoOh semantics

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/Bonobo.jpg/220px-Bonobo.jpg)

^Primate

Looks a lot like a monkey to me.

Oh you mean you want this explanation and the various 'trees' of evolution;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate

Lets go further back in your magical tale of evolution theory. We come from like rats and rodents from there on in? I want to know when we were sea creatures oh oh oh!


Title: Re: God
Post by: Griffith on September 21, 2012, 03:12:54 AM
^The point is you can't argue against your own scripture saying something and then you saying something completely different, clearly. The bottom line is, you are following Paul's creed and as he said 'his own gospel' and what the church enforced.

If anyone reads the bible it's quite clear Jesus was a man. Alot of the verses that christians emotionally boast about are forgeries like the one about the 'three in heaven'.

Likewise you see someone in the posts mentioned how "Jesus was against the stoning of the adulterer".. Yet if only that person knew that that story was FABRICATED and found to be inserted about 400 years after Jesus. Clearly to enforce a certain view against the law.

Yet then you have Jesus talking about the law, tlaking about the commandments, saying he is not here to destroy it etc...

You mean the more 'modern' pagans. And you realize the story about the adulteress not being stoned is a fabrication right and a far later insertion like 400 years after?

What will Jesus say on his return:

But I will reply, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God's laws.' Matthew 7:23

A similar thing is stated about Jesus in the qur'an. I can't recollect the verse right now off by heart.

The qur'an stuck to the original message of the prophets and continued off where Jesus left off. Ignoring indeed the church and paul's pagan inventions about Jesus

Lastly in respons to your quote. The bible RARELY talks about God's mercy or love. Are you kidding me? This is a modern phenomena post ww2 where the church was losing followers so they reformed and changed the approach of you're going to rot in hell if you dont accept Jesus as God to Jesus love you, Jesus is peace, Jesus is love, Jesus is mercy. Etc... which the scriptures contradict.

The qur'an actually pretty much solely focuses on the mercy and forgiveness of God. Almost everything is spoken of in terms of mercy and compassion that God has for us. God's 99 names and attributes in the qur'an illustrate that. The forgiving. The merciful. The compassionate. The loving. Etc...

Even when we begin something or pray we say in the name of God, the merciful, the most compassionate

The greeting of the believers is PEACE, salaam. How did Jesus greet people? SHALOM! Same thing.

However it is totally untrue what you claim if you but read the bible or a bit of even recent history. This whole phenomena of selling christianity as 'peace love mercy' is a new phenomena. Less than a hundred years ago it was all about you will rot in hell you infidel if you dont accept Jesus. Seriously.

I think you need to brush up on history, cause your statements clearly show your lack of  know-how on the subject. The reason Europe 'spread' is because of constant bloodshed everywhere not just in Europe. Europe was in the 'dark ages' for over a thousand years.

Muslims on the other hand were prosperous for over a thousand years and wherever they went the same was true for the locals.

The crusades just slowed down progress and caused bloodshed. Eventually colonialism took over the crusades and as the british and french made a pact to never allow a caliphate to ever resurface or muslims to progress, they did a fine job of dividing the muslim world for their 'great game'.

I keep forgetting what this document is called signed by the british and french to never allow muslims to progress and to always strive to divide them.

It is quite essential to understanding the muslim world of the past say even 100 years. Nothing but puppets, dictators, military rulers and lack of islam. Only in the very recent many years has there been an awakening and as such Islam is even spreading across europe and the majority of it's converts are in fact white university educated women.

I know my history very well thank you.

Actually, the reason the Crusades started was because the Moslems had invaded the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) and the Emperor asked for aid from the West to repel the Turks who threatened to invade Europe and launch a joint military effort to expel them from Roman territory.

The West (Latins) knew that if Constantinople fell to the Turks then Europe would be threatened (as did happen when the Turks finally conquered the city, they invaded and terrorised a large part of Europe for hundreds of years). The Crusaders agreed to help the Emperor on condition that they could lay claim to Jerusalem and that the Eastern Roman Empire would relinquish it's claim to that city which it ruled for over for hundreds of years.

The Emperor agreed, and the Crusaders after repelling the Turks from Christian territory pushed them back to Jerusalem and finally conquered the city.

Another reason for the Crusades was an appeal by the Spaniards to the Pope for aid to repel the Moslems from Spain, who also treatened to invade the France.

The Crusades had little to do about religion but more about repelling Moslem armies from Europe.

Everyone forgets about the Moslem invasions and forgets why the Crusaders entered Moslem territory in the first place.

The Middle East and North Africa was ROMAN territory. The people by that time were all Christian.
The ARAB MOSLEMS invaded it.
This came with forced conversion, enslavement and punishment of death if they refused to convert.

Quote
This whole phenomena of selling christianity as 'peace love mercy' is a new phenomena. Less than a hundred years ago it was all about you will rot in hell you infidel if you dont accept Jesus. Seriously.

Islam is still in that primitive phase....
Just look at the actions of Moslems around the world....? And all their illogical protests? It displays a primitive mentality not compatible with modern civilization.

Yes, Europe did have its Dark Ages due to religion but it recovered.
The Arab word and Middle East is still in its Dark Ages due to religion.
Only when they become secular and base their reasoning on science and logic will they begin to prosper and catch up the West and much of East Asia.

As was stated in another post, Mohammed got his ideas from travelling into the Eastern Roman Empire where he heard the stories from the Bible and Torah.
He then incorporated these ideas into a form which was more applicable to the Arabs.
As a result he gained political control and launched a WAR of aggression against the Eastern Romans, conquering people by use of the sword, overseeing the massacre of Jews and forcing others to convert.

And another thing, instead of blaming everyone else for their current state (Like most of Africa also do...) the Arabs should maybe look to themselves to see why they are in their current state.


Title: Re: God
Post by: Radical Plato on September 21, 2012, 05:04:54 AM
Awesome Thread - Bitch fight between the Bible Bashing Crusaders and the Mad Mohammed Nuthuggers - Doesn't take long reading this thread before you realise religion is tailor made for the gullible, naive and feeble minded.  The more a_ahmed talks about Islam, the more I realise why the world wants to wipe it off the face off the Earth!  Islam is obviously delusional and attempting to force everyone else to be so, it's like the resident crazy guy in the loony bin telling everyone else that they're crazy.


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 21, 2012, 08:09:20 AM
Right and that's why its one of the fastest growing religions and the largest number of converts are white university educated women :)


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 23, 2012, 04:10:18 AM
Right and that's why its one of the fastest growing religions and the largest number of converts are white university educated women :)

And that (if true) proves what exactly?


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 23, 2012, 07:25:46 AM
You're such a tool :)

That if Islam is 'the ultimate oppression of women' then why is that women and at that university educated white women are flocking to Islam.

What's your amazing atheist refutation of this  ::)

You are a bunch of clowns. Domestic violence is present in all cultures and islam is against it. Domestic violence and rape are at high rates in north america but the media rarely addresses them or labels them as a result of 'christianity' or 'atheism' but its very there.

I find it amazing when some of you say "you mozzlmes abuse yer womenz" I am like oh? I wasn't aware, my wife and I love each other lol. Likewise with my parents since becoming muslims theyve actually become better to one another.


Title: Re: God
Post by: Griffith on September 23, 2012, 09:34:20 AM
You're such a tool :)

That if Islam is 'the ultimate oppression of women' then why is that women and at that university educated white women are flocking to Islam.

What's your amazing atheist refutation of this  ::)

You are a bunch of clowns. Domestic violence is present in all cultures and islam is against it. Domestic violence and rape are at high rates in north america but the media rarely addresses them or labels them as a result of 'christianity' or 'atheism' but its very there.

I find it amazing when some of you say "you mozzlmes abuse yer womenz" I am like oh? I wasn't aware, my wife and I love each other lol. Likewise with my parents since becoming muslims theyve actually become better to one another.

Islam is anti-freedom, anti-freedom of expression, anti-freedom of speech.
It is also anti-human in how it expects woman to cover themselves up and look like lemmings.

Fundamentalist Christians call on 'sinners' to repent.
Islam calls on anyone who opposes them to 'die' or be killed.


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 23, 2012, 09:45:21 AM
That if Islam is 'the ultimate oppression of women' then why is that women and at that university educated white women are flocking to Islam.

That women "flock" to Islam (if true) isn't proof that Islam isn't oppressive to women.


What's your amazing atheist refutation of this  ::)

Why would I care to refute what other people do? Granted this isn't amazing - or even a refutation - but it will have to do.


You are a bunch of clowns. Domestic violence is present in all cultures and islam is against it. Domestic violence and rape are at high rates in north america but the media rarely addresses them or labels them as a result of 'christianity' or 'atheism' but its very there.

Of course - such things happen everywhere. I don't think Islam, or any religion really, has a monopoly on domestic violence.

But, from a westerner's perspective, Islam is particularly... shall we say backwards when it comes to the issue of women and their freedoms. Did you speak out against the Taliban which prohibited young girls from getting an education? Or which forced women to wear burkas? Remember that they did those things in the name of Islam.


I find it amazing when some of you say "you mozzlmes abuse yer womenz" I am like oh? I wasn't aware, my wife and I love each other lol. Likewise with my parents since becoming muslims theyve actually become better to one another.

I think it's dumb to group everyone together and say "all <x> do <y>". The bottom line is that some people abuse women. Is this abuse sometimes indirectly caused by religious beliefs? No doubt. But not always.


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 23, 2012, 11:06:42 AM
I think you are ranting trying to dissuade people from your fradulent and weak beliefs by falsely attacking others preemtively.

You are citing your knowledge based on what the news says, rather than what history or academics have to say about Islam. Ones that are intellectually honest.

Remember that merely what 50 some years ago women in america were fighting for the right to their own property. Islam gave this in the 7th century.

You are contradicting yourself over and over again talking about not to generalize a group or not to believe that a certain aspect of certain individuals paints the whole as that way. Yet you do it when it comes to Islam.

You can cite all kinds of crimes by individual muslims but you cannot cite the same about islam.

Islam came to liberate women and respect women not hurt them. The point is yes many white educated women are flocking to islam. If they were so 'stupid' to go and oppress themselves theyd be running the other way.

You're nothing but a fraud


Title: Re: God
Post by: Griffith on September 23, 2012, 01:32:43 PM
I think you are ranting trying to dissuade people from your fradulent and weak beliefs by falsely attacking others preemtively.

You are citing your knowledge based on what the news says, rather than what history or academics have to say about Islam. Ones that are intellectually honest.

Remember that merely what 50 some years ago women in america were fighting for the right to their own property. Islam gave this in the 7th century.

You are contradicting yourself over and over again talking about not to generalize a group or not to believe that a certain aspect of certain individuals paints the whole as that way. Yet you do it when it comes to Islam.

You can cite all kinds of crimes by individual muslims but you cannot cite the same about islam.

Islam came to liberate women and respect women not hurt them. The point is yes many white educated women are flocking to islam. If they were so 'stupid' to go and oppress themselves theyd be running the other way.

You're nothing but a fraud

That's why they acid thrown in their faces and called a 'whore' if they don't wear veils/ninja masks and don't cover up their body.

Women are free to walk around as they wish, which they can do in a western society.

In our societies we believe in freedom.


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 23, 2012, 05:17:38 PM
That's why they acid thrown in their faces and called a 'whore' if they don't wear veils/ninja masks and don't cover up their body.

Women are free to walk around as they wish, which they can do in a western society.

In our societies we believe in freedom.

Are you mentally challenged? Please find me in the quran where it is advocated to throw acid on women's face?

How much longer will you keep trying to lie against islam? If cultural practices of a certain people advocate such evil, and they happen to have muslims among them doing this vile thing, does that mean it is from Islam? Absolutely not. Christians and Hindus have been doing these acts in these regions. It is the demented culture, not islam.

You believe in 'freedom'. You believe in hypocricy more like it. You don't know what real freedom is.


Title: Re: God
Post by: Stefano on September 23, 2012, 08:58:35 PM
Ahmed gerting destroyed here. No evidence other than his magic book. Someone goes into a cave and claims he spoke to god and writes abook and that is unquestionable. So basically anyone can claim to be a prophet as long as he gain a good sized audience. All these religions popped up when ppl were largely ignorant and belived whatever the fuck they were told without question...sort of like achemed over here. Bible is a collection of stories. Moses goes up a mountain claims to speaketh to god and comes down with commandments. Funny how that would work today...therr are plemty of ppl who claim god told them to do stuff and end up on medication. God voices are apparently created in your head. Maybe muhammed had dementia. Yeah that makes more sense. Besides why would god need one messenger? Since god can send the message to everyone simulatenously through his super duper powers why use a narrow form of communication? Simple mass broadcast like advertisiers do and end this god existence bulshit once and for all. Anything so far? Nope...just one messeger who only showed up when humans were vastly ignorant. Back then everything was an act of god and punishemnt..famine, disease, natural disasters. How is this shit better than scientology and its aliens theory? You believe what you want to believe and question nothing if you're a blind follower like achmed. God created everything but he doesnt need to be created. So now there are two sets of rules. How could you possibly know that? Thats jsut a cop out answer like god works in mysterious ways when you have no rational explanation..lol.

If aliens came from another galaxy after humankind were wiped and found a stash of marvel and dc comics what would they think if they had no clue what a comic book or fictional work was? Wouldnt  they believe that we had men and women who can climb walls, fly, gods like thor lived on earth? Lol. Thays what happens when you beleive everything you read without question. Maybe santa claus and the easter bunny exiwt as well. Just becuase there is no evidence to prove that they are there doesnt mean they are not there.


Science doesnt explain everythung because itsstill largely in infancy. Science can explain only 4% of the phenomina but science is evolving. If todays theories can be disproved by new discoveries everything will be adjusted to reflect new information. Decades ago we knew even less than 2%.

Religion has only a unmoving answer based on books written centuries ago. What happened?  god decided to stop sending messsengers when ppl are more evolved and intelligent?
Okay..only send messenger s when people are ignorant then..lol. God is a human creation to cope with all the stryfe humans go through or to convice others to follow certain ideas. If. I tell you to follow you laugh but if i tell you god told me to tell you? ....greater chance of convincing you if you are superstitious. Thats how religions get shit done..






Title: Re: God
Post by: Griffith on September 24, 2012, 02:41:38 AM
Are you mentally challenged? Please find me in the quran where it is advocated to throw acid on women's face?

How much longer will you keep trying to lie against islam? If cultural practices of a certain people advocate such evil, and they happen to have muslims among them doing this vile thing, does that mean it is from Islam? Absolutely not. Christians and Hindus have been doing these acts in these regions. It is the demented culture, not islam.

You believe in 'freedom'. You believe in hypocricy more like it. You don't know what real freedom is.

'Freedom' means someone from some religious group/government not telling me how to live my life.

'Freedom' according to Moslems means living according to the Koran or getting publicly executed if they break some of the 'laws'.

There is no freedom of speech, freedom of thought or freedom of expression under Islamic rule.

Moslems don't even allow statues of human beings, so they limit freedom of art as well.

They are ashamed of the human body and want people to cover themselves up because of their anti-human views.


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 24, 2012, 01:00:04 PM
'Freedom' means someone from some religious group/government not telling me how to live my life.

We are not forcing you to follow what we believe, only advising. You on the other hand would if you could subjugate all religions regardless to be secular/atheist.

Quote
'Freedom' according to Moslems means living according to the Koran or getting publicly executed if they break some of the 'laws'.

Capital punishments exist all around the world regardless of Islam, including America. Making blank statements such as 'some laws' is ignorant and obviously malintended and hypocritical.

Shari'ah is for Muslims and historically non-muslims such as christians and jews had their own laws and rulings and they would judge themselves by their laws in their own courts under Muslim rule. They had the choice of being judged in Muslim courts and prefered them. Historical fact.

You still don't know what 'freedom' is because if you think you are free think again. You are a slave to the capitalist work horse. You are a slave to television. You are a slave to the dollar. You are a slave to your desires.

Freedom to do narcotic drugs, fornicate, abuse women left and right as disposables in one night stands, these are the freedoms you may enjoy. We don't see that as freedom but slavery in a different tone.

Quote
There is no freedom of speech, freedom of thought or freedom of expression under Islamic rule.

Wrong but keep deluding yourself. You think America is the steping stone of freedom of speech or freedom of thought or freedom of expression? Look at television. It's quite the opposite.

It seems the only 'freedom' you have is to bash islam and muslims even though it is clearly hate speech and hate warmongering.

Quote
Moslems don't even allow statues of human beings, so they limit freedom of art as well.

We personally do not believe in idolatry and no we do not build idols as forms of art for ourselves. Muslims allowed christians to hold their crucifixes and objects. But we personally do not believe in them as we are against all forms of idolatry or things that may lead to idolatry. There are other ways to be creative other than sculpting idols.

Quote
They are ashamed of the human body and want people to cover themselves up because of their anti-human views.

No we are not ashamed of the human body, God is only glorified by his creation and the beauty of the human body. However as to not be wild animals, we believe in dignity of both men and women. All religious people of the past, be they jew or christian covered themselves and their heads. This is fact.

Modesty is something that the so called modern world lacks. You call it freedom when a woman is made a commodity on television, movies and media, basically a sexual object for perverse men, all eyes to see. We do not see eye to eye on this.

Our women cover themselves because they want their dignity, respect and honor. Not for their physical appearance, but for their faith and intellect.

Why do you not attack christian nuns or orthodox chritsians who cover their hair? Even Jewish women cover themselves traditional but israel is built upon secular ethnocentric values not judaism. Even hindu women cover their hair. Even sikhs cover their head. Even zoroastrians cover their hair. The list goes on.


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 02:22:54 PM
I think you are ranting trying to dissuade people from your fradulent and weak beliefs by falsely attacking others preemtively.

What happens inside your head hardly qualifies as "thinking." And I'm trying to dissuade people, i.e. persuade them to not follow my "beliefs"? I must say that would be some brilliant reverse psychology.


You are citing your knowledge based on what the news says, rather than what history or academics have to say about Islam. Ones that are intellectually honest.

Right - the academics who don't agree with you are not "intellectually honest." ::)


Remember that merely what 50 some years ago women in america were fighting for the right to their own property. Islam gave this in the 7th century.

And look how far back it's gone since the 7th century... Take women in Afghanistan, for instance: under the Taliban were prohibited from attending school or even going out of their house without an escort. Women in the United States, on the other hand, have gone from not being able to own property to running large international companies, making decisions about their own lives and being treated as equals. They base their treatment on the Qu'ran. Perhaps their interpretation is wrong. What do you think?


You are contradicting yourself over and over again talking about not to generalize a group or not to believe that a certain aspect of certain individuals paints the whole as that way. Yet you do it when it comes to Islam.

I don't think I generalize, but sometimes, when the majority of a group does something or endorses an action, it can be impossible to avoid the appearance of generalization when discussing things.


You can cite all kinds of crimes by individual muslims but you cannot cite the same about islam.

Of course I consider the individuals who commit crimes and atrocities responsible. I don't necessarily lay the blame on their religion (whatever than may be) although it's clear that often religion is the guiding principle and the motivating factor. Consider honor killings, for example. Whether their actions are caused by misinterpreting or misunderstanding their religion is irrelevant.

With that said, a lot of these crimes and atrocities are committed in the name of Islam. Are those who commit them wrong and misinterpreting Islam? And, either way, does that really matter? The fact is that the crimes and atrocities are being committed.


Islam came to liberate women and respect women not hurt them.

Surah 4:34 says "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them." So yes. It's an objective and undeniable fact that Islam came to liberate women. ::)


The point is yes many white educated women are flocking to islam. If they were so 'stupid' to go and oppress themselves theyd be running the other way.

Many people are flocking to all sorts of nonsense. They flock to booze, they flock to drugs, they flock to Scientology. That's hardly proof that booze, drugs and Scientology are wonderful things. And as for flocking to Islam, why should we take your word about what Islam does for women over the words of Allah himself? Does he or does he not specifically say that men are in charge of women, and that women will obey or get whipped...


You're nothing but a fraud

Why won't you love me Ahmed? :'(


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 24, 2012, 02:33:25 PM
You are absolutely an ignoramus and a fraud. Why? Because you are lying and misinforming.

If you look at what Islam teaches and you were intellectually honest you would realize what you keep citing examples of people following cultural and tribal customs that are in fact contary to the teachings of islam. You also don't show the same 'passion' for Hindus or Christians or Budhists or Atheists who do what you try to associate Islam with.

Yes I call those false academics as intellectually dishonest when they COMPLETELY DEVOID of any understanding of the qur'an start chery picking verses without even reading the qur'an and conjruing up their own wishful meaning when it is devoid of any common understanding or accepted islamic exegesis.

Ulterior motives, like the ones you have that of hate is what's behind it.

My only motive is to shed light on these lies that so many seem to be pushing forward. I understand the media has a big role. Hollywood certainly did uneducate the masses in the 80s and 90s. The newsroom has become the latest action flick for the masses of sheeple such as yourself that do not realize that certain people are playing on your ignorance.


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 03:04:09 PM
We are not forcing you to follow what we believe, only advising. You on the other hand would if you could subjugate all religions regardless to be secular/atheist.

I wouldn't want to subjugate anyone. I believe that people need to make their own decisions. If their decision is to believe in a religion, that's fine by me, as long as they don't involve me.


You still don't know what 'freedom' is because if you think you are free think again. You are a slave to the capitalist work horse. You are a slave to television. You are a slave to the dollar. You are a slave to your desires.

Poetic words. There are some parallels, but equivocating them isn't accurate. Consider work, for example. Is it "slavery" to need to work? No I don't think so. If people didn't work, most of them would still need to, at a minimum, eat. Without money they'd have to either produce their own food or beg; both of those activities would them become, de facto work.


Freedom to do narcotic drugs, fornicate, abuse women left and right as disposables in one night stands, these are the freedoms you may enjoy. We don't see that as freedom but slavery in a different tone.

I guess I can sympathize, at least, partially with what you're saying. But in my view ones' freedom ends where anothers' begins. In other words, in my view you are free to engage in sexual relations with other consenting adults, but you aren't "free" to rape them. But, ultimately, freedom means the freedom to do stupid things too.


Wrong but keep deluding yourself. You think America is the steping stone of freedom of speech or freedom of thought or freedom of expression? Look at television. It's quite the opposite.

The freedom of speech guaranteed to Americans under the Constitution doesn't mean that television stations are required to give everyone a platform. The Constitution binds the Government, not television stations. If Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow want to promote only positions that agree with their viewpoint and suppress all other positions on their programs, that is between them and their employers.


No we are not ashamed of the human body, God is only glorified by his creation and the beauty of the human body. However as to not be wild animals, we believe in dignity of both men and women. All religious people of the past, be they jew or christian covered themselves and their heads. This is fact.

That something was done in the past doesn't mean it was a good idea or that it should be done in the future. I don't think that not wearing a hat, scarf or other head/face covering reduces people to animals, and you haven't proven that it does and I would argue that respect and honor are earned - not worn.


Modesty is something that the so called modern world lacks. You call it freedom when a woman is made a commodity on television, movies and media, basically a sexual object for perverse men, all eyes to see. We do not see eye to eye on this.

I'll agree with that as well, although I suspect that what you and I consider "acceptable" varies. But, the question that I have is this: if you were in charge, would you require that women cover up, or not wear, say, miniskirts, or tiny bikinis?


Our women cover themselves because they want their dignity, respect and honor. Not for their physical appearance, but for their faith and intellect.

I don't think you're qualified to speak for all Muslim women. At best, you're generalizing - something you attacked me for, allegedly, doing. Perhaps some women cover themselves by choice (whether their underlying reasons are religious or not) and that's perfectly fine. But do all Muslim women feel that way? It's exceedingly unlikely. And yet, in some societies today, no women go outside uncovered. Why? Because it is a crime to go outside of the house without being covered up. Do you think that it's reasonable to force women to wear a veil or men to wear a beard?


Why do you not attack christian nuns or orthodox chritsians who cover their hair? Even Jewish women cover themselves traditional but israel is built upon secular ethnocentric values not judaism. Even hindu women cover their hair. Even sikhs cover their head. Even zoroastrians cover their hair. The list goes on.

Sure, there are many religions that would customarily cover their head. Does a supreme being - whether you call it Allah or God or whatever - really care whether you cover your head? Or whether you like bacon? These seem like awfully petty things, to me.

Nuns make a decision to become nuns. The same with Jewish men. I don't think Orthodox Christians cover their hair. In many cases, women in Muslim countries don't have the choice. In Afghanistan, the hijab was mandatory and in Iran a headscarf is required when out in public and there are penalties for being outside without one. Would some of the Afghani and Iranian women choose to wear one even in the absence of laws requiring them to? Probably. But right now, they don't even have the choice.

I don't object to people covering their hair or their faces. I object to people being forced to do so, instead of choosing freely to do so.


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 03:15:08 PM
You are absolutely an ignoramus and a fraud. Why? Because you are lying and misinforming.

Of course - anyone who doesn't agree with you is an misinformed ignoramus and lying fraudster... ::)


If you look at what Islam teaches and you were intellectually honest you would realize what you keep citing examples of people following cultural and tribal customs that are in fact contary to the teachings of islam. You also don't show the same 'passion' for Hindus or Christians or Budhists or Atheists who do what you try to associate Islam with.

If you actually look back at my history of posts on this board you will see I challenge Christians and their beliefs with the same fervor as I am challenging your beliefs now. I challenge violence that's perpetrated in the name of religion regardless of the particular religion and my point has consistently been that all religions, ultimately, lead to violence.


Yes I call those false academics as intellectually dishonest when they COMPLETELY DEVOID of any understanding of the qur'an start chery picking verses without even reading the qur'an and conjruing up their own wishful meaning when it is devoid of any common understanding or accepted islamic exegesis.

You are allowing your bias to show through blatantly in asserting that anyone critical of your religion is automatically a false academic and intellectually dishonest.


Ulterior motives, like the ones you have that of hate is what's behind it.

See, that's where you're wrong. I don't hate you. I have no reason to. Hate is counterproductive and pointless. Hate only breed violence. I was perfectly happy before I started answering your posts, I remain perfectly happy now and will continue to be perfectly happy long after you're gone from the fora.

Perhaps you're projecting?


My only motive is to shed light on these lies that so many seem to be pushing forward.

Also, apparently, to call people names.


I understand the media has a big role. Hollywood certainly did uneducate the masses in the 80s and 90s. The newsroom has become the latest action flick for the masses of sheeple such as yourself that do not realize that certain people are playing on your ignorance.

Your opinion means nothing to me. But I do find it extremely amusing that despite knowing nothing about me you keep asserting that I am ignorant, while repeatedly proclaiming your own vast knowledge. Perhaps you ought to take a step back and consider that you don't have a monopoly on knowledge. You don't even have an oligopoly on it. Arguably, you don't even have a minority stake.


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 24, 2012, 03:24:05 PM
I wouldn't want to subjugate anyone. I believe that people need to make their own decisions. If their decision is to believe in a religion, that's fine by me, as long as they don't involve me.

No one is involving you, but you are the one attacking a religion of 2 billion people (When I kept saying 1.5 billion that was when I last checked statistics when I became Muslim like ten years ago).

If you were in an Islamic caliphate or even these degenerate secular dictatorships where Muslims live, no one would force you to become Muslim. I lived in these secular dictatorship countries and I didn't become Muslim. In fact no one even approached me to teach me about Islam which upsets me now. Although I came to appreciate these people without really knowing much about their faith but seeing their conduct and understanding their suffering.

Quote
Poetic words. There are some parallels, but equivocating them isn't accurate. Consider work, for example. Is it "slavery" to need to work? No I don't think so. If people didn't work, most of them would still need to, at a minimum, eat. Without money they'd have to either produce their own food or beg; both of those activities would them become, de facto work.

I guess I can sympathize, at least, partially with what you're saying. But in my view ones' freedom ends where anothers' begins. In other words, in my view you are free to engage in sexual relations with other consenting adults, but you aren't "free" to rape them. But, ultimately, freedom means the freedom to do stupid things too.

The freedom of speech guaranteed to Americans under the Constitution doesn't mean that television stations are required to give everyone a platform. The Constitution binds the Government, not television stations. If Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow want to promote only positions that agree with their viewpoint and suppress all other positions on their programs, that is between them and their employers.

You completely misunderstood what I meant. The whole construct of western society is slavery you really don't know what freedom is. The whole life style is pure slavery to the desires and consumerism. It is a society of depression and suffering. Anti-depressants and anxiety. Panic and fear.

In a nutshell. Today America takes away civil liberties and touts hate speech as free speech.

A society such as the UK has cameras EVERYWHERE, that's not freedom either. You don't realize that most of these well outspoken western nations like the UK, US, France are hypocrites in the least and at worst a prison like society.

Everything is presented one way but in fact quite the opposite.

Quote
That something was done in the past doesn't mean it was a good idea or that it should be done in the future. I don't think that not wearing a hat, scarf or other head/face covering reduces people to animals, and you haven't proven that it does and I would argue that respect and honor are earned - not worn.

Homosexuality was done thousands of years ago and apparently its good today?

Running around naked with leaf clothing with your butt showing was okay thousands of years ago and apparently its wise today too?

It's not progress, it's regress.

So Muslim women wanting to not be sexually objectified by western men or any men is not liberating to you? Even if my mother, or wife or grandmother told you what I say, you'd still say but no you are wrong. Don't you see you are deluding yourself only... and yes white educated women are the majority of converts to Islam. This whole myth and stereotype of islam oppresses women only leads to explain that you are quite clearly uneducated on islam or what the quran says

Quote
I'll agree with that as well, although I suspect that what you and I consider "acceptable" varies. But, the question that I have is this: if you were in charge, would you require that women cover up, or not wear, say, miniskirts, or tiny bikinis?

Every society has a code of conduct. Your society finds it acceptable to have nudists, microskirts and drunkards on the street at late hours after clubs. It's corruption of society. Exploitation. Like I said again, you don't know what freedom is. You are deluding yourself with people being able to be vain as 'freedom'

Quote
I don't think you're qualified to speak for all Muslim women. At best, you're generalizing - something you attacked me for, allegedly, doing. Perhaps some women cover themselves by choice (whether their underlying reasons are religious or not) and that's perfectly fine. But do all Muslim women feel that way? It's exceedingly unlikely. And yet, in some societies today, no women go outside uncovered. Why? Because it is a crime to go outside of the house without being covered up. Do you think that it's reasonable to force women to wear a veil or men to wear a beard?

You are again being ignorant repeating news narrative.

Quote
Sure, there are many religions that would customarily cover their head. Does a supreme being - whether you call it Allah or God or whatever - really care whether you cover your head? Or whether you like bacon? These seem like awfully petty things, to me.

Nuns make a decision to become nuns. The same with Jewish men. I don't think Orthodox Christians cover their hair. In many cases, women in Muslim countries don't have the choice. In Afghanistan, the hijab was mandatory and in Iran a headscarf is required when out in public and there are penalties for being outside without one. Would some of the Afghani and Iranian women choose to wear one even in the absence of laws requiring them to? Probably. But right now, they don't even have the choice.

Orthodox women cover their hair too, i have orthodox blood/family. As did and still do catholics in Rome who attend mass. Just look it up yourself. The bible endorses it as well.

Yes God wants us to be modest and with dignified conduct not like unintelligent and irrational wild animals.

The whole uncovering yourself and being naked is western influenced pop culture phenomena. Traditionally all nations had a code of conduct and modesty. Western values basically teach anything goes as long as you fulfill your desires.

Lastly don't you find it funny that a nation like France bans hijab and niqab to 'liberate women' while Muslim women are subjected to this as 'criminals' for wearing their coverings.

It just shows this has nothing to do with preserving women's rights but again attacking and maligning muslims, in this case muslim women.


Title: Re: God
Post by: Skeletor on September 24, 2012, 03:54:21 PM

We personally do not believe in idolatry and no we do not build idols as forms of art for ourselves. Muslims allowed christians to hold their crucifixes and objects. But we personally do not believe in them as we are against all forms of idolatry or things that may lead to idolatry. There are other ways to be creative other than sculpting idols.

(http://www.theodora.com/wfb/photos/afghanistan/bamyan_buddha_statue_destruction_afghanistan_photo_cnn.jpg)

Perhaps one of the ways "to be creative other than sculpting idols" is to destroy?

"The Taliban had said the huge figures, carved into sandstone cliffs in Bamiyan city more than 1,500 years ago when Afghanistan was a seat of Buddhism, are "false idols" and must be destroyed in line with Islamic laws."

And also, when the Japanese sent envoys to try to either cover up or remove the statues (instead of the "civilized acts" of staging world wide violent protests, raiding embassies and killing people), "not only their proposals were rejected outright by the Taliban but the regime called Buddhism as a "Void Religion" and asked the Japanese to convert to Islam instead"

Such tolerance..


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 04:01:04 PM
No one is involving you, but you are the one attacking a religion of 2 billion people (When I kept saying 1.5 billion that was when I last checked statistics when I became Muslim like ten years ago).

So I won't be bothered as long as I criticize religions other than Islam? That's good to know... ;D


If you were in an Islamic caliphate or even these degenerate secular dictatorships where Muslims live, no one would force you to become Muslim. I lived in these secular dictatorship countries and I didn't become Muslim. In fact no one even approached me to teach me about Islam which upsets me now. Although I came to appreciate these people without really knowing much about their faith but seeing their conduct and understanding their suffering.

I will take your word about your experience. Having never lived in an Islamic caliphate or in a degenerate secular dictatorship I don't have my own example to present. But I must ask you, are you sure that your particular experience is representative and applies across all Muslim countries?


You completely misunderstood what I meant. The whole construct of western society is slavery you really don't know what freedom is. The whole life style is pure slavery to the desires and consumerism. It is a society of depression and suffering. Anti-depressants and anxiety. Panic and fear.

I've heard that line of reasoning before and I don't buy it. Regardless of the society, some people will be "slaves" (using the meaning you ascribe to the term) regardless. They may be slaves to consumerism; to drugs; to booze; to religion; to crime. The vices may differ, but the core remains the same.

As for Western society being a society of depression and suffering, panic and fear and anti-depressants and anxiety, now who is the one generalizing and being ignorant and repeating news narrative? ::)


In a nutshell. Today America takes away civil liberties and touts hate speech as free speech.

I wish I could disagree with the statement that America is taking away civil liberties, but with things like the TSA and warrantless wiretaps having become accepted parts of our lives, I don't think I could do so with a straight face. It's really sad. But free speech will always ruffle feathers. I don't like hate speech statutes or the concept behind them. They are tools to erode the bulwark of the First Amendment and tightly circumscribe speech.


A society such as the UK has cameras EVERYWHERE, that's not freedom either. You don't realize that most of these well outspoken western nations like the UK, US, France are hypocrites in the least and at worst a prison like society.

I wouldn't argue that the UK is a bastion of freedom. Ironically enough the film "V for Vendetta" more or less accurately describes what the UK is on track to becoming.


Homosexuality was done thousands of years ago and apparently its good today?

What does "good" mean in this instance? I don't think homosexuality is either good or bad; in fact I don't even think the term applies and I don't care what consenting adults choose to do in their bedroom with each other's private parts. But how does this have any relevance to my point, especially since I argued that just because something was done in the past doesn't mean it should be automatically done in the future.


Running around naked with leaf clothing with your butt showing was okay thousands of years ago and apparently its wise today too?

It depends where one is running around... on the beach? Probably.


It's not progress, it's regress.

That's a ridiculous slippery slope argument. If we are to follow that logic, sooner or later we'd have to wear so many clothes we'd have more layers than an onion.


Every society has a code of conduct. Your society finds it acceptable to have nudists, microskirts and drunkards on the street at late hours after clubs. It's corruption of society. Exploitation. Like I said again, you don't know what freedom is. You are deluding yourself with people being able to be vain as 'freedom'

Why won't you answer my question? It's really quite simple - a yes or no question. If you were in charge would you require women to cover their hair and/or face?


You are again being ignorant repeating news narrative.

LOL... what? Do you really believe that every single Muslim woman wants to cover her face and/or hair, and that no women exist that would prefer not to but do so because they live in places like Iran where they are required to do so by law? REALLY?!?!

 
Orthodox women cover their hair too, i have orthodox blood/family.

I don't believe they do so routinely and on an everyday basis; but I am pretty sure they do so in Church.


Yes God wants us to be modest and with dignified conduct not like unintelligent and irrational wild animals.

And, you assert that we become intelligent and rational by wearing head coverings? That's an interesting definition of intelligent and rational...

(http://travel.mongabay.com/indonesia/600/kalimantan_0531.jpg)


The whole uncovering yourself and being naked is western influenced pop culture phenomena. Traditionally all nations had a code of conduct and modesty. Western values basically teach anything goes as long as you fulfill your desires.

Not quite, but I don't think that you care to learn what western values actually teach.


Lastly don't you find it funny that a nation like France bans hijab and niqab to 'liberate women' while Muslim women are subjected to this as 'criminals' for wearing their coverings.

I find it ironic and certainly stupid because they are forcing people to do something that they wouldn't otherwise do in the name of freedom instead of just allowing people to be free. See, unlike you, I can see both sides of the coin, and I don't have blinders on. I think that whether one lives in France or Iran one should be able to freely choose whether to cover their hair or not. In that respect I don't think that France's choice to prevent people from wearing head coverings is any better than Iran's choice to mandate them.

While I can see the need for some exceptions (e.g. requiring a full face passport photograph or somesuch) I think most of those cases could, eventually, be dealt with alternative biometric identifiers once the infrastructure for those is in place.




Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 24, 2012, 04:11:21 PM
Bro seriously you are worthless. I won't bother responding this caca of writing of yours.

And just to conclude criticizing and questioning is one thing. Disrespecting is a whole other thing.

You can't seem to differentiate between hate speech and free speech. You can't seem to differentiate between disresecpting/slandering/libel vs criticizing/questioning. You can't seem to fathom this. I will not waste my time further speaking directly with you.

You run merely on a circular power of deception, misleading fraud in your arguments. You are actually not sincere so I am indeed wasting my time on you. Have a nice day.


Title: Re: God
Post by: Skeletor on September 24, 2012, 04:14:46 PM
A society such as the UK has cameras EVERYWHERE, that's not freedom either. You don't realize that most of these well outspoken western nations like the UK, US, France are hypocrites in the least and at worst a prison like society.

Odd that you bring the UK into this dialogue. If anything the UK has been not just tolerant but ludicrously supporting of its muslim population. Maybe you can visit Bradford and you'll see how "hostile" it is to muslims.
Not to mention the recent case where a woman was prevented from wearing a cross at her workplace, but had this also included the hijab who knows what sort of bloody protests we would have seen.

Orthodox women cover their hair too, i have orthodox blood/family. As did and still do catholics in Rome who attend mass. Just look it up yourself. The bible endorses it as well.

Maybe more in the Middle East (where often christian minorities get discriminated or attacked), not so much in other parts of the world. If anything it is mostly old women that wear a scarf and that does not appear to be strictly religious.


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 04:25:32 PM
Bro seriously you are worthless. I won't bother responding this caca of writing of yours.

And just to conclude criticizing and questioning is one thing. Disrespecting is a whole other thing.

You can't seem to differentiate between hate speech and free speech. You can't seem to differentiate between disresecpting/slandering/libel vs criticizing/questioning. You can't seem to fathom this. I will not waste my time further speaking directly with you.

You run merely on a circular power of deception, misleading fraud in your arguments. You are actually not sincere so I am indeed wasting my time on you. Have a nice day.

Buh-bye bub-belle.


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 24, 2012, 04:36:19 PM
Odd that you bring the UK into this dialogue. If anything the UK has been not just tolerant but ludicrously supporting of its muslim population. Maybe you can visit Bradford and you'll see how "hostile" it is to muslims.
Not to mention the recent case where a woman was prevented from wearing a cross at her workplace, but had this also included the hijab who knows what sort of bloody protests we would have seen.

Muslims are attacked all the time in the UK. Ever hear of the EDL? Muslamics?

Here's an interview with a getbigger EDL member:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjuNuqIev8M


Remix:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIPD8qHhtVU

Quote
Maybe more in the Middle East (where often christian minorities get discriminated or attacked), not so much in other parts of the world. If anything it is mostly old women that wear a scarf and that does not appear to be strictly religious.

My family lived there as christians we didn't get attacked. Stop relying on news brainwashing. The media is a propaganda political tool in the west, not a means of education, rather uneducation.

My uncle lived there for 30 years. Still not muslim his daughter was born there and she's not muslim.

Copts for instance have political intents, just like that moron and his lackeys who made that homosexual porno 'innoscence of muslims'. Yes we find it disgusting and insulting. They are the ones that want to stir up violence and political turmoil. They exploit the ignorance of people.


And 'old women mostly' why because these orthodox women are abandoning their faith and embracing western values of sexualization.


Title: Re: God
Post by: Stefano on September 24, 2012, 04:40:21 PM
Bro seriously you are worthless. I won't bother responding this caca of writing of yours.

And just to conclude criticizing and questioning is one thing. Disrespecting is a whole other thing.

You can't seem to differentiate between hate speech and free speech. You can't seem to differentiate between disresecpting/slandering/libel vs criticizing/questioning. You can't seem to fathom this. I will not waste my time further speaking directly with you.

You run merely on a circular power of deception, misleading fraud in your arguments. You are actually not sincere so I am indeed wasting my time on you. Have a nice day.

Translation.
Achmet got owned badly and now runs back with his tail between his legs. On the subject of circular arguements. - thats what this fucker was trying to do. Make a arguement with his magic book as his only proof only to lose decisively.

Bravo avxo. You broke down every one of his nonsensical shit with your point by point debating. Lovely bit of work.


Title: Re: God
Post by: Stefano on September 24, 2012, 04:48:57 PM
Muslims are attacked all the time in the UK. Ever hear of the EDL? Muslamics?

Here's an interview with a getbigger EDL member:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjuNuqIev8M


Remix:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIPD8qHhtVU

My family lived there as christians we didn't get attacked. Stop relying on news brainwashing. The media is a propaganda political tool in the west, not a means of education, rather uneducation.

My uncle lived there for 30 years. Still not muslim his daughter was born there and she's not muslim.

Copts for instance have political intents, just like that moron and his lackeys who made that homosexual porno 'innoscence of muslims'. Yes we find it disgusting and insulting. They are the ones that want to stir up violence and political turmoil. They exploit the ignorance of people.


And 'old women mostly' why because these orthodox women are abandoning their faith and embracing western values of sexualization.


Wah wah wah...muslims exploited. Muslims exploit their own ignorant people. Go to other countries and start their shit. In sweden how many white girls are targeted and raped? How many muslim women have run away to shelters becuase of their murdering husbands.  The muslim media is just as much a brainwashing tool as any other. Why are muslims so unwelcome in every country that they are not the majority in? Because they are always trying to start shit. You never see this behaviour from hindus, buddhists, taoists or any other religion. Remeber the letter an Australian minister made public? That was in response to muslims demanding that aussies change their laws to accomodate their shit. The aussies have had enough thats why you will see a severe backlash against muslims unless they learn to behave themselves.


Title: Re: God
Post by: Stefano on September 24, 2012, 04:53:22 PM
Oh yes forgot to mention that in egypt if you're a non muslim people will try to convert you. A friend of mine worked in a manufacturing compqny and every day his coworkere would try to insert islam into their conversations with him during lunch break. He made it clear he wasnrt interested but those fucker never let up. He left early becuase of this harrasment. Apparently a muslim gets paid by their mosque whenever they convert someone so that may have been a motivator.


Title: Re: God
Post by: Skeletor on September 24, 2012, 04:56:58 PM
Muslims are attacked all the time in the UK. Ever hear of the EDL? Muslamics?

Have you ever been to the UK? Especially areas with large muslim populations?
The EDL was formed quite recently.  There were issues way before that. This just shows how short sighted you are or maybe you were too young too remember (apart from not being there).

And 'old women mostly' why because these orthodox women are abandoning their faith and embracing western values of sexualization.

You have been spewing that "so many white women convert to islam" quote for so long but yet have provided nothing to support it. Your generalization of the "western values of sexualization" is absurd but it probably ties with your distorted view of the non-islamic world being degenerate infidels. But if one was to play along with that logic, I'm sure you'd agree then about the "western values of sexualization" along with the "islamic values of murder".

Any comment on the "destruction of the idols" by the way?


Title: Re: God
Post by: Stefano on September 24, 2012, 05:11:32 PM
(http://www.theodora.com/wfb/photos/afghanistan/bamyan_buddha_statue_destruction_afghanistan_photo_cnn.jpg)

Perhaps one of the ways "to be creative other than sculpting idols" is to destroy?

"The Taliban had said the huge figures, carved into sandstone cliffs in Bamiyan city more than 1,500 years ago when Afghanistan was a seat of Buddhism, are "false idols" and must be destroyed in line with Islamic laws."

And also, when the Japanese sent envoys to try to either cover up or remove the statues (instead of the "civilized acts" of staging world wide violent protests, raiding embassies and killing people), "not only their proposals were rejected outright by the Taliban but the regime called Buddhism as a "Void Religion" and asked the Japanese to convert to Islam instead"

Such tolerance..


Haha religion of peace. No respect for anyone. Buddhism is far older than both chritianity and islam although its not a religion. Are other religions allowed to have their kovils and churches in muslim countries? Hell no.


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 24, 2012, 05:22:00 PM
Buddhists dissapeared from Afghanistan. They were gone by the 11th century. Muslims do not worship idols and therefore destroyed the idol.

Just as Muhammad did in makkah eventually and just as Abraham did to his father and their community.

However those that were not Muslim under Muslim rule were entrusted the promise that they will be allowed to practice their faith, christian crucifixes and churches were allowed to be as was the promise of the caliphates. They were also told they will not be forced to become Muslim as that would not be being Muslim. One submits to God not men.

However if everyone that region becomes Muslim then these idols are of no use. However in places like Jerusalem, Egypt, christians flourished although the majority became Muslim but those that were christian were let be.


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 05:26:24 PM
Buddhists dissapeared from Afghanistan. They were gone by the 11th century. Muslims do not worship idols and therefore destroyed the idol.

They don't have to worship the idols. They could have left the statutes there. But they were artifacts of history, significantly predating Muslims and Allah and telling us something about the history of the human race, and we can't have that, can we?



Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 24, 2012, 05:27:17 PM
lol they don't predate creation or the creator. Buddha himself was not an idol worshipper yet his followers eventually created statues of him and worship him.

We don't need idols be they small or giant. It doesn't benefit mankind it only degenerates mankind. If anything it serves as a reminder of times of ignorance.

Lastly it was a muslim country devoid of buddhists who were no longer present. Majority of people became Muslim. If it's their land they can do whatever they want and you have no say in it.


Title: Re: God
Post by: garebear on September 24, 2012, 05:28:05 PM
lol they don't predate creation or the creator. Buddha himself was not an idol worshipper yet his followers eventually created statues of him and worship him.

We don't need idols be they small or giant. It doesn't benefit mankind it only degenerates mankind.
You are INCREDIBLY stupid.


Title: Re: God
Post by: a_ahmed on September 24, 2012, 05:29:16 PM
No one who worships an idol that can't help him or harm him and that he built with his own hands or paid someone money to build him one is stupid. With all due respect.

And to top it off. It shatters when destroyed. Clearly a foolish practice to worship an idol.


Title: Re: God
Post by: Radical Plato on September 24, 2012, 05:31:23 PM


We don't need idols be they small or giant. It doesn't benefit mankind it only degenerates mankind. If anything it serves as a reminder of times of ignorance.

HA HA A Muslim saying Historic Art degenerates mankind. Islam degenerates mankind, Islam is a reminder of dark ages of Ignorance that has been carried through to modern times by the indoctrinated unintelligent segments of humanity.  Islam will either be destroyed or else Islam will destroy mankind.


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 05:32:21 PM
lol they don't predate creation or the creator. Buddha himself was not an idol worshipper yet his followers eventually created statues of him and worship him.

As I said - they predate Muslims and Islam, your particular creation mythology notwithstanding. And, as your answer clearly demonstrates, "we can't have that, can we?"


We don't need idols be they small or giant.

It's a pity that a piece of history was destroyed because of small-minded, fearful people whose faith is so weak that ancient statutes must be destroyed.


Title: Re: God
Post by: Skeletor on September 24, 2012, 05:41:15 PM
lol they don't predate creation or the creator. Buddha himself was not an idol worshipper yet his followers eventually created statues of him and worship him.

We don't need idols be they small or giant. It doesn't benefit mankind it only degenerates mankind. If anything it serves as a reminder of times of ignorance.

Therefore any muslim mosques or artifacts in non muslim countries should be destroyed. Of course the muslims would accept this gracefully...
Your respect for non-muslims is astounding..

No one who worships an idol that can't help him or harm him and that he built with his own hands or paid someone money to build him one is stupid. With all due respect.

And to top it off. It shatters when destroyed. Clearly a foolish practice to worship an idol.

If you don't need idols, why do all muslims bend over and face towards the Kaaba? Does that tiny building not help them? Oh wait, I forgot the Black Stone and the pilgrims trying to kiss it.. Are they worshiping a meteorite fragment?


Title: Re: God
Post by: garebear on September 24, 2012, 05:52:44 PM
No one who worships an idol that can't help him or harm him and that he built with his own hands or paid someone money to build him one is stupid. With all due respect.

And to top it off. It shatters when destroyed. Clearly a foolish practice to worship an idol.
So it's okay to destroy the black stone in Mecca?


Title: Re: God
Post by: avxo on September 24, 2012, 05:54:57 PM
So it's okay to destroy the black stone in Mecca?

But... that's... like... totally different!


Title: Re: God
Post by: Stefano on September 24, 2012, 06:02:17 PM
lol they don't predate creation or the creator. Buddha himself was not an idol worshipper yet his followers eventually created statues of him and worship him.

We don't need idols be they small or giant. It doesn't benefit mankind it only degenerates mankind. If anything it serves as a reminder of times of ignorance.

Lastly it was a muslim country devoid of buddhists who were no longer present. Majority of people became Muslim. If it's their land they can do whatever they want and you have no say in it.


The creator? The magical being created by man?

It has nothing to do with being an idol. It was a historical monument. Forget the religion shit. The fact That it was there hurt no one. Its just part of global history
 the muslims feeling insecure descided to destroy it. There are idols to greek gods. Should we destroy them becuase the greek gods are dead? How  about the egyptian statues to anubis and osiris? The piramids? They were built by people who worshipped different gods. Your arguemnts are pure stupidity. As usual if it aint muslim it must be done away with. Good to know you support thr taliban.

Also a majority of the people in the west are not muslim. So when muslims live there and start shit we can say and do what we want. Why should you have a say in what we do in our countries?


Title: Re: God
Post by: Stefano on September 24, 2012, 06:04:48 PM
Therefore any muslim mosques or artifacts in non muslim countries should be destroyed. Of course the muslims would accept this gracefully...
Your respect for non-muslims is astounding..

If you don't need idols, why do all muslims bend over and face towards the Kaaba? Does that tiny building not help them? Oh wait, I forgot the Black Stone and the pilgrims trying to kiss it.. Are they worshiping a meteorite fragment?


Exactly - other countries have muslim monuments that were built centuries ago. Should those be destroyed because thats not the main religion of the country. Achmet is a typical example of a muslim who lies whenever it is convenient. Muslims of course are allowed to lie steal and cheat if it involves the defense of their murderous religion.